|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Kathryn Corbally X-To: Jeff Dasovich X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Jeff, I am too simple to understand this! What does removing the direct access language do? I do not recognise the document from which it was removed , hence I do not know whether this is bad or good for Enron! However from your last statement - ' has no proposal before it implementing the prohibition' - I am interpreting that the implementation of the Direct Access prohibition is no longer on anyones agenda so that would be good for Enron. Hope you are still having fun! Kathryn The Commission just voted out one half of the "Bilas Alternate." The decision that got voted out included Bilas' DWR-based language stating that the PUC 1) would not second-guess DWR purchases and 2) would pass through DWR costs to customers. However, in a move led by Commissioner Carl Wood, the decision removed the Bilas language on Direct Access. The decision therefore did NOT include the Bilas language staying any Commission action on implementing the Direct Access prohibition. Carl Wood called including Direct Access "the height of arrogance." The decision was voted out 3-2, with the 2 remaining Republicans dissenting. That said, the Commission has no proposal before it implementing the prohibition, and there was no talk at the meeting of implementing the prohibition any time soon. Best, Jeff
|