Enron Mail

From:leslie.lawner@enron.com
To:sgovenar@govadv.com
Subject:4 gas bills
Cc:bhansen@lhom.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, hgovenar@govadv.com,janel.guerrero@enron.com, jdasovic@enron.com, ken@kdscommunications.com, leslie.lawner@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, smara@enron.com
Bcc:bhansen@lhom.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, hgovenar@govadv.com,janel.guerrero@enron.com, jdasovic@enron.com, ken@kdscommunications.com, leslie.lawner@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, smara@enron.com
Date:Wed, 2 May 2001 03:21:00 -0700 (PDT)

I have reviewed ABX 78, 73, 23 and 42. No problems with 23, 42 and 73. I am
not sure what 78 is really getting to, it alleviates the need for a public
utility to obtain a CPUC finding that an offer of competitive services whcih
requires use of eminent domain would serve the public interest. I have a
feeling this gives the utilities an advantage over non-utility competitors,
who do not have power of eminent domain. At least requiring the CPUC to
authorize its use seems to level the playing field a little. But I may be
missing something.