I have just asked the CPUC for time to speak on Edison's behalf.  I am
still drafting our response (just got permission/instructions from my
management) We intend to support the settlement, but suggest that, in light
of the delays which have occurred in implementation, and the drastic
changes which have occurred in California's energy markets, and the
infrastructure proceeding that is on-going, in particular, how much
additional take-away capacity is required to support the proposed
interstate pipeline expansions, it may be appropriate to renegotiate some
of the details of the settlement and/or for the Commission to take
additional testimony/evidence.

--
Michael S. Alexander
Southern California Edison
Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
626-302-2029
626-302-3254 (fax)




Jeff.Dasovich
@enron.com           To:     Tom Beach <tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
cc:     burkee@cts.com, jdasovic@enron.com,
05/15/2001           MDay@GMSSR.com, Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
08:51 AM             paulAmirault@aec.ca,
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com
Subject:     Re: Commission OII Hearings






Enron will very vigorously support the CS and I would hope that we could
get as many people as possible to do the same.  Let's face it, California's
gas industry is a mess for the same reasons the electricity industry is a
mess (despite, and perhaps contrary to, the substantially more narrow
reasoning offered by the Brattle Group).  The CS is a well-thought-out,
well-designed program for moving forward; unlike the "interim," which takes
two steps back.  Can we split up the names of all the people who signed on
and call them and try to get them to show up in support?

Best,
Jeff



Tom Beach

<tomb@crossbordere        To:
Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
nergy.com>                MDay@GMSSR.com,
burkee@cts.com,
jdasovic@enron.com,

05/14/2001 11:37
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com,
PM                        paulAmirault@aec.ca

cc:

Subject:     Re: Commission
OII Hearings




Watson has asked for time to speak.  I'm planning to continue to support
the
CS.  It brings some greater stability and certainty to SoCalGas' noncore
rates.  The allocation of backbone capacity might improve shippers'
certainty of being able to move gas through Topock and Wheeler Ridge.  In
the short term, it's hard to say how much that might help prices, but I
doubt that it would make them worse.  In the longer term, if new generation
on the PG&E and Kern / Mojave systems, plus the North Baja and Questar
lines, actually reduce SoCalGas' throughput, then a SoCalGas city-gate
market might be pretty competitive.  Finally, the CS removes SoCalGas'
favorite argument in favor of the peaking rate.

So what are Edison and Enron going to do?

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
To: <MDay@GMSSR.com>; <burkee@cts.com>; <jdasovic@enron.com>;
<rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>; <paulAmirault@aec.ca>;
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:26 PM
Subject: Commission OII Hearings


> I was just wondering what any of you guys are thinking about doing at the
> Gas OII meeting next Tuesday.  Are any of you planning on making a
> presentation?  If so, do you intend to support the settlement as filed,
or
> are there modifications you think are appropriate given the way SoCalGas
> has handled its system in the past few months?
>
> Michael
>
> P.S.  FYI, I am out of town, so I am not available by phone until Monday.
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> Energy Supply and Management (ES&M)
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>
>