|
|
Enron Mail |
Susan, looks great. I have a few suggestions ; simple words and
format. We can review tommorrow. The only area I saw that we did not address, I think we should is the Item 7 (secondary transmission) market. The Commission is focused on this area of in state develop ment, we should take advantage. I will be faxing copies of previow testimony for your background and use in our testimony. Thx, Mark IGS < -----Original Message----- < From: Susan.Scott@enron.com [mailto:Susan.Scott@enron.com] < Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:02 PM < To: mbaldwin@igservice.com < Cc: Jeffery.Fawcett@enron.com < Subject: revised testimony < < < OK, this is starting to take shape. I handed off a copy to Jeff today; < he'll review it this evening. Your comments are welcome at any < time. I'll < be in all day tomorrow; I am planning to be out of the office Friday but < may need to come in early a.m. to put the finishing touches on the 1st < draft we send to the group. To the extent you can provide testimony < references before that time, that would be great. < < (See attached file: JCF direct testimony.doc) < < Re. today's e-mails from the other parties: We're OK with PG&E's addition < to the settlement. I am not wild about it since it isn't exactly < consistent with how other points are treated. But, this is a settlement < after all. And I think it is better to do what we can to get PG&E on < board. I'll send an e-mail out tomorrow once we see who else is on the < bandwagon. < < On Kern's proposal: Subject to seeing something in writing, Transwestern < will agree to the proposal I believe you and Jeff discussed yesterday. We < will at least agree not to oppose Kern, or to support them on a limited < basis. Give me a call tomorrow (713-853-0596) and let's make sure we're < all on the same page (Dasovich is going to call you also). < < Muchas gracias y hasta manana. < < S.
|