Message-ID: <22367651.1075851624466.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:38:10 -0700 (PDT) From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com To: michael.etringer@enron.com Subject: RE: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Dasovich, Jeff X-To: Etringer, Michael X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Sent Items X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: Dasovich, Jeff (Non-Privileged).pst I think that we should pursue both. If we can convince the PUC that it's a good deal, and that it ought to include a dedicated rate component to cover it. If the PUC agrees, then the rate component should cover PG&E's concern and they should be able to go forward. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: Etringer, Michael Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:59 PM To: Dasovich, Jeff Subject: RE: By the way. I have gotten positive responses from most of the biomass guys in PG&E territory. Covanta, Wheelabrator and Burney have all indicated that they would likely bid in their bio assets if this structure were available. Unfortunately all of these are PG&E QFs. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Dasovich, Jeff Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 9:25 AM To: Etringer, Michael Subject: FYI. Put another call into Bloom. I'm sure he'll get back to me soon, but you know how busy these important lawyers are... Best, Jeff