WPTF Discussion of CPUC Subpoenas

SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

Mary,

As you requested, this e-mail is to report on the WPTF discussions on the
CPUC subpoenas.

In a Board conference call today, the members discussed who had subpoenas and
a bit about what they were doing to respond. New West received a subpoena,
but not its parent Salt River. APX did not receive one. (Separately, I
learned that New Energy hasn't found one yet, though its parent AES got one)

Joe Paul of Dynegy took the lead and said that the generators had been having
a weekly conference call to coordinate. They had negotiated with the CPUC to
get the Protective Order that came out last week.

I suggested that the people receiving last Friday's subpoenas work toether
the same way. Dan Douglas (WPTF's attorney) will send an e-mail out asking
the interested members to contact me.

Joe said that the issues they have seen are: whether to file a motion to
quash, what jurisdiction the CPUC has, what information should be shared, as
well as other PR and legal issues. He felt that ESP and SC issues may be
quite different from generaters and suggested we work together. The
Generators have already given some public data tothe CPUC. He says Dynegy is
likely to argue that this type of analysis should not be done by the CPUC,
but by the Market Surveillance Committee or someone of that ilk.

I'll keep you posted as I learn more.