Re:

thanks. my assumption is that, with respect to power plant siting and what
we ought to do, you'll take the lead tomorrow. does it make sense for now to
leave a "placeholder' under that one and we can discuss further tomorrow, or
would you prefer to put a specific item in there now, like "Legislature
should revisit last session's streamlining bill?"

Sandra McCubbin
12/04/2000 03:15 PM

To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re:

thoughts on messages..couldn't 1 and 2 be combined...the thinking in Sacto by
people like Rod is to come up with a portolio approach for the utilities..do
you think considering what has been going on at the CPUC that using natural
gas deregulation is a good example, even though it is, but it may set off red
flags. I think that the action point on 3 should not focus on the CPUC as
with the current climate it will never happen there..I assume it will have to
be legislative action or the legislature ordering the CPUC to do it.As to
streamlining of regulations, we should talk about a clean up of last year's
legislation..particularly regarding union contracts...as to air quality, Sam
is hesitant at this time, to raise air issues, while they are in serious
negotiations with some of the projects, and he is afraid that the legislature
could highlight these and they could go south..inter basin transfers is a
good example..it can be done without legislation..having local permitting
done concurrent with the CEC process is one important issue..in terms of
actions, I would rather say that we are working closely with the CEC. We may
also want to mention Rod's idea of public private partnership and how we want
to flesh that out..he is open to suggestions.