For your information.  The outcome was great for TW because the Cal. PUC 
adopted our receipt point proposal, eliminating the danger of mandated 
restriction of TW's deliveries to the California border.  The outcome is not 
so great for Enron overall because they rejected our proposed settlement.  
The receipt point proposal was able to survive since it was part of both of 
the competing settlements.  
I'm still trying to get thru the whole order; let me know if you have 
questions.
S.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 11/27/2000 
09:20 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/22/2000 06:28 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Bad Proposed Decision

Well, this shows the direction in which the "new" Commission is heading.  The 
very good news, though, is that  TW's proposal was included in both 
settlements (now that's hedging!).  Thus,  the benefits to TW were preserved 
under both proposals.  Congratulations.  That's fantastic--hard work that 
paid off.

We will of course express out extreme dissappointment with the PD, and point 
out that this decision condemns California to a 20th century infrastructure, 
when the state's 21st century economy demands much, much better.  

We should discuss.  Since the PD empowers the likes of Norm and Florio, it 
will be important to play very close attention to implementation of Hector.

Sorry to have to be the one to deliver the news.   But we have a knack of 
making lemonade out of lemons and we'll do out best to do the same here, 
whatever turns up at the end.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/22/2000 05:53 PM -----

	Michael.Alexander@sce.com
	11/22/2000 05:27 PM
		 
		 To: Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com, tomb@crossborderenergy.com, burkee@cts.com, 
craigc@calpine.com, rick.counihan@greenmountain.com, jdasovic@enron.com, 
MDay@GMSSR.com, Douglas.Porter@sce.com
		 cc: Colin.Cushnie@sce.com, INGGM@sce.com
		 Subject: 


The PD in the Gas Restructuring is out.   I have yet to read the whole
thing, but the title "Approval With Modifications Of The Interim
Settlement..." does not bode well.  According to Steve Watson (and I only
have Steve's statement second hand), the decision reflects a fear that the
timing is wrong in light of the current volatile gas price market.

(See attached file: Proposed.doc)

--
Michael S. Alexander
Southern California Edison
626-302-2029
626-302-3254 (fax)

 - Proposed.doc