I know that it is a finesse but I would rather not have a specific date 
(although we would prefer a specific date relative to no clarity on this 
matter):

If I were writing it it would something like:
In no case shall the rate freeze, as defined by AB1890, end before the CPUC 
has determined replacement rates.  And in no case shall such determination of 
replacement rates,  beyond the end of AB 1890 term (Mar 2002).

Such wording means supports our claim of negative ctc up to new setting of 
rates.  It also allows us to argue with customers that we switched them for 
their own good.


From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 01/29/2001 12:37 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul 
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, 
Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Scott 
Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: Conversations with Customers on Date Certain for End of Rate Freeze 
in Legislation

I've left messages describing our idea with TURN and the large 
cogenerators/marketers/producers, and I've spoken with the Farm Bureau and 
the California Manufacturers Association.  The Bureau and CMA agree with our 
idea and I've asked them to "pass the word along" to other customer groups 
and to try to ensure that its an integral part of the negotiations.  I'll be 
calling other customer groups and will report back on those conversations.

Best,
Jeff