I think you're missing a "solve" in last sentence.


From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/30/2000 02:48 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, 
mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, 
skean@enron.com, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Press Statement on Bad PUC Gas Decision? Need to decide by 4 PM 
(PST)  

Thanks.  With that, unless I hear otherwise from folks by 4 PM PST---and all 
suggestions on how to make the comment better are welcome and 
appreciated---I'll go ahead and forward on to Art O'Donnell.





	Richard Shapiro
	11/30/2000 02:45 PM
		
		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, skean@enron.com, Paul 
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Press Statement on Bad PUC Gas Decision? Need to decide by 4 PM 
(PST)

I would say we engage on this and other issues in California  in a more 
assertive manner- message is fine. Laying low and  working backchannels is 
working great so far??? NOT


From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/30/2000 02:41 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, skean@enron.com, Richard 
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Press Statement on Bad PUC Gas Decision?  Need to decide by 4 PM 
(PST)

As you know, we've been working for about an eternity to unbundle SoCalGas' 
system.  90+% of the industry agreed to an unbundling solution and filed it 
as a settlement at the Commission.  In opposition, muni generators and TURN 
supported SoCalGas' original proposal to essentially maintain the status quo 
(SoCalGas eventually came over to our side, as did Southern California 
Edison).  

A judge's proposed decision came out the day before Thanksgiving adopting the 
settlement advocated by the muni generators and TURN.  

If it weren't for the continual barrage of retrograde policy pronouncements 
coming from the "new" California PUC, folks would be genuinely shocked by the 
judge's proposed decision, but as things are, it was somewhat expected.

There's one silver lining:  We managed to get in both settlements an 
identical provision that eliminates a substantial amount of financial risk TW 
would have faced but for the provision.  So from that perspective, the choice 
to go with the TURN/muni settlement and embrace the status quo does no harm.  
It does considerable harm, however, when compared to the significant value 
that would have been created if the judge adopted the the unbundling 
settlement.

We have a chance to go on the record in a trade publication "California 
Energy Markets."  Recent events might persuade us to keep a low profile 
generally at this point.  On the other hand, perhaps the time is right to 
start coming out of our corner just a bit and pointing out the very poor job 
this Commission is doing in managing California's energy policy.  I'm 
squarely on the fence at this point and am seeking feedback.  A proposed 
comment is attached.  

Two questions:

1) Do folks think that there's value in providing a comment?

2) If so, does this statement work, or do folks have suggestions?

Thanks,
Jeff

"The California Public Utilities Commission has a choice. It can adopt the 
same, common sense natural gas policy for Southern California that,s been in 
place and working well for consumers in PG&E,s service territory.  Or it 
stick with the status quo, which the industry agrees is at least partially 
responsible for bottlenecks and high prices in California.  The proposed 
decision opts for the status quo.  That's not going to California,s natural 
gas problems and it,s likely to make matters worse in California's electric 
industry."