Revised Response

The revised response is attached.

I talked with Joe Eisenberg and told him we'd like the Amend. 22 proceeding
included. He said this primary objective is to have everything proceed in
one forum. However, he is concerned about giving people an opening to tack
on additional matters. I said that at a minimum we wanted clarity whether
anything other than the 3 Charge-Back matters were covered by the motion. He
said there was no problem clarifying if his client wouldn't agree to include
the Amend. 22 matter.

As many of you know the PX sued the ISO regarding funds paid by PG&E to the
ISO that should have gone to the PX. I asked Joe why the creditors weren't
generally informed this was in the works, and why they filed in district
court if he's trying to "channel" all proceedings. He said he wasn't really
aware the action was filed (it was filed by another firm). He had sought
retention of that firm but he thought it was going to be handled throught the
"administrative process". It seems like there needs to be more focus at the
PX, especially since they're spending the participants money.