Jeanne,
It seems that we are suggesting that the price of energy be representative of 
PG&E's avoided cost.  The previous decisions seem to mix up the use of 
"avoided cost"  and the real "market price" that the PX was intended to 
portray.

If we stress the "avoided cost" aspect, it seems that we would be agreeing 
with PG&E's use of the soft-capped-ISO price -- or even with the use of 
something as low as embedded cost.

I think we might stress using a substitute for what the PX was intended to 
portray -- the price that buyers and sellers are really transacting upon.  We 
could refer to some of the good words in the "Preferred Policy Decision":

"From the perspective of both wholesale and retail customers the most 
critical contribution of the Exchange lies in the auction determination of 
real time pricing of electricity and the transparent manifestation of these 
price signals.  In the absence of such an institution the market will be 
hidden and the price signals obscured or subject to selective, discriminatory 
dissemination" (page 12)

Another point might be the fact that implementing PG&E's proposed change 
would, in effect, be a selective rate increase for Direct Access with no 
notice.

Note to Internal people:
I'm still working on our discussion document -- I will forward as soon as I 
can.

/Tamara.