|
|
Enron Mail |
Yes, it's technically true, but it doesn't seem relevant. It's a
technicality. That is, if at the end of the contract, UC/CSU goes to another provider, the rules would require Enron to "de-DASR," after which the new provider would submit the new DASR to switch the customer over. The utility stands in the middle of all this. I don't think this equates to what UC/CSU is claiming the problem is. Might be viewed as a bit "cute" by the judge. Also, the legislation "fixing" the prohibition passed our of policy committee today in Sacramento and is moving through the Legislature. Best, Jeff "Kristen Bird" <kb@quinnemanuel.com< 03/22/2001 04:40 PM To: <jeff.dasovich@enron.com< cc: "Michael Lifrak" <mtl@quinnemanuel.com< Subject: Revised declaration Please review and let me know if you have any comments, esp. para. 12. This was Mike Smith's suggestion. - 0347511.02
|