I have now read the April  30 ACR of Commissioner Wood, and AB43 4 times, and 
I still cannot say I fully comprehend the scope of the hearing that will 
commence on May 22, but here are some thoughts and questions.

Since the docket includes 00-10-045, it may be appropriate to address: 1.  
the 6.5 cent rate freeze, 2.  authorization of physical and financial 
transactions (this could help ENA do some hedges with SDGE), 3.  procurement 
guidelines, 4. explain how to offset undercollections with generation 
revenues, 5.  set an undercollection trigger for reevaluating balancing 
account and 6.  setting an amortization time table.  I assume if we can keep 
surcharges from DA customers, we would not be that concerned with the 
undercollection recovery issues, except as they affect the ability to switch 
between DA and bundled sales.  If we do plan to re-DASR our customers, then I 
guess we do care about these issues.  Then would we likely want a long and 
drawn out amortization?

There is also an opening in this case to adjust the ceiling, to implement 
tiering or other rate increases that are comparable to the PG&E/SCE rates 
that come out of the case Harry testified in two weeks ago, to redefine small 
commercial customer and to decide the future of a voluntary stabilization 
plan.  Where would we stand on the definition of small customer, by the way?

Of course all this is in addition to the surcharge rate design.

I think Harry can eastily tweak the testimony he filed in the PG&E/SCE case 
for this case, and the question is how much farther do we need to go, if at 
all, on these other issues.