Sounds OK to me.  Thanks.  DF


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           04/03/2000 02:48 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: SoCal motion

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 04/03/2000 
02:47 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           04/03/2000 02:48 PM
	

To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, 
mbaldwin@igservice.com
cc:  

Subject: SoCal motion

See the attached.  Enron Corp. has already authorized Brian Cherry to add 
Enron to the list of parties at the end of the document.  I recommend TW do 
the same.  I propose that we ask Brian to add TW to the list, with a footnote 
that we support the transmission proposal only and do not oppose the other 
parts of the term sheet.  (I propose this out of an abundance of caution 
because in one part of the document Brian states the parties have agreed on 
comprehensive settlement, but later in the document he states that the 
parties aren't fully committed yet.)  If he will not agree to do this, then I 
would suggest we leave TW off the list and file a letter with the CPUC along 
the lines of what I circulated yesterday, with additional language supporting 
the motion for extension of time.  Let me know what you think.