|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Channing Strother <cstrother@MSHPC.COM< X-To: EL00-95@LISTSERV.GSA.GOV X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Inbox X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst Vernon had understood that issues of costs (other than emissions and start-up) offsetting refunds claimed to be due as a result of the application of the MMCP came within Issues II/III and that testimony from intervenors on these issues would be due along with other Issue II/III issues on January 25, 2002. Thus, Vernon did not file testimony on these issues on November 8. And, thus, Vernon cannot agree that such issues are ripe for consideration in the Issue I part of the proceeding. The below language suggested by Mr. Rosenberg, standing alone, too ambiguous and vague to Vernon to go into an order setting the procedural schedule. Thus, Vernon suggests that the narrative describing the testimony to be filed on or before January 25 better elaborate on what that testimony is to address, e.g.: "Participants' simultaneous responsive testimony on issues 2 and 3, including APX evidence, [and evidence concerning any offsetting costs (other than emission allowances and fuel start-up costs)], and narrative summaries of material points, including page and line references thereto." Or whatever language makes the point clear. Channing Channing D. Strother, Jr. McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC 2175 K Street, NW Ste. 600 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202-393-5710 x 4045 Fax: 202-393-5721 E-Mail: cstrother@mshpc.com Pager: 1-800-209-0704 -----Original Message----- From: EL00-95 List [mailto:EL00-95@listserv.gsa.gov] On Behalf Of Robert Rosenberg Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:16 PM To: EL00-95@LISTSERV.GSA.GOV Subject: EL00-95, proposed revision to the ISO's Revised Procedural Schedule As a follow-up to conversations with the ISO, we propose the addition of the following language to address our interests: To the extent that evidence concerning any other additional sources of cost recovery (other than emission allowances and fuel start-up costs) is not considered in Phase I, it shall be submitted and considered in Phase II. It would fit as an addition or footnote to the December 10, 2001 entry.
|