Adding to Kristin's update, here's the summary of a meeting that just occured with Assembly leadership staff and industry on the Assembly's latest version of an "Edison MOU":

The Speaker's staffer said that if he had to bet at this time, he would bet that the Assembly would not convene on Friday.
He also said that, if it doesn't happen on Friday, nothing will happen until they get back from recess on the 20th of August.
The Assembly will let folks know by tonight or first thing tomorrow whether they intend to move forward with a vote on Friday or recess.
From the most recent proposal released today by the Assembly leadership, it appears that the centrist Democrats are prevailing.  The proposal:
Retains Direct Access (though they said that they are continuing to be pressured by the Treasurer, who wants DA suspended due to the bond issuance)
Places 80% of Edison's past debt with large customers (leaving 20% with small customers, which business customers or strenuously opposing).
Eliminates all references to any purchase, or option to purchase, Edison's transmission. (They said there simply ain't the votes to buy, or consider buying, Edison's transmission in the Assembly)
Maintains the Senate provision, which would pay the banks, pay the QFs, but place with Edison the risk of figuring out how to pay the $1billion owed to suppliers. (Even the munis are begining to complain about those provisions.)
Creates a tradeable, renewable portfolio standard (conceptually similar to the one created in Texas).
The new bill is created by 1) amending SB78 and 2) gutting a different bill passed from the Senate to the Assembly, SB39, and replacing it with the new version of 82XX.  The two would go together to create the Assembly's newest proposal.
If this bill gets voted out of the Assembly, it will likely have a difficult time getting the votes necessary to pass in the Senate, since the Senate has considered and rejected several provisions currently included in the Assembly version.
Will report back on whether the Assembly's going forward or adjourning for recess as soon as we hear.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 07/25/2001 06:26 PM -----


	Kristin Walsh/ENRON@enronXgate 07/25/2001 04:30 PM 	   To: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate, Louise Kitchen/ENRON@enronXgate, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES  cc: Christopher F Calger/ENRON@enronXgate, Christian Yoder/ENRON@enronXgate, Steve C Hall/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike Swerzbin/ENRON@enronXgate, Phillip K Allen/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris Gaskill/ENRON@enronXgate, Mike Grigsby/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Heizenrader/ENRON@enronXgate, Vince J Kaminski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Rob Milnthorp/ENRON@enronXgate, Kevin M Presto/ENRON@enronXgate, Claudio Ribeiro/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Tawney/ENRON@enronXgate, Scott Tholan/ENRON@enronXgate, Britt Whitman/ENRON@enronXgate, Lloyd Will/ENRON@enronXgate, Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate, Rogers Herndon/ENRON@enronXgate, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J Sturm/ENRON@enronXgate, Doug Gilbert-Smith/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders/Enron@enronXgate, Andrew Edison/ENRON@enronXgate, Kelly Holman/ENRON@enronXgate, Nancy Turner/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, John Brindle/ENRON@enronXgate, David Cromley/ENRON@enronXgate  Subject: California Update 7/25/01 p.3	


Details are still rough and the situation is very fluid, but here is what is currently going on:

Senators Hertzberg and Keeley are amending both SB 78XX and AB 82XX.  Upon an initial read, it appears that they are doing the following:
?	AB 82XX has been gutted except for the direct access provisions and the renewables portfolio.  (The core/non-core business provisions, the transmission asset purchase, etc. all appear to have been deleted.)  Both of these provisions that have been left in the bill were seen as positive by members last week when the bill was first debated. 
?	It appears amendments have been made to SB 78XX but the extent of these changes are not yet known.  
?	At the beginning of both amended bills, it states, "As proposed to be amended into SB_XX."   This means that amendments to SB 78 could be incorporated into AB 82, and vice versa.  Another possibility is an entirely new bill.