thanks Jeff.

Hope all is well with you too.

Dan




From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/17/2001 03:52 PM
To:	Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	RE: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01

You got it. You're right, distribution lists are a challenge.  I'll make sure that you and these folks get on the list.  Hope all finds you well.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Leff, Dan  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:50 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	Re: Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01

Jeff - 

Thank you for this info - and for all of the hard work that you and the team are doing everyday.....

I know that the distribution lists are probably pretty hard to keep up with, but please make sure to include Evan Hughes, Murray O'Neill, Brenda Herod on  distribution lists for issues on this topic.

I would like to be on the distribution list for all of your California communication - and I think in large part, have been except for the message below.

Thank you!

Dan


  


From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/16/2001 04:55 PM
To:	Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Andrew Wu/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Keeney/HOU/EES@EES, Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Karen Denne/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Palmer/ENRON@enronXgate, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	Commission Clarifies DA Suspension Decision--Requires Utilities to Accept DASRs for Facility Adds Under Contracts Signed Before 10.20.01

?	In response to the Commission's suspension of DA, numerous market participants--including Enron--filed "Petitions for Rehearing."
?	The California PUC has issued a decision denying the petitions.
?	Many of those participants are likely to file for appellate court review of the Commission's denial.
?	In its decision denying the Petitions, the Commission did however modify its initial decision in several respects.
?	Key among those is a modification regarding facility adds.  
?	Those comments refer to the ability to continue to submit DASRs for new facilities under contracts signed prior to September 20th that provide for facility adds.
?	The Commission agreed and has ordered the utilities to accept DASRs for facility adds under contract terms executed prior to 10.20.01.  The precise language is cited below.
?	If you would like a copy of the decision, please contact Joseph Alamo.

Best,
Jeff

"We reaffirm that for the time being, and unless the Commission states otherwise in a subsequent decision, utilities are required to process DASRs relating to contracts or agreements that were executed on or before September 20th, 2001, including DASRs for service to new facilities or accounts if the underlying contract pursuant to which those DASRs are submitted allowed for the provision of that additional service.  Thus, for example, with respect to the specific ESP contract described by UC/CSU in their rehearing application, the utilities are required to accept, even after September 20, 2001, any DASRs they receive that legitimatley relate to that contract...[W]e want to make it clear that...utilities cannot set a deadline after which they could refuse to process DASRs relating to contracts executed on or before September 20, 2001."  pp 20-21