i'll give you a call.  i'm in new york today.

best,
jeff



	Harry Kingerski
	01/29/2001 08:23 AM
		
		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Rate Surcharge Proceedings Move Forward

Jeff - we'll have to make it a priority today to come to a conclusion on the 
scope of our testimony.  Let me know your schedule.  thanks.



	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	01/28/2001 09:01 PM
		 
		 To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Gordon 
Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki 
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Donald M- ECT Origination 
Black/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, 
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Rate Surcharge Proceedings Move Forward


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/28/2001 08:59 PM -----

	"Daniel Douglass" <Douglass@ArterHadden.com>
	01/28/2001 01:23 PM
		 
		 To: <Barbara_Klemstine@apsc.com>, <berry@apx.com>, <dcazalet@apx.com>, 
<billr@calpine.com>, <jackp@calpine.com>, <glwaas@calpx.com>, 
<Ken_Czarnecki@calpx.com>, <gavaughn@duke-energy.com>, 
<rjhickok@duke-energy.com>, <gtbl@dynegy.com>, <jmpa@dynegy.com>, 
<jdasovic@enron.com>, <susan_j_mara@enron.com>, <Tamara_Johnson@enron.com>, 
<curt.Hatton@gen.pge.com>, <foothill@lmi.net>, <camiessn@newwestenergy.com>, 
<jcgardin@newwestenergy.com>, <jsmollon@newwestenergy.com>, 
<rsnichol@newwestenergy.com>, <Curtis_L_Kebler@reliantenergy.com>, 
<rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Rate Surcharge Proceedings Move Forward



On Friday, the Commission issued the attached Assigned Commissioner's  Ruling 
in the rate surcharge proceedings which does the following:
?
1.? It identifies the issues for Phase 1 as being:
?
(a) Reviewing the independent audit results of PG&E and SCE, ordered in  
D.00-12-067 and, as part of that analysis, determining whether or not there 
is a  financial necessity for other or additional relief for the utilities.?  
Included here is a recognition that the utilities may make other interim  
proposals and this would be included within the scope of the first phase;  and
?
(b) TURN,s accounting proposal for the proper reconciliation of the  
Transition Revenue Account (TRA) and Transition Cost Balancing Account 
(TCBA)  accounts and the Generation Memorandum Accounts (GMA).
?
2.? The retention of utility generating assets and the interim  ratemaking 
treatment for these assets is being separately handled and hearings  will not 
occur on this issue in Phase 1.? Parties may file testimony on  interim 
valuation in addressing whether the rate freeze has ended on a  prospective 
basis.

3.?? The Commission will consider whether the rate freeze has  ended only on 
a prospective basis in Phase I.

4.?? The Commission will address the reasonable and prudent  cost issue in a 
later phase of this proceeding.

5.?? The  Commission will also consider parties, proposals for tiered rates 
similar to  those discussed by Senator Bowen in the December public hearings.
?
6.?? PG&E and?Edison are required to?notify the  Commission and all parties 
by January 30, 2001 of the specific portions of their  testimony that are 
within the scope of this phase.
7. The hearing schedule adopted is:? 

February 5,  2001?????????????  Intervenor testimony served
February 9,  2001?????????????  Rebuttal testimony served
February 15 )21, 2001?????  Hearings
February 23,  2001??????????? Closing  Argument
February 27,  2001??????????? Briefs,  not to exceed 15 pages
March 23,  2001????????????????Proposed  Decision
March 26,  2001????????????????Final  Oral Argument
March 27,  2001????????????????Anticipated  Final Commission Decision
?
Please let me know if anyone feels WPTF should be involved in this phase of  
the proceeding.
?
Dan

?
 - CPUC01-#88123-v1-A0011038_ET_AL_Lynch_Walwyn_Ruling__.doc