Subject: RE: Message from Gisele Rankin
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT)

I don't see a problem with it.

"Fine, Jonathan" <[email-masked]> on 07/25/2000 04:07:30 PM
To: "'Mann Kay'" <[email-masked]>, "'Mellencamp Lisa'" 
<[email-masked]>
cc: "Duncan, Allyson" <[email-masked]> 

Subject: RE: Message from Gisele Rankin

Kay and Lisa:

   We should probably let Gisele Rankin know by tomorrow morning
whether we agree with the proposal to revise the procedural scheduling order
to include a provision which will require final substantive orders to be
presented to the Commission by October 10.

   What are your thoughts?  Neither Allyson nor I can think of a
downside to agreement, and in fact we feel that it would be in our best
interest to agree to the October 10 date.

   Please advise.  Thank you.

Jonathan M. Fine
Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
3737 Glenwood Ave., Ste. 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
TEL: (919) 420-1700
FAX: (919) 420-1800
http://www.kilstock.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan, Allyson 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:31 PM
To: 'Mann Kay'; 'Keenan Jeffrey'; 'Chapman Tom'
Cc: 'Mellencamp Lisa'; 'Kroll Heather'; Fine, Jonathan
Subject: Message from Gisele Rankin

Attached is an e:mail from Gisele Rankin regarding the procedural schedule I
described in my e:mail this morning.  I will fax it on to you immediately
upon receipt.  As I explained earlier, it will help expedite matters
considerably if we get the agenda before the Commission on July 31.  I had
planned to take care of the publication of notice.  Please let me know if
that is not allright.  I will follow up with you today after you receive the
proposed order, but would strongly  recommend agreeing to a proposed order
due date of October 10 as that represents the best chance of getting timely
approval.  If there are no (or limited) interventions, compliance with the
October 10 date should not be difficult.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gisele Rankin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 12:58 PM
To: Allyson Duncan
Subject: Enron

I have just faxed you an agenda item, proposed order and public notice
for Enron's application for a certificate.  This has to be finalized by
early tomorrow morning.  In the memo attached to the fax, I offered to
put a proposed order due date (of October 10th) in the proposed
procedural order to expedite getting an order by November 1st.  That is
much more doable than moving the hearing into September.  Please let me
know as soon as possible if Enron can live with this.

(Please remind Enron that it has to publish notice once a week for four
weeks pursuant to G.S. 62-82 (it isn't discretionary) and then we have
to have time for complaints (ten days pursuant to the statute - although
we're going ahead and setting this for hearing), time for interventions,
and time for prefiled testimony.  Late September is pretty much as early
as a hearing could be held even if we didn't need time to investigate NC
Power's bidding process (and the last week of September is booked
already according to Sami Salib)..