Could you forward Dan's draft.  While Aaron's points are good ones, I think may tipping at windmills...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 10:50 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; 'jbennett@gmssr.com'
Subject: FW: Prehearing Conference Statement - COMMENTS NEEDED


 
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Thomas [mailto:aaron.thomas@aesmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:58 PM
To: 'Dan Douglass'; ARM
Subject: RE: Prehearing Conference Statement - COMMENTS NEEDED


Dan
 
Responses to your questions:
 
I think Enron would like to exclude the PX Credit issue from this case.  I am comfortable taking the lead from Enron on this issue and would support not advocating it be included in this case.  I think SCE is going to push for its inclusion, so Sue will need to provide you with some amunition on why it doesn't belong in this case before Wednesday.
 
On the second question, no.  I don't think we want to re-raise the rev req and tres letter leading to the end of DA.
 
I not sure we should push the bottoms up issue in this case.  It is not at all clear what the ALJ is trying to pull into the case with the reference to post px credits.  There is no pending matters on this, but for advice letters and protests.  We are much better fighting in that forum given the current decisions rather than getting some nasty decision from Barnett that messes up the victory we got in the rate increase decisions.
 
I strongly urge that we NOT push this into this proceeding.  It will be all downside.  Changes to the PE Credit (i.e. reductions) may end up here, but we should not be calling for it.
 
Lastly, how can we say that the commission doesn't have authority to implement exit fees without changes in law given prior filings of ARM that said they should implement a whole host of exit fees rather than end DA.  I don't think we can take this position without explaining the flip flop, which we certainly don't have room to do in the PHC statement.  Maybe we can get away with referencing other parties strong position on this and support the requirement of hearings if any such attempt is going to be made to establish exit fees.
 
Thanks
 
Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:47 PM
To: ARM
Subject: Prehearing Conference Statement - COMMENTS NEEDED
Importance: High


Attached for your review and comment is a very rough first draft of the prehearing conference statement that we must bring to the hearing on Wednesday afternoon.  It outlines, with some substance, the issues you have indicated we want to bring up, it identifies a few questions and seeks guidance from AReM members.
 
Please review and get back to me with comments by the close of the day, if possible.  I am running to the airport (which is why this is not in as finished a form as versions normally sent to you) and will be looking for comments in my hotel room this evening.  
 
Also, do we want to invite WPTF to join with us again, as it did in the comments last Friday on the Wood Ruling?
 
thanks!

Dan
 
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  Suite 244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:   (818) 596-2201
Fax:  (818) 346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com>