Hey guys:

Nothing like this to bring my past two weeks in Hawaii crashing to the
turf....

Anyway, WHP is still on board with keeping the ole' gang together to get our
message across to the Commission.

The letter idea is good, but beyond that - as another John once screamed:
Don't give up the ship!

Anybody talked to the SoCal weenies?

John

BETA Consulting
Burkee@cts.com
(760) 723-1831 Voice
(760) 723-1891 FAX
----- 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)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>