10-ish percent.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dorothy Rothrock [mailto:drothrock@cmta.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:32 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Subject: Re: Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA
Suspension Date


hey....at the high point of direct access, how much of the load was off the system?

Dot

"Dasovich, Jeff" wrote:

> I'm sure that by now everyone's seen the letter that Angelides sent to
> Loretta last Friday.  If you haven't, let me know and I'll have it faxed
> to you.  In short, Angelides blames all of the financial woes of the
> State on Loretta and the PUC.  Specifically, he claims that by allowing
> DA sign-ups to extend to September 20th, the PUC may have shifted over
> $8 billion to "homeowners, small businesses, and other enterprises..."
> Angelides ends the lettery by urging the Commission to immediately roll
> back the DA suspension date to July 1.
>
> The concern, of course, is that Angelides' assertions are out there and
> have received alot of press attention, i.e., Direct Access=$8 billion
> tax on homeowners.
>
> To her credit, Loretta refuted Angelides in the press accounts and
> repeated that the best way to get costs down is to renegotiate the DWR
> contracts.  She also said in the press accounts that she intends to deal
> with the July 1/September 20 suspension issue at the next commission
> meeting.
>
> In light of these events (and the increasing attacks on Loretta by
> Angelides and others in the Administration) It might be useful to give
> Loretta an assist by drafting a very brief letter to her stating:
>
> *       Angelides is all wet--DA and "fairness" are not mutually
> exclusive and the PUC has all the regulatory tools necessary to ensure
> fairness is maintained going forward.  Thus, the 8 plus billion dollar
> number is without basis.
> *       Re-stating that the PUC has no legal authority to retroactively
> suspend DA to July 1, etc., etc.
>
> Folks may have other points to make.  Seems that we'd want to keep the
> letter short and to the point, however.
>
> A letter might be useful in order to 1) give Loretta some support and 2)
> get some counter-press in response to the Angelides tantrum.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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.
> **********************************************************************