The email just sent mentioned that SDG&E stated that the ALJ Ruling was  
inappropriately applied to SDG&E.? The utility filed an Emergency Ex  Parte 
Request to Commissioner Neeper requesting that they?should be  
excluded?because:

"1)?SDG&E is not in the same financial situation as SCE and  PG&E, nor has it 
asked the Commission in this docket to make any findings  regarding its 
financial situation; furthermore, SDG&E is not subject to the  same 
regulatory environment as PG&E and SCE;
2)?SDG&E has not  asked for the relief those utilities are requesting, nor 
any affirmative relief  in this docket; and
3)?The SCE and PG&E emergency petitions seek a  legal interpretation of 
Public Utilities Code Sections 367(a) and 368(a).?  Factual information from 
SDG&E is simply irrelevant to the Commission,s  legal interpretation of 
statute.? Rehearing regarding the Commission,s  interpretation of those 
statutes has already been denied.? SDG&E did  not seek rehearing of the CPUC,
s legal conclusions, nor has it joined in  PG&E and SCE,s petitions now."
?
A thought occurs to me......is there anything to be gained with SDG&E  by 
having?WPTF file in support of their ex parte request and agree that  SDG&E 
should not be subject to the information request?
?
Dan