Message-ID: <7785682.1075846738287.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Subject: Re: I.99-07-003: Post-Interim Settlement Agreement
Cc: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Jeff Dasovich
X-cc: Jeffery Fawcett
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

Not at all!  Fawcett's the antsy one; he is anxious to use his new honorary 
law degree (ahem!).
I agree it would be risky to indicate our wholehearted support of a 
settlement when the agreement has yet to be written.  It would be like giving 
SoCal a signed blank check (that's carte blancheto us lawyers), and we don't 
trust them that much.
Once we've signed a real agreement, I do want to file something in support.  
I'm just trying to plan ahead, is all.





Jeff Dasovich @ EES on 04/04/2000 04:32:07 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: I.99-07-003: Post-Interim Settlement Agreement  

OK, you folks are getting antsy out there.  I haven't yet begun to think 
about a declaration.  And don't plan on thinking about one until 1) the 
Commission has approved the motion, and 2) Socalgas shows during the first 
week or so that it intends to faithfully put into details what it has agreed 
to in principal.  Also, if the motion is approved, the hearing likely won't 
happen on the 11th (one would hope).

Am I missing something?  Are you folks concerned about something that I'm 
missing?