Certainly is good news.  Congratulations Jeff and Mark.

But knowing PG&E and how these things work, it ain't ever over till its 
over.  PG&E may not have spelled it out in the testimony, but as you 
recognize, Jeff, it doesn't mean that someone else won't spell it out clearly 
on PG&E's behalf.  I'll be comfortable when the Commission adopts TW's 
proposal and makes the Wheeler situation fit into that framework, rather than 
have PG&E's "generic" framework win the day and then try to protect TW within 
that framework.  

We'll need to stay on top of it and stay active.

Best,
Jeff




Jeffery Fawcett@ENRON
05/05/2000 04:44 PM
To: mbaldwin@igservice.com, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Tim 
Aron/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: PG&E's Prepared Direct Testimony in I.99-07-003

Late breaking good news!  Attached find Rich Hall's testimony on behalf of 
PG&E.  It would appear that Mr. Baldwin's extensive lobbying efforts have 
paid off here.  Nowhere do I see a specific reference to Hector 
Road/Transwestern as another example of the Comprehensive Settlement's 
failure to deal with the allocation problem at Wheeler Ridge.  That being 
said, I note that the "generic" prescription sponsored by PG&E applies in all 
cases where, "the combined capacity of the upstream interconnects exceeds the 
downstream take-away capacity."   Anyone paying close attention, or anyone 
with an axe to grind here, will be quick to point out that there maybe other 
examples similar to Wheeler-- can you say, "Hector Road?"

We'll just have to deal with questions on the application of the generic rule 
during the hearings.  I think it good news that PG&E chose not to spell it 
out for anyone.  Maybe we owe them one after all?  Thoughts?