OK, will do.

>>> <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>  10/19/00 11:59AM >>>

Got it.? The sure-fire way to get me  is at "jdasovic@enron.com."?  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????  
???????????????????  
"Daniel???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????  
???????????????????  Douglass"??????????????  To:????  
<Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com>????????????????????????????????????????  
???????????????????  <douglass@ArterH???????  
cc:??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  
???????????????????  adden.com>?????????????  Subject:???? Fwd: Email  
Glitch???????????????????????????????????????????  
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????  
???????????????????  10/19/2000  
10:37?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????  
???????????????????  
AM????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????  
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????  
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????  



Jeff, let me know if you receive this message.? Sue Mara  asked me to copy
you on all emails to the WPTF Board, but I have recently  been having
everything returned for you.? Hope all is  well.

Dan
----- Message from "Daniel Douglass"  <douglass@ArterHadden.com> on Thu, 19
Oct 2000 11:32:55 -0400  -----
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????  
????? To: "Barbara Klemstine"  <Barbara_Klemstine@apsc.com>, "Bob Anderson"  
<Bob_Anderson@apses.com>,??  
????????? "Robert Berry"  <berry@apx.com>, "Denice Cazalet" 
<dcazalet@apx.com>, "Bill  Ross"????????????  
?????????  <billr@calpine.com>, "Jack Pigott" <jackp@calpine.com>, "Gene 
Waas"  <glwaas@calpx.com>, "Ken  
????????? Czarnecki"  <Ken_Czarnecki@calpx.com>, "Carolyn Baker"  
<cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Randy?????  
????????? Hickok"  <rjhickok@duke-energy.com>, "Greg Blue" <GTBL@dynegy.com>, 
"Kent  Wheatland"?????????  
?????????  <KEWH@dynegy.com>, "Jeff Dasovich" <j_dasovi@ect.enron.com>, 
"Roger  Pelote"?????????????????  
?????????  <rpelote@energy.twc.com>, "Susan Mara" <susan_j_mara@enron.com>,  
"Curt  Hatton"??????????????  
?????????  <curt.Hatton@gen.pge.com>, "Gary Ackerman" <foothill@lmi.net>,  
"CHARLES A MIESSNER"?????????  
?????????  <camiessn@newwestenergy.com>, "Corby Gardiner"  
<jcgardin@newwestenergy.com>, "Rob Nichol"???  
?????????  <rsnichol@newwestenergy.com>, "Curtis Kebler"  
<curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Rob?????  
????????? Lamkin"  <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>, "Carl Imparato"  
<cfi1@tca-us.com>??????????????????????  
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????  
Subject: Email  
Glitch????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????  
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????  

Have just discovered that some emails sent to the board earlier this  week
did not go through and got hung up in cyberspace.? Most dealt with  the
emergency petitions for modification filed by Edison and PG&E and the  data
request for financial information which ALJ Minkin issued.? This is  the
first, which went out on Monday:

SDG&E has filed an initial  response to ALJ Minkin's Ruling which first
requests that the utility should  not be subject to the information request
which stemmed from the SCE and  PG&E emergency petitions.? If the Commission
is unwilling to do so,  the utility next informs the Commission of its
intention not to respond fully  to the request.? The crux of the opposition
is as  follows:

"However, neither Rule 1 nor the Public Utilities Code require  SDG&E to
waive certain fundamental due process rights pertaining to its  discovery
obligations.? Specifically, simply because the information is  requested in
an ALJ ruling as opposed to alternative discovery mechanisms  does not
require SDG&E to produce confidential, proprietary,  competitively sensitive
information belonging to its affiliates which  information is neither
pertinent to a transaction between SDG&E and an  affiliate nor in the
possession of SDG&E.? A number of the  informational demands in the ALJ
Ruling fall squarely within this context and  therefore are not appropriate
for discovery purposes."

The utility  then states that:

"In an effort to cooperate with the Commission and the  ALJ to provide for
Commission inspection relevant information reasonably  calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, SDG&E will  provide affiliate
information responsive to the ALJ's informational demands  to the extent
that the information relates to a transaction with SDG&E  (i.e. falls within
the scope of PUC section 314(b)), the information is  public information
(not confidential and proprietary to the affiliate), or  the information is
a matter of public record."

SDG&E responses to  information demands a, b, c, d, f, g, i, k, q, and bb
were attached to the  filing and will be provided to other parties who
request them (I have  requested a copy be sent to us) [Note...it has
arrived].? Finally, the  utility then itemizes the following items of
information which it will not  provide:

"m. An itemization of funds paid to and amounts billed by the  California PX
by each utility affiliate for each month in 2000;
n. An  itemization of funds paid to and amounts billed by the California ISO
by each  utility affiliate for each month in 2000;
p. An itemization of funds paid to  and amounts billed by any entity other
than the California ISO or PX for  power purchased in California by each
utility affiliate; [under the  assumption that "any entity" includes SDG&E,
the information related to  any SDG&E transaction(s) will be provided]
r. An itemization of revenues  received from the California PX for power
purchase sales in California by  utility affiliates for each month in l999
and 2000;
t. Revenues received  from the California ISO for power purchase sales in
California by utility  affiliates for each month in l999 and 2000;
v. An itemization of revenues  received from entities other than the
California PX and the California ISO  for power purchase sales in California
by utility affiliates for each month  in l999 and 2000; [under the
assumption that "any entity" includes SDG&E,  the information related to any
SDG&E transaction(s) will be  provided]
x. Revenues received for power purchase sales in any state other  than
California by each utility affiliate for each month in l999 and  2000;
y. A description of all utility affiliates' activities in  California
electric markets, including marketing, scheduling, selling, or  purchasing
electricity either independently or jointly with other entities;  [under the
assumption that "any entities" includes SDG&E, the information  related to
any SDG&E transaction(s) will be provided; we will also  provide public
information related to those "activities" such as press  releases, etc.;
since no time frame has been provided related to this  information request,
we will respond concerning activities beginning January  1, 1998]
z. A description of each energy facility purchased wholly or in part  by the
utility or any of its affiliates in l997-2000, including its purchase  price
and location; [we will provide any public information addressing  affiliate
purchases as well as all information, including confidential,  proprietary
information related to a transaction with SDG&E]
aa. A  description of each energy facility or portion thereof sold by the
utility or  any of its affiliates in l997-2000, including its sale price and
location;  [we will provide any public information addressing affiliate
sales as well as  all information, including confidential, proprietary
information related to a  transaction with SDG&E]
cc. A copy of the most recent business plan for  itself, its holding company
and each of its affiliates. [we will provide  copies of those portions of
affiliate or holding company business plans that  discuss or describe
transactions with SDG&E]
The basis of SDG&E's  objection to produce the foregoing information is that
the information  exceeds the scope of the Commission's statutory authority
to require  production of affiliate information under PUC section 314(b);
the information  is not relevant to any proceeding currently before the
Commission; the  information is not reasonably calculated to result in the
discovery of  admissible evidence in any Commission proceeding; and the
information is not  in the possession of, nor is it proprietary to, SDG&E."

After doing a  comparison of the list of items for which responses are being
provided with  the list for which objections are raised, I noted that items
e, h, j, l, o,  s, u and w are simply not mentioned.? I have sent an email
to their  counsel asking for the status of those requests.? Let me know if
you  want a copy of the SDG&E  filing.

Dan