RE: FW: current events

call me unreasonable. i can take it. been called worse, though, of course,
coming from you, it hurts more.

"Schultz, Don" <dks@cpuc.ca.gov< on 08/31/2000 11:13:48 AM
To: "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com<
cc:
Subject: RE: FW: current events

chicken and egg problem--I think I'd rather try to stimulate customer demand
for these products? (which in many applications are cost-competitive to
purchased power, even with piracy stand-by rates of UDCs), and then
simulanteously get/put pressure on reducing stand-by rates. So---your
position, to answer your question, is unreasonable.

-----Original Message-----
From: jdasovic@enron.com [mailto:jdasovic@enron.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:54 AM
To: dks@cpuc.ca.gov
Subject: RE: FW: current events

Nope, not at this point.? Rather than start with money, we'd rather start
with getting the rules (i.e., the IOUs) fixed so that there ain't regulatoy
roadblock after roadblock standing in the way of deployment.? Sound
reasonable?

"Schultz, Don" <dks@cpuc.ca.gov< on 08/31/2000 10:24:12 AM

To:?? "'jdasovic@enron.com'" <jdasovic@enron.com<
cc:
Subject:? RE: FW: current events

so I see ENRON remains in support of PPP extension; what about using these
funds to help buy down the costs (to consumers) of micropower technologies,
such as customer-side of the meter fuel cells and microturbines?

-----Original Message-----
From: jdasovic@enron.com [mailto:jdasovic@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:43 PM
To: dks@cpuc.ca.gov
Subject: RE: FW: current events

Don:? See attached from today's WSJ.

(See attached file: Efficiency bill running into opposition from
governor.doc)