
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: james.steffes@enron.com
To: steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, mark.palmer@enron.com,
karen.denne@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com,
jeff.dasovich@enron.com, sandra.mccubbin@enron.com,
harry.kingerski@enron.com
Subject: Enron Proposed Response - Summary of the SCE Deal

Here are some thoughts on what our message may be.=20

Unclear how this is going to increase supply, decrease demand, and increase=
=20
customer choice.  Still doesn't make sense to us to have the state buy a=20
crumbling transmission network instead of school lunches.

We don't have enough details.  There are several aspects that are interesti=
ng=20
and could use further study.  Governor Davis needs to make the details publ=
ic=20
as soon as possible so people can understand the full implications.  For=20
instance, what happens to DWR contracts?  Will they be assigned to SCE?  Wi=
ll=20
customers have the right to choose going forward?

The recent events highlight the critical need to make sure that customers c=
an=20
make their own energy decisions going forward.  We know that Government=20
doesn't know how to get this right.  The right answer is giving customers=
=20
more choices, not fewer.

Can't endorse it until we know if our bills are going to be paid in full.  =
If=20
the bills aren't paid in full, highly likely that we'll see involuntary=20
bankruptcy.

Too bad that this deal wasn't done earlier.  It could have saved alot of=20
money and pain.

Why do you need to include the transmission purchase in this deal?  May nev=
er=20
happen.  Make it easy - just deal with the under collection through=20
securitization and throught the EIX refund to SCE and get on with it.

=20
Jim

