Message-ID: <28581781.1075846658257.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 1979 16:00:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com
Subject: Southwest Gas proceeding
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Jeffery Fawcett
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

You have asked me to outline the argument that would be used in requesting a 
motion to expedite the Commission's decision in this proceeding.  The motion 
would be filed pursuant to Rule 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, which simply allows parties to file motions.  Sempra is not yet a 
party, so it would have to include in its pleading a motion to intervene out 
of time.  The Commission may grant late interventions pursuant to Rule 214 if 
the movant has good cause for failing to file the motion on time, permitting 
the intervention will cause no significant disruption of the proceeding, the 
movant's interest is not adequately represented by other parties in the 
proceeding, and no prejudice to other parties would result from granting late 
intervenor status.  Additionally, like other intervenors, Sempra must also 
explain its interest in the proceeding, including why it has a right to 
participate, why it could be directly affected by the outcome of the 
proceeding, and that its participation in the proceeding would be in the 
public interest.  (We've seen numerous interventions by Sempra and they have 
some standard language they use in their interventions to describe the 
company and request intervenor status).   

The basis for requesting expedited status of the SWGas application would be 
that Sempra's Gallup Expansion transport agreement includes a provision