I spoke with WHP management yesterday and we are still supporting the
Comprehensive Settlement - of course.  We have not reserved any time on
Tuesday to speak, though.  There is a possibility that could change at the
last minute, but as some of you might know, WHP is currently negotiating the
sale of its California assets.  Things are in limbo to say the least.  It
would be a short, terse message from WHP, if any.

I think Mike's suggestion that some of the details have another look should
focus towards the Interim Settlement, or more specifically the PD
provisions, as opposed to anything in the CS.  Even though we can all
express our support of the CS, it is not being voted on, and there is no
alternate decision that would even allow that for now.  But as Mike
suggests, maybe the Commission can be persuaded that the status quo needs to
change in light of today's environment; which means the PD has to be
changed.

John Burkholder

----- Original Message -----
From: <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
To: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
Cc: <burkee@cts.com>; <jdasovic@enron.com>; <MDay@GMSSR.com>;
<paulAmirault@aec.ca>; <rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>; Tom Beach
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Commission OII Hearings


>
> I have just asked the CPUC for time to speak on Edison's behalf.  I am
> still drafting our response (just got permission/instructions from my
> management) We intend to support the settlement, but suggest that, in
light
> of the delays which have occurred in implementation, and the drastic
> changes which have occurred in California's energy markets, and the
> infrastructure proceeding that is on-going, in particular, how much
> additional take-away capacity is required to support the proposed
> interstate pipeline expansions, it may be appropriate to renegotiate some
> of the details of the settlement and/or for the Commission to take
> additional testimony/evidence.
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>
>
>
>
>                     Jeff.Dasovich
>                     @enron.com           To:     Tom Beach
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
>                                          cc:     burkee@cts.com,
jdasovic@enron.com,
>                     05/15/2001           MDay@GMSSR.com,
Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
>                     08:51 AM             paulAmirault@aec.ca,
>                                          rick.counihan@greenmountain.com
>                                          Subject:     Re: Commission OII
Hearings
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enron will very vigorously support the CS and I would hope that we could
> get as many people as possible to do the same.  Let's face it,
California's
> gas industry is a mess for the same reasons the electricity industry is a
> mess (despite, and perhaps contrary to, the substantially more narrow
> reasoning offered by the Brattle Group).  The CS is a well-thought-out,
> well-designed program for moving forward; unlike the "interim," which
takes
> two steps back.  Can we split up the names of all the people who signed on
> and call them and try to get them to show up in support?
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
>
>                     Tom Beach
>
>                     <tomb@crossbordere        To:
> Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
>                     nergy.com>                MDay@GMSSR.com,
> burkee@cts.com,
>                                               jdasovic@enron.com,
>
>                     05/14/2001 11:37
> rick.counihan@greenmountain.com,
>                     PM                        paulAmirault@aec.ca
>
>                                               cc:
>
>                                               Subject:     Re: Commission
> OII Hearings
>
>
>
>
> Watson has asked for time to speak.  I'm planning to continue to support
> the
> CS.  It brings some greater stability and certainty to SoCalGas' noncore
> rates.  The allocation of backbone capacity might improve shippers'
> certainty of being able to move gas through Topock and Wheeler Ridge.  In
> the short term, it's hard to say how much that might help prices, but I
> doubt that it would make them worse.  In the longer term, if new
generation
> on the PG&E and Kern / Mojave systems, plus the North Baja and Questar
> lines, actually reduce SoCalGas' throughput, then a SoCalGas city-gate
> market might be pretty competitive.  Finally, the CS removes SoCalGas'
> favorite argument in favor of the peaking rate.
>
> So what are Edison and Enron going to do?
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
> To: <MDay@GMSSR.com>; <burkee@cts.com>; <jdasovic@enron.com>;
> <rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>; <paulAmirault@aec.ca>;
> <tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:26 PM
> Subject: Commission OII Hearings
>
>
> > I was just wondering what any of you guys are thinking about doing at
the
> > Gas OII meeting next Tuesday.  Are any of you planning on making a
> > presentation?  If so, do you intend to support the settlement as filed,
> or
> > are there modifications you think are appropriate given the way SoCalGas
> > has handled its system in the past few months?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > P.S.  FYI, I am out of town, so I am not available by phone until
Monday.
> >
> > --
> > Michael S. Alexander
> > Southern California Edison
> > Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
> > 626-302-2029
> > 626-302-3254 (fax)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>