Re:

Folks. Let me throw out a proposal. I believe that we should immediately
draft a very brief letter or press release that explains why the PD is
misguided and will lead to very bad energy policy for the state, and why our
settlement is the right one and why it's good energy policy for the state.
The letter should be signed by everyone who signed the settlement. It needs
to be released by the end of this week. Absent this kind of action,
nothing's going to turn this thing around. Spending time and money writing
"comments" will be a waste of time and money. We'll need to do a lot more,
but I think we have to start this way or fold up our tents now. Thoughts?

Best,
Jeff

Colin.Cushnie@sce.com
11/27/2000 08:54 PM

To: "Tom Beach" <tomb@crossborderenergy.com<
cc: burkee@cts.com, craigc@calpine.com, Douglas.Porter@sce.com,
INGGM@sce.com, jdasovic@enron.com, MDay@GMSSR.com, Michael.Alexander@sce.com,
Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com, rick.counihan@greenmountain.com
Subject: Re:

I haven't had the opportunity to read the PD yet, but I share your
frustration with the Commission's inaction in the face of significant and
fast moving events. Our settlement and electric restructuring are clearly
distinguishable. Arguably, the status quo has, in part, perpetuated the
record high prices being observed of late. The Commission should have
little to fear by proceeding with its initial direction of statewide
consistency in the intrastate gas industry.

"Tom
Beach"
<tomb@crossbordere To: "Mike Day"
<MDay@GMSSR.com<,
nergy.com< <Douglas.Porter@sce.com<,
<jdasovic@enron.com<,

<rick.counihan@greenmountain.com<,
11/27/2000 03:19 <craigc@calpine.com<,
<burkee@cts.com<,
PM
<Paul_Amirault%SCE@sce.com<,
Please respond to
<Michael.Alexander@sce.com<
"Tom Beach" cc: <INGGM@sce.com<,
<Colin.Cushnie@sce.com<
Subject:
Re:

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)
<