Message-ID: <407344.1075861508636.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:09:46 -0800 (PST) From: ek@a-klaw.com To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Evelyn Kahl X-To: Dasovich, Jeff X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Inbox X-Origin: Dasovich-J X-FileName: JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged).pst I think we missed each other. I want to delay, move slowly, because in my view that gives us a better argument that there was no notice for exit fees. I also think we may be better off litigating the question under ABX1. Can't recall which section now, but the deal provides that the relationship is between CDWR and the end user. And the end user has a legal obligation to pay for it upon "DELIVERY". If it's never delivered, the law does not impose an obligation. And, I would argue, if the legislature had wanted to impose and exit fee that was in conflict with the clear terms of the bill, they could have. Now, that may not hold water in next session, but at least it makes sure Sacramento picks up the issue. Let's discuss if this isn't clear. I just don't want to rush to a "deal." Best regards, Evie -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:59 PM To: Evelyn Kahl Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Agreed. We're trying to go quickly. So if it looks like there's something to it, we're going to move quickly. Could you share what you're big three issues are so that I'm sure that they get on the table tomorrow. Hope to cross paths soon. Best, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:EK@a-klaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:46 PM To: Dasovich, Jeff Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Definitely. I'm very interested. I'm concerned, however, about timing. The longer this is left unsettled, the greater the "no notice" argument. -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:05 PM To: Evelyn Kahl Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Shame. We'll have to muddle through without you. If something gets going, you interested? -----Original Message----- From: Evelyn Kahl [mailto:EK@a-klaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:25 PM To: Dasovich, Jeff Subject: RE: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Jeff: My schedule has changed, and I'll be there Thursday but not Friday. I don't know whether Mike will be there...he's been elusive since session ended. See you Thursday. Evie -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:49 PM To: Evelyn Kahl Subject: Meeting w/PG&E this Friday, Right after DJ's Meeting Hi Evie: As you know Edison is being, well, Edison about just about everything at the PUC. I think that we actually have some leverage with PG&E, however. I've helped to broker a meeting between large customers and PG&E (Tom Botorff and Dan Richard) this Friday at 1:30 PM after DJ's meeting. DJ and Delainey are organizing The (basic) idea is to see if there is some way to strike a "reasonable" deal on the DA/cost allocation issues with PG&E, which could then be submitted to PUC around Edison, which seems hell bent on piling as many costs on business customers as possible. At the first meeting, we want to spend a very brief amount of time determining 1) what matters to people 2) where people on the issues and 3) PG&E's willingness to deal. The goal is to find out if there's any room for a deal. Should not take a long time. I hope you can attend, since the meeting will be significantly less productive ify ou're not there, and who knows, it may lead to something that permits us to go around Edison. Likely attendees are CMTA, CLECA, the Chamber, you (hopefully), PG&E and me. Will Mike Kahl be at DJ's meeting? Best, Jeff ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. **********************************************************************