Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dietrich, Janet  
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 10:21 AM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Cc:	Shapiro, Richard
Subject:	Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA

EES is fully on board with these pursuits...
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES on 09/24/2001 10:18 AM ---------------------------
From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/21/2001 03:48 PM
To:	Richard Shapiro/ENRON@enronXgate, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Harry Kingerski/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven J Kean/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Janet Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA

?	The PUC's decision 1) suspending DA and 2) signaling the PUC's intent to continue to consider nullifying DA contracts signed after July 1 is full of holes.
?	We haven't detected any downside in joining with coalitions, and trying to get other coalitions, to appeal the PUC order.  
?	Sue Mara is working with the ARM coalition to appeal yesterday's order and is taking the lead generally on the effort to reverse things.
?	The appeals that we would join, and attempt others to persue on their own, would focus principally on two issues:  1) disabusing the PUC of the notion that it has the legal authority to nullify contracts retroactively, and 2) lifting the suspension on DA altogether (let me know if I've missed anything here, Sue).

Please let us know if folks have any concerns that would cause us to reconsider pursuing these challenges.

Best,
Jeff