I talked to Mike Smith and he agrees this is a commercial problem.   Really 
nothing for us to do directly other than minimize exit fees, etc.



	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	02/16/2001 09:20 PM
		
		 To: Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange@EES
		 cc: Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul 
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: UC/CSU issue - SB - 27X

We'll need to discuss further internally, but they may be correct in their 
assessment.

Best,
Jeff



	Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
	02/16/2001 07:03 PM
		 
		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: UC/CSU issue - SB - 27X

From further discussions with UC/CSU, it appears their primary concern 
relative to Enron's decision to De-DASR their accounts is that they have lost 
their "direct access" status, and are again a bundled utility customer.  

Jeff - what impacts does this status have with respect to the ban language of 
AB-1X?  And with SB-27X, will they now encumber costs to become a direct 
access customer that they would not have been liable for had Enron not made 
the decision to return them to utility supply?

Your input is appreciated.  Please shed some light here as soon as possible.

Regards - Tom Riley