|
|
Enron Mail |
I couldn't find Mark on the directory - would someone please forward this to
him? Here is the message from Steve O. -----Original Message----- Date: 07/08/2000 01:53 pm (Saturday) From: "Oldham, Steve" <soldham@sierrapacific.com< To: "'Jonathan Ater'" <Jaa@aterwynne.com<, "Elliot, Beth" <BElliot@sppc.com<, "Ponn, Doug" <dponn@sierrapacific.com<, "Ruelle, Mark" <mruelle@sierrapacific.com<, "Oldham, Steve" <soldham@sierrapacific.com<, "Peterson, William" <wpeterson@sierrapacific.com< CC: "'pamela_lesh@pgn.com'" <pamela_lesh@pgn.com< Subject: RE: Important - Further Information Jonathan, I have spoken with Mitch Taylor and Pamela this morning after talking to you. While both calls were cut short, after I talked to Mitch he was encouraging us to go with our original sur-rebuttle and not with the revised Ruelle testimony. At the same time Pamela was worried that we needed to stick with the original sur-rebuttle and to incorporate the changes that she felt were important to make. My concern all along is that we correctly inform the OPUC as to the facts in Nevada while at the same time getting this transaction closed. It seems to me that the common wisdom of those closest to the OPUC and the OPUC staff is to file the sur-rebuttle that outlines our plans for the PGE acquistion and rate plan, responds to staffs concerns raised in their rebuttle and to do so on Monday. Pamela suggested that we could inform all of the parties, which includes the OPUC of the events that are likely to be disclosed on Monday via letter. During our conversation it was clear that Mitch had concerns about using the rebuttle testimony as the way to convey our current status in Nevada to the parties in Oregon. I would like to suggest that we follow the advice that we are getting from PGE and Enron on this as they are closest to the OPUC staff and others in Oregon. We will need to add a couple of paragraphs to Mark's testimony that will make what he testifys to in District Court on Monday consistant with the sur-rebuttle in Oregon. We will go back to my original sur-rebuttle as improved by PGE, Enron, yourself and Beth for filing on Monday. Coupled with the responses we make to the OPUC staff next week on the recent data requests we can make sure that we have informed all parties of the critical facts in Nevada. This all makes sense to me as we will know more on Monday after the District Court hearing in Nevada, we will have made our press release and energy filing in Nevada and all parties will then be informed as to the nature of whats going on. I am still hopeful that we will have resolution to the situation in Nevada in a timly manner but I cannot be sure of it. Thanks for the hard work this weekend on the tough issues and for your advice in how best to get the deal with PGE closed soon. steve oldham -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Ater [mailto:Jaa@aterwynne.com] Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 1:02 PM To: belliot@sppc.com; dponn@sppc.com; mruelle@sppc.com; soldham@sppc.com; wpeterson@sppc.com Subject: Important - Further Information I have just learned informally from Mike Morgan that Enron is likely to take the position that the 10AM version of Ruelle is not a best efforts presentation. To that end, please consider seriously the additions I have proposed in the draft circulated about 12:45 today. Also, please consider that with little additional effort (since the material is already written), we could include almost everything we have drafted but for the revised rate proposal. It seems to me that there are two reasons for submitting as much as we can: first, it helps play defense with Enron. Second, it helps communicate with the staff and the commission, and thus positions us for a positive outcome in due course.
|