Sue -

Where do we stand on proposing a broader solution to the problems in this 
case?  I am worried that the only leverage we have right now (utility 
undercollection) is going to be taken up on its own and we will still have 
the other issues (e.g., price cap reductions, rate cap problems, hydro, etc.) 
to fight.

Jim





	Susan J Mara@EES
	10/11/2000 06:57 PM
		 
		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES
		 cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
		 Subject: Edison and PG&E Emergency Motions - - - ALJ Ruling Just Issued


---------------------- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/SFO/EES on 10/11/2000 04:56 
PM ---------------------------


"Daniel Douglass" <douglass@ArterHadden.com> on 10/11/2000 05:31:35 PM
To: <peter.bray@att.net>, <JBarthrop@electric.com>, <MNelson@electric.com>, 
<RSchlanert@electric.com>, <mpetroch@enron.com>, <susan_j_mara@enron.com>, 
<athomas@newenergy.com>, <bchen@newenergy.com>, <kmagruder@newpower.com>, 
<Jeff.Hanson@phaser.com>, <AWeller@sel.com>, <anchau@shellus.com>, 
<ben.reyes@utility.com>
cc:  
Subject: Edison and PG&E Emergency Motions - - - ALJ Ruling Just Issued



Last week you were sent an email which discussed the October 4 emergency  
motions of Edison and PG&E to modify the end of rate freeze decisions.?  On 
October 5, Edison filed an ex parte request for the immediate suspension of  
the effective date of portions of D.99-10-057 and D.00-03-058.??On  October 
6, PG&E filed its support of Edison,s request for immediate  suspension of 
the effective dates of the decisions. The motions were filed  because of the 
significant undercollections which are being accumulated in their  purchased 
power accounts.
?
A ruling has just been issued by ALJ Minkin which directs parties to file  
responses to Edison,s and PG&E,s ex parte requests for immediate suspension  
of certain portions of D.99-10-057 and D.00-03-058.? The judge says, "In  
effect, Edison and PG&E have moved for a stay of certain aspects of these  
decisions.? Consistent with Rule 45(f), responses to motions must be filed  
and served within 15 days of the date that the motion was served, unless the  
administrative law judge sets a different date.? Therefore, responses to  
Edison,s and PG&E,s requests must be filed and served by October 20,  2000."
?
She also notes that the utilities' financial information must be provided  by 
October 17 and provides that, "Parties have the opportunity to comment on 
the  financial information provided by the utilities and the emergency 
petitions  (including the amended petitions) by October 30."
?
This suggests that the filing due on the 20th could be primarily  procedural, 
dealing with the propriety of the Commission issuing a stay of  previously 
approved decisions.? The filing on the 30th would then deal with  the 
substance of the emergency requests, as well as making any comments on the  
financial data provided by the utilities.? This would provide more time to  
review the financial data and work out the details of any "counter proposal"  
which ARM might want to make.? However, we could also deal with substantive  
issues in the 10/20 filing.? We should discuss this soon and determine what  
course ARM would like to pursue.
?
A copy of the ruling is attached for your information.
?
Dan
 - ALJ Ruling 0f 10-11-00.doc