|
|
Enron Mail |
Given everything that we've got on our plate, and the relative priority of
the affiliate issue, and the fact that ARM and Wild Goose are involved, I would propose that we take a pass on this one. Thoughts? Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/13/2001 11:18 AM ----- JMcTarnaghan <JMcTarnaghan@GMSSR.COM< 03/13/2001 10:59 AM To: "'smara@enron.com'" <smara@enron.com<, "'Jeff Dasovich'" <jdasovic@enron.com< cc: Subject: Affiliate Relook case [PLEASE RESPOND TODAY] Dear Jeff and Sue: Sorry to be a broken record on this one....but I don't know what you want to do about the Affiliates case. There is a PHC tomorrow and comments were filed. SCE's comments make a nasty jab at Enron for proposing the rules in the first place. I see that AReM is participating as well. If your plan is to participate in this proceeding only through AReM, that's fine but please let me know so that I can remove my appearance. I will be at the PHC for Wild Goose but would like to be very clear about who I am representing in the docket in order to avoid confusion. Thanks, Jim McTarnaghan Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day 505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 415-765-8409 (Direct Line) 415-398-4321 (Fax) jmct@gmssr.com (Email)
|