|
|
Enron Mail |
I agree with Pat's suggestions. Thanks very much for the great work, Jeanne,
particularly given the short notice. Best, Jeff "Pat Boylston" <pgboylston@stoel.com< 03/21/2001 02:04 PM To: Christian.Yoder@enron.com, Christopher.F.Calger@enron.com, Elizabeth.Sager@enron.com, Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com, Steve.C.Hall@enron.com, JBennett@GMSSR.com cc: Brenda.Whitehead@enron.com, Mollie.Gustafson@enron.com Subject: Re: Draft Comments on DWR Letter Jeanne, I think you are saying more and going into more detail than we need to. It was my understanding from the call that you were not going to get into the statutory interpretation issues at all. I think modifying the first sentence of the carryover to the top of page 2 (at least as printed on my machine) is fully sufficient if you just say: "Moreover, EPMI submits that DWR has presented the Commission with a reasonable [STRIKEOUT interpretation of the STRIKEOUT] approach for implementing the applicable statutory language." I do not understand the benefit of the balance of the paragraph. It opens us up to getting drug into a interpretation argument we do not need to be in. Similarly, I do not understand why we would want to say "is consistent with the statutory language" and similar statements in the following paragraph. I am not sure I agree fully with those statements or that we need to be limiting our ability to respond to any further proposals which may come out by taking a firm position of the statutory foundation for CDWR's approach in this letter. Am I missing something? Thanks <<< JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com< 03/21 11:26 AM <<< Attached, per our conference call of earlier this morning, are short and sweet comments on the March 14, 2001 letter of DWR re CPA implementation. Please provide any comments/questions to me as soon as possible. <<X22873.DOC<< Jeanne Bennett
|