Dear Jeff,
Hope I didn't get this to you too late.  Had a fascinating lunch with
the new CEO of Southern Energy California.  Her name is Ann Cleary and I
think you would like her, as much as one can like one's competitors, as
she is very knowledgeable, hands on, and articulate.  She will be a good
board member for Southern.

Here's the deal:

The basic "corporate contribution" level is $15,000 per year for all
contributing members of the board.  This entitles the members to be on
the steering committees and have a seat at the table for all
conferences.  The conferences include our standard roundtable
discussions with state legislators and regulators on electricity, gas,
air quality, water, telecommunicaoins and public infrastructure.  We
have also instituted a "six caucus day" which brings leadership from the
six California legislative caucuses (Dem and Rep from Assembly, Senate,
and Congressional delegation) together for a series of bipartisan
California strategy sessions which facilitates federal/state cooperation
and coordination on a wide variety of California issues.  (Essentially,
the best of the Washington trip without all the time, expense,and social
events).  This event is in late January of each year, starting in 2001,
and involves a social evening, followed by a day of 1-2 hour strategy
sessions among participants of the six  caucuses and CFEE board members.

In order to be able to accompany the members of the legislature and
regulatory agencies on the international study travel projects, the
level of board contribution must be $30,000 per year, every year,
regardless of whether or not the company sends a representative or is
interested in the trip subject matter.  If the company picks and chooses
which year it want to go, the FPPC regs make the "gift" of the trip from
the company, not CFEE.  So far, Enron has participated in most, not all,
trips, but pays $30K each year and the gift of the trip to the members
is from CFEE, reportable, but not a violation of the gift limit.

Up until this year we had another category of participation, which was
"pay as go."  These were non-board members who wrote checks of up to
$7,500 to $10,000 per conference they attended.  We have decided as a
board to abandon that method and concentrate on the board members as the
primary audience for the conferences.  We will still bring in outside
members at that rate, but we are gearing the conferences for board
members and funding them with additional pro-rate share for cost only.
The idea is to make the  conferences smaller, more intimate, more hard
hitting, and hopefully more productive for the board.

Hope this is what you needed.  Good luck and let me know how it is
going.
Pat Mason
pfm@cfee.net