|
|
Enron Mail |
I talked to Mike Smith and he agrees this is a commercial problem. Really
nothing for us to do directly other than minimize exit fees, etc. Jeff Dasovich Sent by: Jeff Dasovich 02/16/2001 09:20 PM To: Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange@EES cc: Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: UC/CSU issue - SB - 27X We'll need to discuss further internally, but they may be correct in their assessment. Best, Jeff Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange 02/16/2001 07:03 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas Huth/HOU/EES@EES Subject: UC/CSU issue - SB - 27X From further discussions with UC/CSU, it appears their primary concern relative to Enron's decision to De-DASR their accounts is that they have lost their "direct access" status, and are again a bundled utility customer. Jeff - what impacts does this status have with respect to the ban language of AB-1X? And with SB-27X, will they now encumber costs to become a direct access customer that they would not have been liable for had Enron not made the decision to return them to utility supply? Your input is appreciated. Please shed some light here as soon as possible. Regards - Tom Riley
|