I think we missed each other.  I want to delay, move slowly, because in my
view that gives us a better argument that there was no notice for exit fees.
I also think we may be better off litigating the question under ABX1.  Can't
recall which section now, but the deal provides that the relationship is
between CDWR and the end user.  And the end user has a legal obligation to
pay for it upon "DELIVERY".  If it's never delivered, the law does not
impose an obligation.  And, I would argue, if the legislature had wanted to
impose and exit fee that was in conflict with the clear terms of the bill,
they could have.  Now, that may not hold water in next session, but at least
it makes sure Sacramento picks up the issue.
 
Let's discuss if this isn't clear.  I just don't want to rush to a "deal."
 
Best regards,
 
Evie

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:59 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting


Agreed.  We're trying to go quickly.  So if it looks like there's something
to it, we're going to move quickly.  Could you share what you're big three
issues are so that I'm sure that they get on the table tomorrow.  Hope to
cross paths soon.
 
Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:EK@a-klaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:46 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting


Definitely.  I'm very interested.  I'm concerned, however, about timing.
The longer this is left unsettled, the greater the "no notice" argument.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:05 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting


Shame.  We'll have to muddle through without you.  If something gets going,
you interested?

-----Original Message-----
From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:EK@a-klaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:25 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting


Jeff:
 
My schedule has changed, and I'll be there Thursday but not Friday.  I don't
know whether Mike will be there...he's been elusive since session ended.
 
See you Thursday.
 
Evie

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:49 PM
To: Evelyn Kahl
Subject: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting


Hi Evie:
As you know Edison is being, well, Edison about just about everything at the
PUC.  I think that we actually have some leverage with PG&E, however.  I've
helped to broker a meeting between large customers and PG&E (Tom Botorff and
Dan Richard) this Friday at 1:30 PM after DJ's meeting.  DJ and Delainey are
organizing
 
The (basic) idea is to see if there is some way to strike a "reasonable"
deal on the DA/cost allocation issues with PG&E, which could then be
submitted to PUC around Edison, which seems hell bent on piling as many
costs on business customers as possible.
 
At the first meeting, we want to spend a very brief amount of time
determining 1) what matters to people 2) where people on the issues and 3)
PG&E's willingness to deal.  The goal is to find out if there's any room for
a deal.  Should not take a long time.
 
I hope you can attend, since the meeting will be significantly less
productive ify ou're not there, and who knows, it may lead to something that
permits us to go around Edison.  Likely attendees are CMTA, CLECA, the
Chamber, you (hopefully), PG&E and me.  Will Mike Kahl be at DJ's meeting?
 
Best,
Jeff


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you. 
**********************************************************************