|
|
Enron Mail |
fyi
-----Original Message----- From: Neustaedter, Robert Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:25 AM To: Tribolet, Michael Subject: RE: Schedules Michael The numbers for total sales load that are being used in your tables for PGE and SCE are very much in line with the numbers used in the rate design hearing, differing by less than 1 GWh that all parties used for testimony purposes. Consequently, I feel pretty comfortable with those numbers. I don't have a similar comparison for SDGE, but based on other sources, their sales load numbers also look in line. Robert Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate 05/12/2001 11:27 AM To: Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: Subject: RE: Schedules Did the working schedules yield any more info? -----Original Message----- From: Neustaedter, Robert Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:23 PM To: Tribolet, Michael Cc: Brown, Kortney; Jeffrey Soo/Enron@EnronXGate Subject: Schedules Just an update. I'm still looking at the rate schedule descriptors, but for the most part they look correct, except for some minor corrections that need to be made. As far as the schedule not footing, I cannot give you a good answer on that. Obviously some of the differences are rounding errors, but those are minor. I've checked with Harry and one of the attorneys in the case to see if there had been any errata notices with regard to the schedule but they were not aware of any. The other thing I will do, is look at one of the "working" schedules filed in the rate design hearing and make a comparison.
|