If I'm reading pages 38 - 40 of the Bilas PD correctly, the Commission's
primary concern over the competitive benefits of city-gate pricing is the
fact that PG&E city-gate prices in October were much higher than border
prices plus transportation.  October bidweek PG&E city-gate prices were
high, but only because southern California prices plummeted from the high
levels that they had reached in late August and September, following the El
Paso explosion.  In November, the PG&E city-gate moved back into its normal
relationship with Topock and Malin prices.  For the Commission to be spooked
by one month of price fluctuations is crazy.

I'm hopeful that my friends at Edison, in particular, can help the
Commission to distinguish what we were trying to achieve in the CS on the
gas side from the mess that is electric restructuring....

Tom Beach

----- Original Message -----
From: <Michael.Alexander@sce.com>
To: <Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com>; <tomb@crossborderenergy.com>;
<burkee@cts.com>; <craigc@calpine.com>; <rick.counihan@greenmountain.com>;
<jdasovic@enron.com>; <MDay@GMSSR.com>; <Douglas.Porter@sce.com>
Cc: <Colin.Cushnie@sce.com>; <INGGM@sce.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:27 PM


> The PD in the Gas Restructuring is out.   I have yet to read the whole
> thing, but the title "Approval With Modifications Of The Interim
> Settlement..." does not bode well.  According to Steve Watson (and I only
> have Steve's statement second hand), the decision reflects a fear that the
> timing is wrong in light of the current volatile gas price market.
>
> (See attached file: Proposed.doc)
>
> --
> Michael S. Alexander
> Southern California Edison
> 626-302-2029
> 626-302-3254 (fax)
>