Subject: RE: Status of CPUC Proposed Decisions on Direct Access Suspension
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:53:39 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: MDay [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:45 PM
To: 'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'
Cc: 'Sue Mara at Enron SF'
Subject: Status of CPUC Proposed Decisions on Direct Access Suspension

Jeff:

At your request I am offering this memo to explain the status of the agenda
items before the CPUC on the issue of suspension of the direct access
program.  There are two pending draft decisions at this time, the first is
the proposed decision of ALJ Barnett (Item H-7 on the last agenda) which was
modified by a changed version submitted by Pres. Lynch at 2:45 pm on 9-5-01,
the day before the last meeting.  This version indicated that direct access
was suspended as of the date of the order (which would have been Sept. 6)
and states in another ordering paragraph that the utilities are to advise
their customers that the suspension is effective Sept. 6, 2001, specifically
naming that date.  This order would have been interpreted to suspend direct
access as of Sept. 6 if it had been voted out that day.  The other item,
Agenda Item H-7A on the last agenda, is the Bilas alternate decision which
calls for hearings to determine the impact of direct access on the issuance
of bonds, and does not suspend direct access at this time.

Please be advised that the suspension date contained in H-7 can and probably
will be changed before the orders are considered at the CPUC meeting on
Sept. 20.  Either the Sept 6 date will be changed to the 20th of Sept., or
some other specific date could be inserted at all the locations in the order
dealing with the suspension date.  All that is required to make this change
is the distribution of a changed page on the Escutia table before the
Commission meeting.  Thus, it is important for all direct access supporters
to continue to urge the Commission, especially Commissioner Brown, to
support a suspension date later than Sept. 6, because it is so easy for the
date to be altered under Commission procedures.

Please let me know if you require any additional information on this
subject.

Mike Day
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day