Vernon had understood that issues of costs (other than emissions and
start-up) offsetting refunds claimed to be due as a result of the
application of the MMCP came within Issues II/III and that testimony
from intervenors on these issues would be due along with other Issue
II/III issues on January 25, 2002.  Thus, Vernon did not file testimony
on these issues on November 8.  And, thus, Vernon cannot agree that such
issues are ripe for consideration in the Issue I part of the proceeding.

The below language suggested by Mr. Rosenberg, standing alone, too
ambiguous and vague to Vernon to go into an order setting the procedural
schedule.

Thus, Vernon suggests that the narrative describing the testimony to be
filed on or before January 25 better elaborate on what that testimony is
to address, e.g.:

"Participants' simultaneous responsive testimony on issues  2 and 3,
including APX evidence, [and evidence concerning any  offsetting costs
(other than emission allowances and fuel start-up costs)], and narrative
summaries of  material points, including page and line references
thereto."

Or whatever language makes the point clear.

Channing


Channing D. Strother, Jr.
McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC
2175 K Street, NW
Ste. 600
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-393-5710 x 4045
Fax: 202-393-5721
E-Mail: cstrother@mshpc.com
Pager: 1-800-209-0704




-----Original Message-----
From: EL00-95 List [mailto:EL00-95@listserv.gsa.gov] On Behalf Of Robert
Rosenberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:16 PM
To: EL00-95@LISTSERV.GSA.GOV
Subject: EL00-95, proposed revision to the ISO's Revised Procedural
Schedule


As a follow-up to conversations with the ISO, we propose the addition of
the following language to address our interests:

To the extent that evidence concerning any other additional sources of
cost recovery (other than emission allowances and fuel start-up costs)
is not considered in Phase I, it shall be submitted and considered in
Phase II.

It would fit as an addition or footnote to the December 10, 2001 entry.