Q: Susan, I am pleased that the PUC demonstrated some level of propriety and common sense by not acting in a retroactive manner on direct access. Accordingly, we are placing our work in abeyance pending further instruction. If any party is interested in litigating further the direct access decision from September 20, it will be necessary to petition for rehearing at the PUC. An aggrieved party will only be able to go to court if the PUC denies the petition for rehearing or upholds its original decision following rehearing. The grounds for judicial review now appear to be limited to (1) denial of procedural due process and (2) PUC conduct contrary to law. This latter argument is based on a statutory duty to hold hearings when deciding whether to change a policy originally decided following hearings. Unlike the problems caused by a retroactive decision, there is probably no basis for a stay pending final decision. The attached petition is the most recent generation and has fairly accurate tables of authorities and content. It does not have the two most recent developments (the statement by the Department of Finance indicating that bonds may not be necessary and the argument that there was a statutory duty to conduct hearings). If this petition is revived, those arguments can be quickly inserted. I have also retained all comments so those will be available if the petition is revived. Best regards,
Propose a subject line
A: Direct Access Petition

Q: Thanks for hosting, Kim. Jackie mentioned the list of tasks that remain to get this done (e.g., graphs, make spreadsheet pretty, write-up, etc.). I'lll do whatever needs to be done, so once folks have picked which task they'd like to take on, just let me know what's left. Or if there's another way folks would like to divvy up the chores, that's great, too. Have a great weekend. See you Monday. Jackie, could you email the latest version around when you get a chance? Thanks.
Propose a subject line
A: StadiumS

Q: We are attempting to complete the missing information on our spreadsheet. To that end, below are live CPs that have been reviewed for the purpose of sending demand letters. However, because they are live we cannot determine what type of contract they have. (Our source for this information has been the Master Terminated Log. These CPs are obviously not included therein.) Please provide next to each CP below the contract type. COUNTERPARTY: CONTRACT TYPE Texaco Natural Gas Inc. Select Energy, Inc. Nevada Power Company Johns Manville International, Inc Stone Energy Corporation Clinton Energy Management Services, Inc Florida Power Corporation Imperial Holly Corporation Old World Industries, Inc. Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Navajo Refining Company Coast Energy Group, a division of Cornerstone Cross Oil Refining & Marketing, Inc. Kern Oil & Refining Co. U.S. Brick Company Municipal Gas Authority Of Florida TRC Operating Company, Inc. Lauscha Fiber International Corp. Whirlpool Corporation Central Illinois Light Company EOTT Energy Partners LP Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Scana Energy Marketing, Inc. AIG Commodity Arbitrage Fund Limited AIG Commodity Arbitrage Fund LP TotalFinaElf Gas & Power North America, Inc. Thank you for your support.
Propose a subject line
A: Contract Type Request

Q: Hey sue, just wanted to wish you a Happy 25th birthday!! I know its a day late. I can't believe its already Feb. 1. Wish I were there to celebrate with you. Did you or are you doing anything exciting? Please send me an email and let me know whats up regarding the job opportunity in Seattle and Enron as well???!! Lisa
Propose a subject line
A:
Happy 25th!