Fine on your responses.  On the PX credit, it should be enough to say it is 
outside the scope.



	Scott Stoness@EES
	04/25/01 03:34 PM
		
		 To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>@ENRON, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Harry 
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul 
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT@ENRON
		 Subject: Re: Brief CA from Scott.DOC

Scott's Comments to comments in blue


From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 04/25/2001 01:39 PM
To: JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara 
Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: FW:  

Here are my comments to Scott's comments.  

Revenue allocation:  I strongly recommend that we stay silent on this until 
after the recommended decision comes out.  I feel that our support could 
easily be the kiss of death to a particular proposal.  The bottom line is 
that our proposal works with any allocation method.  We can support the one 
that is accepted in the recommended decision or argue for another but I would 
hold off in this round.
Agree

While some of the additions to rate design section seem to be along the lines 
of what we put in the record, both in direct and on cross, I think the free 
rider, CBL stuff is new and could be stricken, and may just make our stuff 
seem more complicated.  
Agree

I have similar concerns about the alternate interim proposal in this brief, 
seems like it  includes lots of facts we did not put in our testimony.
We did put the facts in in the response to data we filed with ALJ on monday.  
If you are referring to ratios between on and off peak.

PX credit based on market value -- the hearing examiner has no authority to 
address this issue so why put it in?  In a case like this with such a short 
time frame, decision makers who want to be diligent and read everything that 
is filed, will resent having to read stuff that is not germane to the issues 
at hand.  It is gratuitous and likely to aggravate her.
I was responding to PGE testimony.  We at least should say - that the CPUC 
should not determine the outcome of this recommendation because it is outside 
of the scope of this hearing.  If you agree that it is outside the scope. 
Otherwise how can we not respond



	JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>
	04/25/01 01:20 PM
		 
		 To: "Lelie Lawner (E-mail)" <Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: FW:




-----Original Message-----
From: JBennett
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:42 PM
To: Lelie Lawner (E-mail)
Subject: FW:


Leslie -- I just got this from Scott.  I thought you should see his more
detailed thoughts on the brief.

Jeanne

-----Original Message-----
From: sstoness@enron.com [mailto:sstoness@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:30 PM
To: tjohnso8@enron.com
Cc: JBennett@GMSSR.com
Subject:


(See attached file: Brief CA from Scott.DOC)

As promised but I ran out of steam.


 - Brief CA from Scott.DOC