Enron Mail

From:jennifer.thome@enron.com
To:leslie.lawner@enron.com, john.shelk@enron.com, rebecca.cantrell@enron.com
Subject:Re: DRAFT talking points on gas in CA
Cc:jeff.dasovich@enron.com, janel.guerrero@enron.com
Bcc:jeff.dasovich@enron.com, janel.guerrero@enron.com
Date:Fri, 18 May 2001 07:34:00 -0700 (PDT)

Leslie, thank you for your comments.

From my understanding, we have a need for the following:

1. Talking points directed to a CA audience (similar to the number of
"one-pagers" we have already done for CA)
2. Talking points to circulate on the Hill
3. Points to include in a presentation to FERC on the 24th

It is not clear to me whether we should produce one document that fills all
of these needs or if we need more than one document. Perhaps, as Leslie
mentioned in her message below, we should add some FERC-level solutions to
this document and use it for several purposes.

**If someone has some suggestions about FERC language, please send them to me
or call me and I will incorporate them and recirculate the document.**

I am re-attaching the draft talking points again, for your reference.

Thanks,

Jennifer






Leslie Lawner
05/17/2001 05:00 PM

To: Jennifer Thome/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: DRAFT talking points on gas in CA

I guess my only thought is focused on the presentation to FERC on the 24th.
The solutions you have identified are all at the state level. Can we put in
something to address what the FERC can do? I am not sure what it is, but
maybe it would include expeditious approval of projects to and WITHIN
California that have been filed with FERC, as opposed to PG&E and SoCalGas
projects, which would be within the province of the CPUC. Something to think
about.