Dear Judge Biren:

SoCalGas believes that it is important that it be permitted to present its
arguments why the motions to compel should not be granted prior to the
Commission making a final decision on them.  SoCalGas has not had such an
opportunity, either orally or in writing.  Therefore, SoCalGas is filing
this afternoon the attached response in opposition to the motions.

Consistent with your instructions from this morning, I will call Mr. Hawiger
and Mr. Pedersen and try to see if we can resolve this matter in a mutually
acceptable manner.  We will let you know promptly as to the results of that
discussion.



-- Glen Sullivan
Attorney for SoCalGas and SDG&E
telephone:  (619) 699-5162
email:  gsullivan@sempra.com <mailto:gsullivan@sempra.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Biren, Andrea [mailto:alb@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:30 AM
To: 'Sullivan, Glen J.'; 'Hayley Goodson'; alan_reid@pcp.ca; Biren, Andrea;
andy.bettwy@swgas.com; aod@newsdata.com; askaff@energy-law-group.com;
bcragg@gmssr.com; Ortega, Barbara; bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us; burkee@cts.com;
bwood@energy.state.ca.us; ceyap@earthlink.net; chilen@llgm.com;
chris.king@utility.com; craigc@calpine.com; davef@abag.ca.gov;
dcarroll@dbsr.com; ed@clfp.com; Farrar, Darwin; eke@aelaw.com;
eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us; epoole@adplaw.com; evk1@pge.com; ewo@jmbm.com;
Quan, Edwin; furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil; garyb@abag.ca.gov;
gbudin@energy.state.ca.us; ghinners@reliantenergy.com;
grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; gtbl@dynegy.com; iep@iepa.com;
igsinc@ix.netcom.com; inggm@sce.com; jcattermole@pcenergy.com;
jkarp@whitecase.com; jleslie@luce.com; jmct@gmssr.com; jmpa@dynegy.com;
johnj@bcjlaw.com; joseh@lif.org; jsteffen@iid.com; jweil@aglet.org;
jwr@cpuc.ca.gov; karen@klindh.com; karpjos@sf.whitecase.com;
kfyip@seiworldwide.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com; kmills@cfbf.com;
lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com; lmh@eslawfirm.com; Tran, Lana;
mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com; McNamara, Michael D.; mday@gmssr.com;
mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; mjaske@energy.state.ca.us;
napedersen@jonesday.com; pjpowerlaw@aol.com; Gileau, Patrick L.; Myers,
Richard A.; raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; White, Rosalina;
rbw@mrwassoc.com; rczahar@aol.com; rgloistein@orrick.com;
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com; Pocta, Robert M.; rochmanm@cubjpa.org;
rochmanm@spurr.org; ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com; ronknecht@aol.com;
rpelote@energy.twc.com; rpetti@ladwp.com; salleyoo@dwt.com; Sarvate, Sarita;
skatz@sempratrading.com; slins@ci.glendale.ca.us; sscott3@enron.com;
stomashe@energy.state.ca.us; Horner, Trina; tdickers@westerngas.com;
tom.roth@et.pge.com; Beck, Valerie; 'hawiger, marcel'
Subject: RE: I.99-07-003



I have now received SCGC's Motion to Compel.  I note that the same
interrogatories that TURN withdrew, SCGC is withdrawing.  Therefore, my
original view that we can deal with this without taking up time at the PHC
still stands.  I would like you to try to work this out by yourselves based
upon my indication here as to how I will rule.

The bottom line is that SoCalGas must respond to those interrogatories
seeking to clarify which settlement is its first choice.  It is by no means
crystal clear, and does impact the breadth of support for each settlement.
(In fact, I'd like to know SDG&E's view on this too.)  I think this could be
done in a limited way as opposed to responses to all the interrogatories
comparing the two settlements.  Whether SoCalGas has breached the Interim
Settlement by also signing the Comprehensive Settlement is not directly
relevant to this proceeding.  I don't need to determine that and I don't
want to expand this already far-ranging proceeding to include that - take it
to court if you want to.  Moreover, some of the questions are now moot as
all prepared testimony has been lodged.  So, please meet and confer again.
If you can't come to an agreement based on my views in this email, then
SoCalGas should file its Opposition on the 23rd, and I'll rule on each
interrogatory on the 25th.  Please let me know ASAP if you've worked
something out.

--Judge Biren


-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Glen J. [ mailto:GSullivan@sempra.com
<mailto:GSullivan@sempra.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'Hayley Goodson'; alan_reid@pcp.ca; alb@cpuc.ca.gov;
andy.bettwy@swgas.com; aod@newsdata.com; askaff@energy-law-group.com;
bcragg@gmssr.com; bho@cpuc.ca.gov; bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us;
burkee@cts.com; bwood@energy.state.ca.us; ceyap@earthlink.net;
chilen@llgm.com; chris.king@utility.com; craigc@calpine.com;
davef@abag.ca.gov; dcarroll@dbsr.com; ed@clfp.com; edf@cpuc.ca.gov;
eke@aelaw.com; eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us; epoole@adplaw.com;
evk1@pge.com; ewo@jmbm.com; eyq@cpuc.ca.gov;
furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil; garyb@abag.ca.gov;
gbudin@energy.state.ca.us; ghinners@reliantenergy.com;
grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; Sullivan, Glen J.;
gtbl@dynegy.com; iep@iepa.com; igsinc@ix.netcom.com; inggm@sce.com;
jcattermole@pcenergy.com; jkarp@whitecase.com; jleslie@luce.com;
jmct@gmssr.com; jmpa@dynegy.com; johnj@bcjlaw.com; joseh@lif.org;
jsteffen@iid.com; jweil@aglet.org; jwr@cpuc.ca.gov; karen@klindh.com;
karpjos@sf.whitecase.com; kfyip@seiworldwide.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com;
kmills@cfbf.com; lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com; lmh@eslawfirm.com;
ltt@cpuc.ca.gov; mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com; mcn@cpuc.ca.gov;
mday@gmssr.com; mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; mjaske@energy.state.ca.us;
napedersen@jonesday.com; pjpowerlaw@aol.com; plg@cpuc.ca.gov;
ram@cpuc.ca.gov; raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us;
raw@cpuc.ca.gov; rbw@mrwassoc.com; rczahar@aol.com;
rgloistein@orrick.com; rick.counihan@greenmountain.com; rmp@cpuc.ca.gov;
rochmanm@cubjpa.org; rochmanm@spurr.org; ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com;
ronknecht@aol.com; rpelote@energy.twc.com; rpetti@ladwp.com;
salleyoo@dwt.com; sbs@cpuc.ca.gov; skatz@sempratrading.com;
slins@ci.glendale.ca.us; sscott3@enron.com; stomashe@energy.state.ca.us;
tah@cpuc.ca.gov; tdickers@westerngas.com; tom.roth@et.pge.com;
vjb@cpuc.ca.gov; 'hawiger, marcel'
Subject: RE: I.99-07-003


Judge Biren has asked me to convey the following information to the service
list in this proceeding:

In addition to TURN's motion (as circulated by TURN's email on Monday, May
15) to compel  SoCalGas to answer portions of TURN's data request dated
April 27, 2000, the Southern California Generation Coalition has indicated
to the ALJ its intent to file a motion to compel SoCalGas to answer the same

questions asked by TURN.  SCGC has said it probably will seek to compel
SoCalGas to answer all questions originally asked by TURN, including those
questions that TURN's motion did not seek to compel SoCalGas to answer.
SCGC has said it will try to file this motion today or tomorrow.  Counsel
for SCGC has informed me that he does not intend to file a motion to compel
answers to these questions by any other parties.

Counsel for TURN has informed me that it does not intend to file a motion to

compel other parties to whom it sent its April 27 data request to answer any

of those questions, but that TURN is not now willing to waive any right to
file such a motion.

The ALJ has stated her intent to rule on the TURN motion and the expected
SCGC motion at the PHC on Thurs. May 25.  SoCalGas has agreed to file a
written response by Tues. May 23, as TURN had proposed.  The ALJ does not
intend to issue a formal, written ruling shortening time to respond to the
motions, but wants to be sure parties understand her intent on how she will
proceed in resolving this matter.


-- Glen Sullivan
Sempra Energy Law Dept.
tel:  (619) 699-5162
email:  gsullivan@sempra.com
Attorney for SoCalGas and SDG&E


 - GIRresponse.doc