For the record, I have read Judge Biren's ruling, and contrary to what people 
might have said in the conference call on Friday, it is silent on the topics 
of the testimony schedule and the presentation of arguments.  The 
three-sentence e-mail from Biren simply requests that the parties attend the 
PHC at which time she will rule on the motion, and states that she might 
issue a further ruling prior to the PHC.  I think it is probably fair to 
expect she may solicit brief comments from representatives of the parties at 
the PHC.




Jeffery Fawcett
04/07/2000 05:28 PM
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Susan 
Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, mbaldwin@igservice.com, 
Tim Aron/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: SoCal GIR settlement telecon

I participated in a teleconference today at 3:00 p.m. with several members of 
the "all-party" settlement group.  The ALJ assigned to the GIR case, Andrea 
Biren, has apparently issued a ruling on SoCal's Motion to Extend the 
deadline for filing the all-party settlement.   Although I personally haven't 
seen the document yet, it was the primary focus of the meeting.

According to accounts from the group, Judge Biren's ruling did not grant 
SoCal's motion for extension.  Rather, she will hear arguments on the motion 
during the Prehearing Conference scheduled for Tuesday, April 11.  Judge 
Biren also asked that parties to the proceeding be prepared to file full 
scale testimony discussing all settlement proposals on file as well as offer 
any addtional comments on the most promising options set forth by the 
Commission.  Unfortunately, she is silent on what date the testimony would be 
due (originally, testimony was due on April 17).  In addition, Judge Biren's 
ruling apparently leaves open the possibility that she could be talked into 
something different during Tuesday's prehearing conference (ie. a different 
procedural schedule, or an amended or streamlined testimony filing protocol).

The telecon group decided to do the following: (1) approach CPUC commissioner 
Bilas on Monday and let him know the status of the all-party settlement and 
ask him to intervene in favor of the extension, (2) go before Judge Biren on 
Tuesday (as a group, and individually, if necessary) and request that in leiu 
of a full scale testimony procedure, would she accept a process whereby, 
similar to what was done in the PG&E settlement, parties file declarations in 
favor of one settlement versus another, and then the Judge 
supervises/conducts a panel discussion on the issues surrounding the 
settlement?  If Judge Biren rejects the idea of a less formal process, one 
which arguably doesn't offer as complete a record in the case (which most on 
the call felt was the likely outcome), then would she agree to a schedule 
whereby she grants the SoCal motion, the all-party settlement is filed on 
April 17, then all parties, including the Norm Pedersen group, would have the 
chance to file testimony (only testimony, not additional declarations) 
indicating support of one settlement over another and the reasons/logic, 
including how the settlements meet the Commisision objectives, on or before 
May 5?

As far as the all-party settlement document is concerned, SoCal will be 
forwarding a preliminary (as yet incomplete) draft for the parties to review, 
but not to comment on.  SoCal intends to circulate another, more complete 
version Monday morning for purposes of soliciting comments/changes.  

As far as Transwestern is concerned, I've spoken independently with the team 
-- Susan, Mark and Jeff Dasovich.  Each of us will review and provide TW 
comments to SoCal regarding the settlement document.  Susan will be 
representing TW at the Prehearing Conference on Tuesday.  Mark Baldwin will 
be there also to support Susan's efforts on Tuesday.  Susan and Jeff (and 
maybe Mark?) will try and hook-up Tuesday morning to compare notes and talk 
about the upcoming Commission PHC.

Steve, between Susan and I, we'll continue to forward documentation and other 
materials regarding this case as well as to provide you with our comments 
and/or any drafts of testimony TW intends to file in this case.