i am game if others lead the effort

rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Beach [mailto:tomb@crossborderenergy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:08 PM
To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com; Colin.Cushnie@sce.com
Cc: burkee@cts.com; craigc@calpine.com; Douglas.Porter@sce.com;
INGGM@sce.com; jdasovic@enron.com; MDay@GMSSR.com;
Michael.Alexander@sce.com; Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com;
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com
Subject: Re:


Good idea.  If I may, I propose that it go out on Edison's letterhead.  We
also need to make sure ORA does not quickly give up the ship.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
To: <Colin.Cushnie@sce.com>
Cc: <burkee@cts.com>; <craigc@calpine.com>; <Douglas.Porter@sce.com>;
<INGGM@sce.com>; <jdasovic@enron.com>; <MDay@GMSSR.com>;
<Michael.Alexander@sce.com>; <Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com>;
<rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>; Tom Beach <tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 10:26 AM
Subject: Re:


>
> Folks.  Let me throw out a proposal.  I believe that we should immediately
> draft a very brief letter or press release that explains why the PD is
> misguided and will lead to very bad energy policy for the state, and why
> our settlement is the right one and why it's good energy policy for the
> state.  The letter should be signed by everyone who signed the settlement.
> It needs to be released by the end of this week.  Absent this kind of
> action, nothing's going to turn this thing around.  Spending time and
money
> writing "comments" will be a waste of time and money.  We'll need to do a
> lot more, but I think we have to start this way or fold up our tents now.
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
>
>                     Colin.Cushnie
>                     @sce.com             To:     "Tom Beach"
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
>                                          cc:     burkee@cts.com,
craigc@calpine.com,
>                     11/27/2000           Douglas.Porter@sce.com,
INGGM@sce.com,
>                     08:54 PM             jdasovic@enron.com,
MDay@GMSSR.com,
>                                          Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
>                                          Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com,
>                                          rick.counihan@greenmountain.com
>                                          Subject:     Re:
>
>
>
>
>
> I haven't had the opportunity to read the PD yet, but I share your
> frustration with the Commission's inaction in the face of significant and
> fast moving events.  Our settlement and electric restructuring are clearly
> distinguishable.  Arguably, the status quo has, in part, perpetuated the
> record high prices being observed of late.  The Commission should have
> little to fear by proceeding with its initial direction of statewide
> consistency in the intrastate gas industry.
>
>
>
>
>                     "Tom Beach"
>
>                     <tomb@crossbordere        To:     "Mike Day"
> <MDay@GMSSR.com>,
>                     nergy.com>                <Douglas.Porter@sce.com>,
> <jdasovic@enron.com>,
>
> <rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>,
>                     11/27/2000 03:19          <craigc@calpine.com>,
> <burkee@cts.com>,
>                     PM                        <Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com>,
>
>                     Please respond to         <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
>
>                     "Tom Beach"               cc:     <INGGM@sce.com>,
> <Colin.Cushnie@sce.com>
>                                               Subject:     Re:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If I'm reading pages 38 - 40 of the Bilas PD correctly, the Commission's
> primary concern over the competitive benefits of city-gate pricing is the
> fact that PG&E city-gate prices in October were much higher than border
> prices plus transportation.  October bidweek PG&E city-gate prices were
> high, but only because southern California prices plummeted from the high
> levels that they had reached in late August and September, following the
El
> Paso explosion.  In November, the PG&E city-gate moved back into its
normal
> relationship with Topock and Malin prices.  For the Commission to be
> spooked
> by one month of price fluctuations is crazy.
>
> I'm hopeful that my friends at Edison, in particular, can help the
> Commission to distinguish what we were trying to achieve in the CS on the
> gas side from the mess that is electric restructuring....
>
> Tom Beach
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
> 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>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:27 PM
>
>
> > 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)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>