Given everything that we've got on our plate, and the relative priority of 
the affiliate issue, and the fact that ARM and Wild Goose are involved, I 
would propose that we take a pass on this one.  Thoughts?

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 11:18 AM -----

	JMcTarnaghan <JMcTarnaghan@GMSSR.COM>
	03/13/2001 10:59 AM
		 
		 To: "'smara@enron.com'" <smara@enron.com>, "'Jeff Dasovich'" 
<jdasovic@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY]

Dear Jeff and Sue:

Sorry to be a broken record on this one....but I don't know what you want to
do about the Affiliates case.  There is a PHC tomorrow and comments were
filed.  SCE's comments make a nasty jab at Enron for proposing the rules in
the first place.  I see that AReM is participating as well.  If your plan is
to participate in this proceeding only through AReM, that's fine but please
let me know so that I can remove my appearance.  I will be at the PHC for
Wild Goose but would like to be very clear about who I am representing in
the docket in order to avoid confusion.  

Thanks,

Jim McTarnaghan
Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
505 Sansome Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-765-8409 (Direct Line)
415-398-4321 (Fax)
jmct@gmssr.com (Email)