Subject: One-Pager for Customers to Join on CPUC Filing
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:23:02 -0700 (PDT)

Here is a one pager you can use with customers.  I also attach the draft filing -- Bob Williams and Mike Smith and I are meeting this afternoon (4 pm ) Houston time to see if there are any EES legal issues with it -- so don't release the full draft until you hear from me. 
Sue Mara 
(415) 782-7802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPUC SUSPENDS DIRECT ACCESS -- TAKE ACTION
What Did the CPUC Do:   The CPUC voted at its meeting on September 20, 2001 to suspend direct access immediate. Included in the order is reference to a subsequent order that would address additional issues. The order also put everyone "on notice" that the Commission could modify the order later to suspend direct access retroactively to July 1, 2001.
What Action is Required:  Many believe that the CPUC did not have valid reasons for suspending direct access and has no right to abrogate contracts retroctively, as it has threatened.  Consequently, concerned customers and energy service providers are preparing a Request for Rehearing that must be filed with the CPUC by Friday, September 28, 2001.  The Legislature enacted a special statute governing this and related decisions.  This first step is required by that statute.  If the CPUC denies the request (as expected), the next step would be a direct appeal to the State Supreme Court, which is also required by that same statute.
What Will The Request for Rehearing Include:  A Request for Rehearing must raise the errors of law made by the CPUC in its order. The attorney for the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM) has prepared a draft. The primary reasons cited for why rehearing should be granted are as follows: 
The Decision violates procedural due process guarantees. 
The failure to hold hearings violates Public Utilities Code section 1708.5(f). 
The Commission's reliance on material outside the record violates due process. 
The Decision violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 
The threatened retroactivity is contrary to law and in excess of the Commission's authority. 
The Commission acted contrary to law and in excess of its authority. 
The Decision's purported findings are not supported. 
The Commission has impermissibly converted a ratemaking proceeding into a quasi-legislative proceeding.
What Can You Do:  Sign on to the Request for Rehearing and contact your elected state representatives to let them know that direct access must be reinstated.