Message-ID: <16721426.1075852477709.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT) From: cmfoley@skadden.com To: linda.robertson@enron.com Subject: Stipulation on Ripple Claims Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: "Cheryl Foley" @ENRON X-To: acomnes@enron.com, Steffes, James D. , Robertson, Linda , rfrank@enron.com, smara@enron.com, snovose@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\California Issues\PNW Refunds X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst There seems to be a fundamental issue which must be clarified among the TFG= if we are to keep this proceeding manageable, and I'm afraid that the draf= t which has been circulated is heading in the wrong direction. Portland Ge= neral was of the opinion that ripple claims were to be deferred to a later = date and not to be considered by the Judge at all in this phase of the proc= eeding. Given the issues in this case regarding unlawful retroactivity, di= fferences between the California and PNW market structure, and an unduly sh= ort timeframe in which to hold a hearing, there is no reason to start getti= ng into the counter claim/cross claim morass unless and until the Judge and= /or the Commission rules that refunds are required as a matter of law. In = that event, each member of the TFG (and for that matter, every party to the= proceeding) has to have fully reserved its rights to file counter and cros= s-claims in order to seek compensation from any other party for liability w= hich may have been ordered to the parties filing affirmative cases. This approach does not mean that a party cannot defend itself in this phase= against another party who makes an affirmative claim against it in the ini= tial round of testimony . Such party should be able to defend against not = only the specific price, volume, etc. of the claim, but also should be able= to respond with a counter-claim against the party initially claiming the r= efund in order to ascertain the net refund, if any, due the proponent. Cro= ss-claims can be deferred and are not necessary at this point. Limiting the first phase in this manner should allow a record to be develop= ed as to the net amount of refunds potentially due to those filing an affir= mative case, but need not, at this point, develop cross-claims or start up = the next "ripple." Avoiding ripple claims to the greatest extent possible in the first phase o= f this proceeding would also answer the question of whether the parties cou= ld try to expand the bases for refunds, since the Judge (and/or Commission)= would have already made rulings as to the definition of "spot market" and = other parameters of a refund calculation. We should be taking positions on= all of these market structure issues in the testimony and filings we make = now, and the resulting decisions will guide further phases. This was Portland General's understanding of what the ripple stipulation wa= s intended to reflect. PGE does not support an approach which would greatl= y expand this phase of the proceeding to incorporate filings on ripple clai= ms at the end of this month, and I'm not entirely sure that the current dra= ft was intended to do that. However, that is my reading of its effect. Ar= e others in agreement with the general approach outlined in this email or d= o we need to schedule a quick conference call to discuss/confirm the princ= iples and details of how we go forward?