Message-ID: <20497400.1075843183695.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:31:00 -0800 (PST)
From: harry.kingerski@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Subject: MA PBR Comments
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Harry Kingerski
X-To: Jeff Dasovich
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Pg&e pbr
X-Origin: DASOVICH-J
X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES on 02/28/2000 
11:31 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Energy Services
	
	From:  Sue Nord                           01/13/2000 09:19 AM
	Phone: n/a
	



To: Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Patrick Keene/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff 
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: MA PBR Comments

Hi Guys,

I'm forwarding comments we filed recently with a few other marketers in MA 
regarding PBR.  These were prepared on the fly, as we only found out about 
the deadline for comments the day before they were due.  Sorry not to have 
floated these by you all before they were filed, but I don't think there 
should be anything controversial in here.  (They were borrowed pretty much in 
their entirety from comments Statoil had filed in another jurisdiction).

One note, the MA restructuring statute requires the DTE to implement PBR for 
distribution utilities and provides fairly detailed instruction on how it 
should be structured.  So the question here was not whether PBR is good, but 
how should it be implemented within the context of the MA statute.

Please let me know i f you have any comments or concerns.   Also, I will talk 
with you before we file anything else in this proceeding.


Sue