I couldn't find Mark on the directory - would someone please forward this to
him?  Here is the message from Steve O.


-----Original Message----- 
Date:  07/08/2000  01:53 pm  (Saturday)  
From:  "Oldham, Steve" <soldham@sierrapacific.com>
To:  "'Jonathan Ater'" <Jaa@aterwynne.com>, "Elliot, Beth" 
     <BElliot@sppc.com>, "Ponn, Doug" <dponn@sierrapacific.com>, 
     "Ruelle, Mark" <mruelle@sierrapacific.com>, "Oldham, Steve" 
     <soldham@sierrapacific.com>, "Peterson, William" 
     <wpeterson@sierrapacific.com>
CC:  "'pamela_lesh@pgn.com'" <pamela_lesh@pgn.com>
Subject:  RE: Important -  Further Information

Jonathan, I have spoken with Mitch Taylor and Pamela this morning after
talking to you.  While both calls were cut short, after I talked to Mitch he
was encouraging us to go with our original sur-rebuttle and not with the
revised Ruelle testimony.  At the same time Pamela was worried that we
needed to stick with the original sur-rebuttle and to incorporate the
changes that she felt were important to make.  My concern all along is that
we correctly inform the OPUC as to the facts in Nevada while at the same
time getting this transaction closed.  It seems to me that the common wisdom
of those closest to the OPUC and the OPUC staff is to file the sur-rebuttle
that outlines our plans for the PGE acquistion and rate plan, responds to
staffs concerns raised in their rebuttle and to do so on Monday.  Pamela
suggested that we could inform all of the parties, which includes the OPUC
of the events that are likely to be disclosed on Monday via letter.   During
our conversation it was clear that Mitch had concerns about using the
rebuttle testimony as the way to convey our current status in Nevada to the
parties in Oregon.  I would like to suggest that we follow the advice that
we are getting from PGE and Enron on this as they are closest to the OPUC
staff and others in Oregon.  We will need to add a couple of paragraphs to
Mark's testimony that will make what he testifys to in District Court on
Monday consistant with the sur-rebuttle in Oregon.  We will go back to my
original sur-rebuttle as improved by PGE, Enron, yourself and Beth for
filing on Monday.  Coupled with the responses we make to the OPUC staff next
week on the recent data requests we can make sure that we have informed all
parties of the critical facts in Nevada.  This all makes sense to me as we
will know more on Monday after the District Court hearing in Nevada, we will
have made our press release and energy filing in Nevada and all parties will
then be informed as to the nature of whats going on.  I am still hopeful
that we will have resolution to the situation in Nevada in a timly manner
but I cannot be sure of it.  Thanks for the hard work this weekend on the
tough issues and for your advice in how best to get the deal with PGE closed
soon.   steve oldham  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Ater [mailto:Jaa@aterwynne.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 1:02 PM
To: belliot@sppc.com; dponn@sppc.com; mruelle@sppc.com;
soldham@sppc.com; wpeterson@sppc.com
Subject: Important - Further Information


I have just learned informally from Mike Morgan that Enron is likely to take
the position that the 10AM version of Ruelle is not a best efforts
presentation.

To that end, please consider seriously the additions I have proposed in the
draft circulated about 12:45 today.

Also, please consider that with little additional effort (since the material
is already written), we could include almost everything we have drafted but
for the revised rate proposal.

It seems to me that there are two reasons for submitting as much as we can:
first, it helps play defense with Enron.   Second, it helps communicate with
the staff and the commission, and thus positions us for a positive outcome
in due course.