Subject: Re: California Strategy - 9.5.01 12:00 PM
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>, e-mail <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:49:44 -0700 (PDT)

Rick Simpson from the Speaker's office, said there will be no amendments to the bill prior to its passing the Assembly.  They are still scrambling for votes and sent the Chamber and WSPA lobbyists out to shore up a few while I was in the office.  I talked to Mike Kahl, WSPA lobbyist, whose firm also represents the restaurant assn.  He argued that the 24th was in the bill for awhile and he called all of their clients to tell them to sign up by the 24th.  He said Enron should have done the same.  I argued that Enron did the best it could, but that negotiations with many entities take varying amounts of time.  So long as the date is past, and customers still have to pay exit fees, what was the relevant policy debate.  There can't be a gold rush now.  Scott pointed out to me that bothWendy's and Burger King
probably belong to the restaurant assn., so our suggestion is that those entities contact Jot Condie at the assn to instruct his lobbyists to change the date to Sept. 1st.  This is time sensitive.  The Chamber lobbyist would love to see a Sept. 1 date, but was not optimistic that they could move the Governor's office.

Rick agreed to ask the Speaker to call Jeff Brown and ask for a delay until the Legislature has time to act.  He will say the bill is expected to pass his House tomorrow and changes will occur in the Senate which will give them direction.  Rick also expressed pessimism that Bowen's attempts at legislation will have a fruitful result.  I have been unable to speak to Burton directly about calling Brown, but hope to see him before the day is over.

Also I have a call in to Mayor Willie Brown, but so far I haven't heard back.

Jim, re the list of customers signing after July 1 - which ones would be affected by the Aug. 24th date?

"Steffes, James D." wrote:

> Per our conversation today --
>
> 1.      Sue Mara is working with AReM to (a) work on an alternative
> vehicle for DA - the Bowen bill, (b) get the "taking" argument for
> retroactive CPUC action to Norm Plotkin and Richard Katz, (c) call APS
> Energy Services to motivate Boeing, (d) getting AReM active on the date
> issue.
>
> By the way, Sue Mara heard that the CPUC has received "hundreds" of
> letters related to the CPUC decision.
>
> 2.      Everyone should be working to get customers focused on messaging
> to the (a) Governor's office and (b) trade associations.
>
> KEY MESSAGES:   1.      Don't have the CPUC Make Wrong Decision Tomorrow
>                         2.      SB78 can work if DA Suspension Date =
> Sept 1.01 or Later
>                         3.      Setting this DA Suspension Date Does NOT
> Mean that Customers Will Escape Fair Surcharges
>
> I am putting together a gameplan right now for who to call and the
> messages.
>
> 3.      I called Sandra Yamane (at Marathon Communications) re: CEO
> contacts.  Once I receive the list, we'll make a decision on how to
> proceed with that group.
>
> 4.      Hedy is working to get Hertzberg (and any others) to call the
> CPUC and seek another delay.
>
> 5.      Mike Day - can you please draft language to use on the Assembly
> floor to "fix" SB78 per our interests.  Hedy & Bev, who should support
> the amendment?  Don't we need a member to carry the provision?  Wouldn't
> it be better if we had CMTA or the CA Restaurant Association?  Is this
> possible?
>
> 6.      Scott Govenar is calling Boeing's lobbyist to get them
> "interested".
>
> Thanks everybody.  Keep up the great work!!!
>
> Jim
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at [email-masked] and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
> **********************************************************************