
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.landwehr@enron.com
To: richard.shapiro@enron.com, mark.palmer@enron.com, karen.denne@enron.com,
paul.kaufman@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com,
steven.kean@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com,
janel.guerrero@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Subject: Minnesota Energy Legislation
Cc: jennifer.thome@enron.com
Bcc: jennifer.thome@enron.com

I bring this Minnesota bill to your attention thinking that it may be one
state that we can point to as moving forward rather than backward as a
response to California.  This bill would absolutely not have moved if
California had not been on the radar screen--for the first time in four
years, the leadership insisted that the caucuses move something out of
committee on energy.

WHile customer choice did not ultimately survive (it got knocked out towards
the end of the committee votes), there was a general agreement by committee
members that MN had to prepare for retail access, but that they needed to get
the wholesale market in better shape in preparation.

By the way, the enviromental community was very very confident that they were
going to get a mandate for a 10% renewable portfolio standard by 2015, and
they were then going to make Minnesota the poster child to promote mandated
RPS across the country.  Their mandate turned into "goals" to be met by
utilities, and they are not happy.


