Message-ID: <14579062.1075852513249.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:22:44 -0700 (PDT) From: d..steffes@enron.com To: susan.mara@enron.com Subject: RE: INTERVAL METERING COMMENTS - Due @ CPUC Aug 17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Steffes, James D. X-To: Mara, Susan X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Sent Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst Thanks. Maybe we should have Nancy Hetrick simply put in a place holder. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mara, Susan Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:23 PM To: Steffes, James D. Subject: RE: INTERVAL METERING COMMENTS - Due @ CPUC Aug 17 But in the past two years you've asked us to get out and stay out of these cases on meters. Is this a change? I don't believe that meter data is an issue given that meter data is a separate and competitive function -- so far anyway -- but I'll check. -----Original Message----- From: Steffes, James D. Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:29 AM To: Mara, Susan; Hetrick, Nancy; Floris, Vinio Subject: INTERVAL METERING COMMENTS - Due @ CPUC Aug 17 Sue -- We should probably file something on this CPUC docket just ensuring that if these meters are put in place, ESPs have access on a timely basis to the data if they serve the customer DA. What do you think? Maybe the Vinio could help? Jim