Subject: California Update 7/24/01
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:02:28 -0700 (PDT)

It appears very likely that SB 78XX will be the lead vehicle for the MOU in the working group discussions and that AB 82XX will move closer to SB 78XX.  (Note: AB 50XX appears to have been dropped by Wright so that he could keep his Energy Committee chairmanship; he was being heavily criticized for opposing the Assembly leadership with his bill.)

The two main points of contention between SB 78XX and AB 82XX appear to be the renewables portfolio (SB 78XX's version is thought of as more reasonable) and the provisions for a PUC reasonableness review of the long-term contracts.  SB 82XX prohibits a reasonableness review, and SoCal is pushing for this language to be incorporated into SB 78XX.  This language was also in the original MOU between SoCal and the governor.