Thanks.  I want to talk about this on the "Consultants" call with Linda Robertson.  Should we push this argument or leave the FERC with its infirmities?  I believe that we can work away at many of our concerns in the "should refunds be reqd" phase.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alvarez, Ray  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:58 AM
To:	Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Shelk, John
Subject:	RE: Talking Points- July 25 Order

Jim,  I added a couple of bullets to incorporate your suggestions.  See especially the second to last bullet.  Ray


 << File: Talking Points- July 25 Order.doc >> 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.  
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 6:26 PM
To:	Alvarez, Ray; Robertson, Linda; Shelk, John
Subject:	RE: Talking Points- July 25 Order

Ray --

Looks very good.  We need to stress the points on what we need FERC to do -- fix their mistakes in the Rehearing.  One other point, maybe we should stress that FERC could open these proceedings and not delay the decision because the Cal ISO is taking so long.  Also, don't be shy about describing how the process is going so slowly and the "abuses" of the Cal ISO and its lack of independence.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Alvarez, Ray  
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 10:09 AM
To:	Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Shelk, John
Subject:	Talking Points- July 25 Order

All, attached is the first draft of talking points which Jim asked me to draft for use in a possible lobbying effort regarding rehearing of FERC's July 25 Order.  The "message" is that the scope of the California "refund hearing" should be expanded to address the question of whether refunds are appropriate in the first place, and that the parties to the California hearing should be granted the same due process opportunities which were afforded the parties in the Pacific Northwest hearing.  Please let me have your comments and recommendations.  Ray

 << File: Talking Points- July 25 Order.doc >>