We're in the process of working with market participants (i.e., ESPs, large customer groups, etc.) to figure this out. There are many thorny legal issues that need to be worked out and many regulatory lawyers are combing over the implications, options, etc.  Our goal is to come up with a solution that:

1) meets the Commission's objectives of administering the DA suspension date of 9.20.01.
2) gives the Commission the information it needs to administer the suspension without requiring customers to submit specific contract language (which the Commission doesn't need to administer the suspension)
3) gives customers full flexibility to use contract provisions entered into with ESPs
4) fully protects confidential commercial information contained in the contracts

In general, there appears to be considerable reluctance on the part of the industry to submit contracts to the California Commission, which doesn't regulate either counterparty.

In short, the issues are tough and complex.  We're meeting first thing with groups next week, and presumably, we can get back to our customers soon thereafter with more info.

Mike Smith likely has additional insights from the legal perspective.

If there are any other questions, let us know.

Best,
Jeff
	

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sorensen, Michele  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:18 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Mara, Susan
Subject:	FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C	ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.


---------------------- Forwarded by Michele Sorensen/HOU/EES on 11/21/2001 11:17 AM ---------------------------

 	Enron Energy Services  From:  Michele Sorensen                           11/21/2001 10:48 AM Phone No: 562 901 3807 Office   714 813-0742 Cell   888 578 8404 Pager	
		




To:	Lamar Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:	Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject:	FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C	ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.

I received a call from Jack in the Box this morning regarding Commissioner Wood's ruling requiring
 that copies of Direct Access Contracts be submitted by 12-3-01.    They would like to know what our
 position is regarding this ruling?   Are we submitting them?   If we are submitting the contracts, are we
 deleting the names or specific information?  What are our thoughts on the risks of being "uncooperative".

Steve Brigandi at JBX would like a response by early next week.

See the note below. Please call to discuss.

Thanks, Michele
---------------------- Forwarded by Michele Sorensen/HOU/EES on 11/21/2001 10:22 AM ---------------------------

 
"Steve Brigandi" <steve.brigandi@jackinthebox.com>@jackinthebox.com> on 11/21/2001 09:54:08 AM
To:	msorense@enron.com
cc:	 
Subject:	FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C	ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.



---------------------- Forwarded by Steve Brigandi/CSC/FMI on 11/21/2001
09:53 AM ---------------------------


"Mattes, Martin" <MMattes@nossaman.com> on 11/19/2001 08:09:45 PM
To:   "Steve Brigandi (E-mail)"
cc:   "Thompson, Jo-Linda" , "Geraldi, Daniel"      , "Guzman, Joe E."

Subject:  FW: Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access C
      ontr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.


Steve -- The attached ruling by Commissioner Wood -- just received late
today -- puts Jack in the Box at significant risk of being placed in a
category of "uncooperative" direct access customers whom the CPUC might
seek
to deprive of the entitlement to their direct access contracts -- unless
Jack provides a copy of its contract (initially under seal) for
consideration as evidence in the CPUC proceeding.  The "protection"
contemplated by the Assigned Commissioner is comparable to that accorded
utility documents submitted to the CPUC, which are protected unless and
until the Commission or a presiding Commissioner or ALJ decides public
disclosure is warranted.  An earlier ruling indicated a willingness to
allow
redaction of customer identifying information and that would be easier to
make effective if the contract were to be submitted by our ESP (is it
Enron?) rather than by us.  Maybe we should try to get the ALJ or the
Assigned Commissioner to agree that if an ESP submits a customer's contract
(with identifying information redacted) and includes the customer's name on
a list of all customers whose contracts have been submitted, then the
customer need not do so.

Is confidentiality important to Jack in the Box?  If so, what information
in
the contract would need to be redacted to provide adequate confidentiality
protection (e.g., addresses, phone numbers, etc.)?  Is Jack's ESP willing
to
cooperate in seeking a solution such as I've suggested above?

I'm leaving town Wednesday at noon and will be in hearing in LA Monday
through Thursday of next week.  But I'll be checking e-mail and voice mail
regularly.

Regards,

Marty


>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Keller, Kris [mailto:k47@cpuc.ca.gov]
> Sent:   Monday, November 19, 2001 4:47 PM
> To:     Service List
> Subject:     Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Requiring That Direct Access
> Contr acts And Agreements Be submitted in A.98-07-003 et al.
>
>  <<CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc>>

(See attached file: CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc)


 - CPUC01-#110768-v1-A9807003_et_al_Wood_Ruling_.doc 





<Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>
<Embedded Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>