Message-ID: <5589051.1075861627617.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:57:02 -0800 (PST) From: d..steffes@enron.com To: mike.smith@enron.com Subject: RE: CA Extenstions/Amendments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Steffes, James D. X-To: Smith, Mike X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Sent Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst Mike -- I'm guessing that Sue and/or Jeff have responded. The short answer is that there are going to be a number of legal tests before we are "completely" in the clear. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Mike Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:47 AM To: Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan; Steffes, James D. Cc: Frazier, Lamar; Blachman, Jeremy Subject: CA Extenstions/Amendments I heard that the CPUC and/or the utilities have taken the position that any amendment to a contract after 9/20, like a pricing amendment, is a new contract entered after 9/20 and therefore invalid. Is this true? Does this hold any water?