fyi

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Neustaedter, Robert  
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:25 AM
To: Tribolet, Michael
Subject: RE: Schedules

Michael

The numbers for total sales load that are being used in your tables for PGE 
and SCE are very much in line with the numbers used in the rate design 
hearing, differing by less than 1 GWh that all parties used for testimony 
purposes.  Consequently,  I feel pretty comfortable with those numbers.  I 
don't have a similar comparison for SDGE, but based on other sources, their 
sales load numbers also look in line.

Robert






	Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate 05/12/2001 11:27 AM 	   To: Robert 
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT  cc:   Subject: RE: Schedules


Did the working schedules yield any more info?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Neustaedter, Robert  
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:23 PM
To: Tribolet, Michael
Cc: Brown, Kortney; Jeffrey Soo/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject: Schedules

Just an update.

I'm still looking at the rate schedule descriptors, but for the most part 
they look correct, except for some minor corrections that need to be made.  
As far as the schedule not footing, I cannot give you a good answer on that.  
Obviously some of the differences are rounding errors, but those are minor.  
I've checked with Harry and one of the attorneys in the case to see if there 
had been any errata notices with regard to the schedule but they were not 
aware of any.  The other thing I will do, is look at one of the "working" 
schedules filed in the rate design hearing and make a comparison.