Message-ID: <7191570.1075851028256.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:20:00 -0800 (PST)
From: steven.kean@enron.com
To: susan.mara@enron.com
Subject: Re: talking points on California situation
Cc: bruno.gaillard@enron.com, christopher.day@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, 
	mark.schroeder@enron.com, paul.dawson@enron.com, 
	richard.shapiro@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: bruno.gaillard@enron.com, christopher.day@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, 
	mark.schroeder@enron.com, paul.dawson@enron.com, 
	richard.shapiro@enron.com
X-From: Steven J Kean
X-To: Susan J Mara
X-cc: Bruno Gaillard, Christopher J Day, Jeff Dasovich, Mark Schroeder, Paul Dawson, Richard Shapiro
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Oct2001_2\Notes Folders\Attachments
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

Another key point:  to avoid the mistakes of California, policy makers must 
make it easy to site and interconnect new generation.  In California peak 
demand rose by about 5500 MW from 1996 - 2000.  The market responded with 
porposed capacity additions of about 11000 MW.  Most of these facilities are 
working thier way through the tangle of state and local approvals.  The 
problems we saw in California did not need to occur if policy makers simply 
enabled the market to work.  Also, it's worth noting that the deregulated 
market did work.  Customers who signed with Enron saw a lower bill than 
prederegulation, Enron hedged its commitments and so our customers (and 
Enron) did just fine during the summer.  Deregulation worked; the problems in 
California can be directly traced to continued regulatory interference in the 
market.



	Susan J Mara
	11/17/2000 06:09 PM
		
		 To: Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron, Christopher J Day/Govt. 
Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Dawson/Govt. 
Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J 
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: talking points on California situation

Mark,

Here's my shot.  I did it in Revision mode so you can see the changes.  Note 
that Enron never got out of the retail market in CA and has gathered about 
1,000 MW of retail load -- we're bigger than all but two of the municipal 
utilities in the state.  Enron stopped marketing to residential consumers -- 
that's what all the  fuss was about in 1997.  Anyone else feel free to take 
your own shot.

Sue





	Mark Schroeder@ECT
	11/17/2000 09:52 AM
		 
		 To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul 
Dawson/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Christopher J Day/Govt. 
Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: talking points on California situation

Some of our people get asked on the phone about what is going on in 
California.  I have drafted the attached paper for their use.  It is intended 
to be simple and user-friendly.  Your thoughts on whether I achieved that 
objectvie are welcome.  More importantly, I need you to confimr that I got 
the story and facts correct, and that I have not said anything about the 
situation that you (Enron USA) would not want to say, or have not said, or if 
we have said something fundamentally different, I need to know that, too.   
thanks for taking the time to review.  mcs