Not surprising, but thought you might be interested.  I responded that letting go is a good thing.

Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Florio [mailto:mflorio@mail.turn.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:56 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: RE: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing
Suspension of DA


Despite the personal pleasure that I would derive from seeing Glynn and Richard strike out big time, it's not worth the price to ratepayers of letting these pirates (yes, pirates!) rip off so many valuable assets that should stay under PUC regulation for the benefit of consumers.  


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Dasovich, Jeff" <Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com>
Date:  Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:18:55 -0500

>So I'm assuming that you support the plan?
> 
>Best,
>Jeff
>
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: Mike Florio 
>	Sent: Mon 9/24/2001 11:13 PM 
>	To: Dasovich, Jeff 
>	Cc: 
>	Subject: Re: Dissent from Commissioners Bilas and Duque Opposing
>Suspension of DA
>	
>	
>
>	I have a new description of PG&E's reorg plan-- it is the
>ultimate
>	expression of their longstanding affliction with Enron-envy.
>Now that
>	they're cutting loose the UDC/LDC, they can fall flat on their
>faces with
>	no safety net (except the hydro, of course).   MIKE
>	
>	
>	At 04:43 PM 9/24/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>	
>	
>	> >  Commissioners Henry M. Duque and Richard A. Bilas,
>dissenting:
>	> >
>	> > One could say that this order is consistent with the
>Administration's
>	> > present third world country mentality. We are punishing the
>very
>	> > consumers and providers who made a commitment to ensuring
>electric
>	> > restructuring did work by adding a demand retail component
>to cure the
>	> > dysfunctions in the wholesale market.
>	> >
>	> > We are not convinced that the Department of Water Resources
>(DWR) bond
>	> > ratings depend on killing direct access.  This notion is a
>scare
>	> > tactic and a smoke screen. Direct access comprises such a
>small
>	> > percentage of overall demand that it cannot reasonably be
>seen to be a
>	> > threat to the sale of the bonds. Direct Access should be
>seen as a
>	> > benefit to DWR.  It would decrease the amount of the
>utilities net
>	> > short obligations and relieve DWR from its power purchasing
>	> > responsibilities sooner.
>	> >
>	> > Something else is going on here. We think that the DWR does
>not want
>	> > direct access because if the public is presented with
>alternatives, it
>	> > will make DWR's purchasing mistakes abundantly clear. The
>Commission
>	> > should be holding hearings to test the assertions being made
>by DWR,
>	> > Finance and the Treasurer.  Instead, the Commission is
>making an ill
>	> > informed, panicked decision to act now and study the
>repercussions
>	> > later.
>	> >
>	> >       DWR and the bonds should not be threatened by direct
>access if
>	> > DWR is making prudent energy purchases. Only if DWR's
>contracts are
>	> > too expensive, relative to market, will customers seek
>shelter in
>	> > lower direct access prices. Indeed, retaining direct access
>as a way
>	> > to send price signals to consumers may be the only way to
>place
>	> > pressure on DWR to make more prudent purchases. This is a
>very
>	> > important consideration since AB 1X prevents us from
>engaging in any
>	> > prudency review of the DWR costs to be passed through to
>ratepayers in
>	> > order to repay the bonds. If there is no yardstick, how can
>anyone
>	> > measure DWR performance? The answer is, one can't, unless SB
>18xx is
>	> > signed into law.
>	> >
>	> >       We think that additional review of these issues,
>before
>	> > suspending direct access, would have produced a more sound
>decision in
>	> > the long run.
>	> >
>	> > For these reasons we must respectfully dissent.
>	> >
>	> >
>	> >
>	> >
>	> > /s/ HENRY M. DUQUE                              /s/ RICHARD
>A. BILAS
>	> >         Henry M. Duque
>	> > Richard A. Bilas
>	> >         Commissioner
>Commissioner
>	> >
>	> > September 20, 2001
>	> >
>	>
>	>
>	
>>**********************************************************************
>	>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.
>	
>>**********************************************************************
>	
>	
>
>