Enron Mail

From:kristin.walsh@enron.com
To:john.lavorato@enron.com, louise.kitchen@enron.com, david.delainey@enron.com
Subject:California Update 7/24/01
Cc:christopher.calger@enron.com, christian.yoder@enron.com,steve.hall@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, phillip.allen@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com, tim.heizenrader@enron.com, vince.kaminski@enron
Bcc:christopher.calger@enron.com, christian.yoder@enron.com,steve.hall@enron.com, mike.swerzbin@enron.com, phillip.allen@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, chris.gaskill@enron.com, mike.grigsby@enron.com, tim.heizenrader@enron.com, vince.kaminski@enron
Date:Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:02:00 -0700 (PDT)

? It appears very likely that SB 78XX will be the lead vehicle for the MOU in
the working group discussions and that AB 82XX will move closer to SB 78XX.
(Note: AB 50XX appears to have been dropped by Wright so that he could keep
his Energy Committee chairmanship; he was being heavily criticized for
opposing the Assembly leadership with his bill.)

? The two main points of contention between SB 78XX and AB 82XX appear to be
the renewables portfolio (SB 78XX's version is thought of as more reasonable)
and the provisions for a PUC reasonableness review of the long-term
contracts. SB 82XX prohibits a reasonableness review, and SoCal is pushing
for this language to be incorporated into SB 78XX. This language was also in
the original MOU between SoCal and the governor.