|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks, Hedy:
Not good. John White has a similar view, i.e., Loretta doesn't have many choices given that the Legislature hasn't executed. John did say, however, that if we can provide the legal analysis to support doing something other than "suspend," Loretta is likely to be amenable. Seems like it would be useful to try to get the analysis, assuming that there's legal analysis to support an alternative to "suspend." Hertzberg and I are trading calls. Will report back as soon as I hear anything. Best, Jeff Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@govadv.com< 07/26/2001 04:02 PM To: Paul Kaufman <paul.kaufman@enron.com<, Jeff Dasovich <jdasovic@enron.com<, Bev Hansen <bhansen@lhom.com<, sgovenar@govadv.com cc: Subject: Bill Julien I spoke with Bill and gave him the background on the DA issue (Turn's core/noncore, the green portfolio, etc) and asked him about some possibilities - i.e. could Loretta delay action until after the Legislature acts on SB18, and/or AB 82, etc. He responded that Loretta likes the SB18 approach, which she sees as cheaper and cleaner. But she also is very loyal to the state and believes the timing is dependent upon the Treasurer's assessment of the need. Right now Angelides accepts counsel's view that DA has to be eliminated to market the bonds. Loretta believes the only authority the Commission has is when to suspend DA, not whether to suspend it. Angelides is continuing to press her to eliminate it, but she had hoped the Legislature would take action to give the Commission some flexibility. That hasn't happened. Their view is that the language of AB 1x needs to be changed legislatively, since their authority is so limited. He expects action in the near future, but doesn't know exactly when.
|