Greetings All:  First, I am apologizing in advance for any typos in this email.
Schedule i= s=20 very tight, but I wanted to make sure that everyone had it first thing this= =20 morning, with some back-up info that I've included below.
Attached is the email that was sent to Ken Lay's office yesterday evening f= or=20 delivery to Sen. Brulte.
It's of course confidential.
Few points:  I don't have Bev's email, so if you could please forward to her, that would= =20 be appreciated.
As we discussed (Jim, Mike, Bev, Scott, Hedy) on our lengthy call on=20 Wednesday, I'm assuming that the plan is still to "wallpaper" Sacramento wi= th=20 our proposed legislation.
This email does not contain the legislation.
Mike sent the "final" version= s=20 of our legislation out yesterday, except for the siting piece, which I=20 believe Brian Cragg of Mike's office is finalizing today.
You'll note that we promise Senator Brulte in the email that we'll deliver = to=20 his office today the proposed legislation.
Again, based on our call on=20 Wednesday, I'm assuming that we would simultaneously release the proposed= =20 legislation to the rest of the world at the same time.
When we spoke on Wednesday, we decided that the Sacramento team would=20 determine to whom we would circulate the proposed legislation at the same= =20 time that we deliver the Senator Brulte.
I'm assuming that you folks will= =20 handle that end of things.
Please let us know at your convenience to whom= =20 you've decided to circulate.
This email does, however, include a "summary" of our proposed legislation.
= =20 But I'm not certain that the summary included in this email is the=20 appropriate language to distribute "to the world," or if we'll need instead= =20 to tailor some new language.
I think we all agreed that we need a "one=20 pager" to accompany the legislative package so that we can communicate the= =20 package effectively.
We also discussed the need to quickly develop a coalition to support our=20 proposals.
We didn't finalize that plan.
Perhaps the Sacramento team coul= d=20 propose a plan to do that.
Perhaps we could start with our friends in the= =20 Direct Access coalition?
We also talked about the need at this point to engage in PR and to get the = PR=20 machinery activated, also with the goal of effectively communicating our=20 legislative package/message.
We're in a meeting with folks today where we= =20 can discuss getting that side of things going and Karen Denne has contacted= =20 Marathon and they're pondering some things that we can do in the near term.
You'll note that there's a considerable amount of information about the DWR= =20 credit issue.
As I recollect, we discussed the issue in depth on the call.=  =20 You note that attached to the email is a "legislative fix" to AB1X that cou= ld=20 solve the credit issue and an attached set of "taking points" related to a= =20 second alternative to solving the credit issue:  a PUC order clarifying tha= t=20 DWR will get its money for power purchase costs.
Note also that Steve Kean reminded me that we've got to continue to push to= =20 get the utilities out of the merchant function.
Accordingly, I've put a=20 brief paragraph on that issue in the note to Brulte in the last section=20 (legislative solution) under the topic "create a real competitive retail=20 market in California."
To the best of my knowledge, we don't have=20 legislative language on that piece yet, and it seems that we'll need to=20 discuss it in considerably more depth before doing so.

Ken Lay's email to Sen. Brulte
Greetings All: First, I am apologizing in advance for any typos in this email.
Schedule i= s=<NUMBER> very tight, but I wanted to make sure that everyone had it first thing this= =<NUMBER> morning, with some back-up info that I've included below.
Attached is the email that was sent to Ken Lay's office yesterday evening f= or=<NUMBER> delivery to Sen. Brulte.
It's of course confidential.
Few points: I don't have Bev's email, so if you could please forward to her, that would= =<NUMBER> be appreciated.
As we discussed (Jim, Mike, Bev, Scott, Hedy) on our lengthy call on=<NUMBER> Wednesday, I'm assuming that the plan is still to "wallpaper" Sacramento wi= th=<NUMBER> our proposed legislation.
This email does not contain the legislation.
Mike sent the "final" version= s=<NUMBER> of our legislation out yesterday, except for the siting piece, which I=<NUMBER> believe Brian Cragg of Mike's office is finalizing today.
You'll note that we promise Senator Brulte in the email that we'll deliver = to=<NUMBER> his office today the proposed legislation.
Again, based on our call on=<NUMBER> Wednesday, I'm assuming that we would simultaneously release the proposed= =<NUMBER> legislation to the rest of the world at the same time.
When we spoke on Wednesday, we decided that the Sacramento team would=<NUMBER> determine to whom we would circulate the proposed legislation at the same= =<NUMBER> time that we deliver the Senator Brulte.
I'm assuming that you folks will= =<NUMBER> handle that end of things.
Please let us know at your convenience to whom= =<NUMBER> you've decided to circulate.
This email does, however, include a "summary" of our proposed legislation.
= =<NUMBER> But I'm not certain that the summary included in this email is the=<NUMBER> appropriate language to distribute "to the world," or if we'll need instead= =<NUMBER> to tailor some new language.
I think we all agreed that we need a "one=<NUMBER> pager" to accompany the legislative package so that we can communicate the= =<NUMBER> package effectively.
We also discussed the need to quickly develop a coalition to support our=<NUMBER> proposals.
We didn't finalize that plan.
Perhaps the Sacramento team coul= d=<NUMBER> propose a plan to do that.
Perhaps we could start with our friends in the= =<NUMBER> Direct Access coalition?
We also talked about the need at this point to engage in PR and to get the = PR=<NUMBER> machinery activated, also with the goal of effectively communicating our=<NUMBER> legislative package/message.
We're in a meeting with folks today where we= =<NUMBER> can discuss getting that side of things going and Karen Denne has contacted= =<NUMBER> Marathon and they're pondering some things that we can do in the near term.
You'll note that there's a considerable amount of information about the DWR= =<NUMBER> credit issue.
As I recollect, we discussed the issue in depth on the call.= =<NUMBER> You note that attached to the email is a "legislative fix" to AB0X that cou= ld=<NUMBER> solve the credit issue and an attached set of "taking points" related to a= =<NUMBER> second alternative to solving the credit issue: a PUC order clarifying tha= t=<NUMBER> DWR will get its money for power purchase costs.
Note also that Steve Kean reminded me that we've got to continue to push to= =<NUMBER> get the utilities out of the merchant function.
Accordingly, I've put a=<NUMBER> brief paragraph on that issue in the note to Brulte in the last section=<NUMBER> (legislative solution) under the topic "create a real competitive retail=<NUMBER> market in California."
To the best of my knowledge, we don't have=<NUMBER> legislative language on that piece yet, and it seems that we'll need to=<NUMBER> discuss it in considerably more depth before doing so.
tailor start friends does contain legislation apologizing advance typos puc order clarifying simultaneously wallpaper sacramento power purchase costs email schedule number ken lay