Message-ID: <8338236.1075843210711.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:52:00 -0800 (PST) From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com To: richard.shapiro@enron.com Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune Cc: david.parquet@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, mona.petrochko@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: david.parquet@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, mona.petrochko@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: Richard Shapiro X-cc: David Parquet, James D Steffes, Mona L Petrochko, Paul Kaufman, Sandra McCubbin, Susan J Mara X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf If there is a deal shaping up, it's happening by and large through the auspices of IEP. We've thus far decided to maintain an arm's length relationship with IEP, choosing not to get too close to the generators. If we want to influence any deal they cut, we'll need to assess how closely aligned/associated with them we want to be. Further we distance ourselves, less likely we'll be cut in. That said, Sue and I have been participating in IEP's (interminable) conference calls and actively weighing in to influence what they do. There was considerable discussion on the last call about developing some sort of "price cap" proposal that could form the basis of a deal, but no discussion whatsoever regarding refunds of any kind. There were differences of opinion about the benefits of doing a deal on a cap----Williams is dead set against it, Dynegy & Reliant seemed considerably more pliable. We reminded folks that there are many other things apart from caps that California could do to "fix" the problem (e.g., site plants, forward contracts, retail market, core/noncore split, etc.), which might obviate the need for caps altogether. We also recognized the political nature of the situation and expressed a willingness to discuss a cap that might be acceptable, but pointed out our general concerns with caps. That last meeting provided the impetus for the 28th press conference, at which (hopefully) a large number of stakeholders with urge the Governor and the PUC to get off the dime and do something concrete that can help---develop a rational policy for forward contracting by the IOUs and abandon the "PUC as counterparty" policy that currently exists. Again, haven't heard a peep about any deal on refunds. Will check around, though. Best, Jeff Richard Shapiro 11/22/2000 07:46 AM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune Don't know- Does anyone know? From: James D Steffes on 11/22/2000 07:43 AM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune Do you think that there is a deal in the works and we are "out in the rain"? I have to doubt that DENA or Southern are willing to give $ back to California. Maybe Reliant would. Jim Richard Shapiro 11/22/2000 07:37 AM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 11/22/2000 07:36 AM --------------------------- "Lynne Church" on 11/21/2000 05:21:23 PM To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , cc: "Gene Peters" , "Julie Simon" , "Mark Stultz" Subject: Report of Editorial Board Meeting with the San Diego Union-Tribune IEP's public affairs consultant arranged an editorial board meeting for me while I was in town for the NARUC meeting. Present were Don Sevrens, news editor/insight section; Bill Osborne, senior editor/opinion; Jim Gogek, editorial writer; Bernie Jones, editor, opinion pages; Craig Rose, the reporter who has written extensively on the topic, and a photographer. My two primary messages were that (1) wholesale and retail competition is working elsewhere, particularly in Pennsylvania, and can eventually work in California if the rules are changed, and (2) California has a severe supply shortage and needs to focus on providing incentives for new generation and expediting the permitting process. I was subtly trying to get across the message that leadership was needed to help Californians deal with the need to reconcile their environmental and land use goals with the need to bring their power supply and demand into balance. I, of course, defended FERC's order on the causes of the price volatility in California this summer and their lack of any authority to order retroactive refunds. I also pointed out that there were no findings of individual market abuse, so that refunds wouldn't be warranted even if there was legal authority. I also pointed out the problems with price caps. Other than Craig Rose, who disagreed with me any chance he got, the others asked good questions and seemed to be listening. They made the point repeatedly that this matter is very political, suggesting that a political compromise with the generators/marketers is necessary. One of them said he had heard there was a deal with the generators being negotiated and asked me my position. I responded that I had no response. Anything like that is the business of individual members. They indicated that they expected to do a story for this coming Sunday's Insight Section. Please give me any feedback you have. cc: Stu Ryan, AES by fax Jim Macias, Calpine, by fax