Thanks, Mark.  So you're saying that the original investigatiion prompted by 
the San Diego problems last summer are the current target of this 
investigation?  Therefore, Norm's question during the workshop indeed has 
some import here, how do the various "investigations" and/or "workshops" tie 
together for purposes of completing the record and leading to a CPUC action?  
Good question, probably with no answer at this time.

What do you know about the May 17 prehearing conference?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  mbaldwin@igservice.com@ENRON 
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-mbaldwin+40igservice+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Fawcett, Jeffery
Cc: Hass, Glen
Subject: RE: ETS State Government Affairs Report

Jeff, yes. Originally , I let Susan know about this proceeding back in
December. I forwarded the entire San Diego response to the initial order
back then. Essentially, on November 2, 2000 the Commission issued an Order
Instituting Investigation which required Sempra, Socal and SDG&E to
demonstrate that SDG&E's gas supply and transmission system is adequate to
serve present and future core and "noncore" customers. The Commission was
forced into action when San Diego curtailed service to Dynegy power plants
and redefined the term "firm service". In San Diego's response they clearly
state they no longer have adequate transmission capacity to serve 100
percent of their non core loads , including EG.

The Commission's target in 00-01-022 is San Diego. On March 22, 2001 the
Commission broaden the entire investigation to include PG&E and Socal. In
this regard, their convenient trigger was a emergency petition by the
Northern California Generation Coalition to modify the PG&E Gas Accord. You
quessed it, they wanted a change to the priority rules that placed EG
customers a head of all other noncore customers in the priority cue. The
Commission assigned a 01-03-023 docket number. Essentially, the same sort of
investigation.

Hope , this helps. Give me a call , we can discuss the details if you would
like.  Mark, IGS.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fawcett, Jeffery [mailto:Jeffery.Fawcett@ENRON.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:21 AM
> To: Dasovich, Jeff; mbaldwin@igservice.com
> Subject: ETS State Government Affairs Report
>
>
> What do we know about this?  Has the CPUC then opened a formal
> investigation into the gas infrastructure issue?
>
>
>
>
> > ** I00-11-022  Investigation of SoCalGas' & SDG&E's gas transmission
> > system adequacy - Prehearing conference May 17
> >
>