Hi Jeff:

Hope you survived Halloween up there - what a great scene!!

For some reason, I didn't get your original memo from last Thursday (11/9),
so I didn't get the attachment (Mike's proposal).  Could you forward that to
me please.  Thanks.

I hope we can get the same results with PG&E. That coalition was awesome
with SoCal.  Hopefully, I can get WHP as involved again.  They've been low
key lately as they're gearing up Lodi.

John

BETA Consulting
Burkee@cts.com
(760) 723-1831 Voice
(760) 723-1891 FAX
----- Original Message -----
From: Amirault, Paul <PaulAmirault@aec.ca>
To: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>; <craigc@calpine.com>;
<counihan@greenmountain.com>; Davies, Phil <PhilDavies@aec.ca>;
<jfawcett@enron.com>; <rochmanm@spurr-remac.org>; <dcarroll@dbsr.com>;
Amirault, Paul <PaulAmirault@aec.ca>; <ALEXANMS@sce.com>;
<Mark.C.Moench@wgp.twc.com>; <tomb@crossborderenergy.com>; <burkee@cts.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: RE:


> I like the idea in concept, but unsure of two things:
> 1.  What the right time is to get involved as a group?  Serious settlement
> discussion has not started yet, and won't before PG&E lays out its first
> proposal (expected in December).
> 2.  What common 'banner' we would join up under?  With SoCal, the cause
was
> clearly real unbundling.  For Gas Accord II, I don't think a common
'cause'
> is as obvious.
>
> Paul Amirault
> V.P. Marketing                         PaulAmirault@aec.ca
> Wild Goose Storage Inc.             (403) 266-8298
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:02 AM
> To: craigc@calpine.com; counihan@greenmountain.com; PhilDavies@aec.ca;
> jfawcett@enron.com; rochmanm@spurr-remac.org; dcarroll@dbsr.com;
> PaulAmirault@aec.ca; ALEXANMS@sce.com; Mark.C.Moench@wgp.twc.com;
> tomb@crossborderenergy.com; burkee@cts.com
> Subject:
>
>
> Greetings Folks:
>
> As you know, the Gas Accord is coming to an end and PG&E's trying to
figure
> out where to go from here.  I would argue that what happens with PG&E is
> equally, if not more, important as what happens with SoCal.
>
> As you also know, we're faced with a retrograde PUC that, by all accounts,
> longs for the "halcyon days" of command-and-control regulation.  As such,
I
> think it would be very useful, and cost-effective, to pull together the
> effective coalition we established in the SoCalGas settlement.
>
> In that coalition, some of us contributed dollars and some contributed
> experts.  I think we should employ that approach again.  I asked Mike Day,
> who I think most agree, did a pretty good job of representing us in the
> SoCal settlement, to make a proposal for representing us in the PG&E case.
> Mike's proposal is attached.  Finally, if there's anyone else you think we
> ought to include in our coalition, please let me know.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Hope all is well with you and yours.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff:
>
>            Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition
of
> end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord
> II
> proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties
in
> the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements.  We would
propose
> to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
> the parties who agree to join such a coalition.  In exchange for joining
> the
> coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
> settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
> reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on
the
> GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
> any other useful information.
>
>            I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
> proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
> other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings,
etc.
> However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
> Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
> partner on the case.  I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD
> attorneys
> who would likely have some involvement in the case.  Because the majority
> of
> this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
> fees.  However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
> and because several potential members of the coalition are past or
existing
> clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for
all
> participants in the coalition.  With this discount, these would be the
> lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
>
>            I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
> proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
> proceedings will be.  Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
> collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation
in
> the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
> budgetary estimates.  If you require some type of estimation sooner than
> that, please let me know.
>
>            Thank you for your interest in using our services.  Please
> contact
> me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
>
> Mike Day, partner
> Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
>
>
>
> GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
>
> Michael Day                                   $300
>
> James McTarnaghan                              $260
>
> Jeanne Bennett                            $220
>
> Alexandra Ozols                                $130
>
> Heather Patrick, paralegal                     $ 85
>
>