Message-ID: <11248278.1075846705171.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com To: susan.scott@enron.com Subject: Re: SoCal GIR settlement telecon Cc: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com, steven.harris@enron.com, kevin.hyatt@enron.com, mbaldwin@igservice.com, tim.aron@enron.com, julia.white@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com, steven.harris@enron.com, kevin.hyatt@enron.com, mbaldwin@igservice.com, tim.aron@enron.com, julia.white@enron.com X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: Susan Scott X-cc: Jeffery Fawcett, Steven Harris, Kevin Hyatt, mbaldwin@igservice.com@ENRON, Tim Aron, Julia White X-bcc: X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Gir X-Origin: SCOTT-S X-FileName: sscott3.nsf Agreed. I think the key thing to counter Mr. Pederson on Tuesday is to have folks stand up and clearly support the settlement. Incidentally, I understand that Dynegy will be very helpful in this regard. Susan Scott@ENRON 04/08/2000 09:35 AM To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, mbaldwin@igservice.com, Tim Aron/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: SoCal GIR settlement telecon For the record, I have read Judge Biren's ruling, and contrary to what people might have said in the conference call on Friday, it is silent on the topics of the testimony schedule and the presentation of arguments. The three-sentence e-mail from Biren simply requests that the parties attend the PHC at which time she will rule on the motion, and states that she might issue a further ruling prior to the PHC. I think it is probably fair to expect she may solicit brief comments from representatives of the parties at the PHC. Jeffery Fawcett 04/07/2000 05:28 PM To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, mbaldwin@igservice.com, Tim Aron/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: SoCal GIR settlement telecon I participated in a teleconference today at 3:00 p.m. with several members of the "all-party" settlement group. The ALJ assigned to the GIR case, Andrea Biren, has apparently issued a ruling on SoCal's Motion to Extend the deadline for filing the all-party settlement. Although I personally haven't seen the document yet, it was the primary focus of the meeting. According to accounts from the group, Judge Biren's ruling did not grant SoCal's motion for extension. Rather, she will hear arguments on the motion during the Prehearing Conference scheduled for Tuesday, April 11. Judge Biren also asked that parties to the proceeding be prepared to file full scale testimony discussing all settlement proposals on file as well as offer any addtional comments on the most promising options set forth by the Commission. Unfortunately, she is silent on what date the testimony would be due (originally, testimony was due on April 17). In addition, Judge Biren's ruling apparently leaves open the possibility that she could be talked into something different during Tuesday's prehearing conference (ie. a different procedural schedule, or an amended or streamlined testimony filing protocol). The telecon group decided to do the following: (1) approach CPUC commissioner Bilas on Monday and let him know the status of the all-party settlement and ask him to intervene in favor of the extension, (2) go before Judge Biren on Tuesday (as a group, and individually, if necessary) and request that in leiu of a full scale testimony procedure, would she accept a process whereby, similar to what was done in the PG&E settlement, parties file declarations in favor of one settlement versus another, and then the Judge supervises/conducts a panel discussion on the issues surrounding the settlement? If Judge Biren rejects the idea of a less formal process, one which arguably doesn't offer as complete a record in the case (which most on the call felt was the likely outcome), then would she agree to a schedule whereby she grants the SoCal motion, the all-party settlement is filed on April 17, then all parties, including the Norm Pedersen group, would have the chance to file testimony (only testimony, not additional declarations) indicating support of one settlement over another and the reasons/logic, including how the settlements meet the Commisision objectives, on or before May 5? As far as the all-party settlement document is concerned, SoCal will be forwarding a preliminary (as yet incomplete) draft for the parties to review, but not to comment on. SoCal intends to circulate another, more complete version Monday morning for purposes of soliciting comments/changes. As far as Transwestern is concerned, I've spoken independently with the team -- Susan, Mark and Jeff Dasovich. Each of us will review and provide TW comments to SoCal regarding the settlement document. Susan will be representing TW at the Prehearing Conference on Tuesday. Mark Baldwin will be there also to support Susan's efforts on Tuesday. Susan and Jeff (and maybe Mark?) will try and hook-up Tuesday morning to compare notes and talk about the upcoming Commission PHC. Steve, between Susan and I, we'll continue to forward documentation and other materials regarding this case as well as to provide you with our comments and/or any drafts of testimony TW intends to file in this case.