FYI.  Here's a note I sent to the large customers.  Have spoken with them since.  They are going to write a nasty letter in response to Angelides.  Also, it does not appear that the PUC can act at this meeting on the retroactivity issue--appears that due process/notice requirements prevents it.  We're double checking to make sure.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff  
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 PM
To:	'wbooth@booth-law.com'; 'dominic.dimare@calchamber.com'; 'cra@calretailers.com'; 'ek@a-klaw.com'; 'mikahl@ka-pow.com'; 'jrredding@aol.com'; 'drothrock@cmta.net'; 'vjw@cleanpower.org'; 'djsmith@s-k-w.com'; 'dhunter@s-k-w.com'
Subject:	Angelides Oct. 19th Letter to L. Lynch Urging July 1 DA Suspension Date

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