|
|
Enron Mail |
I don't see a problem with it.
"Fine, Jonathan" <JFine@kilstock.com< on 07/25/2000 04:07:30 PM To: "'Mann Kay'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com<, "'Mellencamp Lisa'" <lisa.mellencamp@enron.com< cc: "Duncan, Allyson" <aduncan@kilstock.com< Subject: RE: Message from Gisele Rankin Kay and Lisa: We should probably let Gisele Rankin know by tomorrow morning whether we agree with the proposal to revise the procedural scheduling order to include a provision which will require final substantive orders to be presented to the Commission by October 10. What are your thoughts? Neither Allyson nor I can think of a downside to agreement, and in fact we feel that it would be in our best interest to agree to the October 10 date. Please advise. Thank you. Jonathan M. Fine Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP 3737 Glenwood Ave., Ste. 400 Raleigh, NC 27612 TEL: (919) 420-1700 FAX: (919) 420-1800 http://www.kilstock.com -----Original Message----- From: Duncan, Allyson Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:31 PM To: 'Mann Kay'; 'Keenan Jeffrey'; 'Chapman Tom' Cc: 'Mellencamp Lisa'; 'Kroll Heather'; Fine, Jonathan Subject: Message from Gisele Rankin Attached is an e:mail from Gisele Rankin regarding the procedural schedule I described in my e:mail this morning. I will fax it on to you immediately upon receipt. As I explained earlier, it will help expedite matters considerably if we get the agenda before the Commission on July 31. I had planned to take care of the publication of notice. Please let me know if that is not allright. I will follow up with you today after you receive the proposed order, but would strongly recommend agreeing to a proposed order due date of October 10 as that represents the best chance of getting timely approval. If there are no (or limited) interventions, compliance with the October 10 date should not be difficult. -----Original Message----- From: Gisele Rankin [mailto:Gisele.Rankin@ncmail.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 12:58 PM To: Allyson Duncan Subject: Enron I have just faxed you an agenda item, proposed order and public notice for Enron's application for a certificate. This has to be finalized by early tomorrow morning. In the memo attached to the fax, I offered to put a proposed order due date (of October 10th) in the proposed procedural order to expedite getting an order by November 1st. That is much more doable than moving the hearing into September. Please let me know as soon as possible if Enron can live with this. (Please remind Enron that it has to publish notice once a week for four weeks pursuant to G.S. 62-82 (it isn't discretionary) and then we have to have time for complaints (ten days pursuant to the statute - although we're going ahead and setting this for hearing), time for interventions, and time for prefiled testimony. Late September is pretty much as early as a hearing could be held even if we didn't need time to investigate NC Power's bidding process (and the last week of September is booked already according to Sami Salib)..
|