From: tomb@crossborderenergy.com
To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Date: 2000-11-09 10:29:00+00:00
Subject: Re: Gas Accord II

Jeff --

You should be aware that yesterday at the Gas Accord II session our dear
friend Norm put a proposal on the table (1) to end the PG&E city-gate market
and (2) move to a postage-stamp, all-volumetric transmission rate that
combines both backbone and local transmission.  He's trying to get TURN's
support by agreeing to maintain the vintage rates for the core's share of
Line 400.  PG&E noted that Norm basically was proposing to return to the
pre-Accord structure (with all its problems), and I could not resist asking
him whether his proposal was contingent on CPUC approval of the post-Interim
Settlement for SoCalGas (he said his PG&E proposal stood alone).  Sound
familiar?  We need the CPUC to adopt the Comprehensive Settlement, in order
to keep Norm quiet in Gas Accord II.

I'm working with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in Gas
Accord II.  Their primary interest is moving to equalize the Redwood and
Baja path rates.  I also have done work recently for Southern proposing a
backbone-only rate for PG&E.  Keep me posted if and as your coalition
develops.

Tom Beach

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
To: <craigc@calpine.com>; <counihan@greenmountain.com>; <PhilDavies@aec.ca>;
<jfawcett@enron.com>; <rochmanm@spurr-remac.org>; <dcarroll@dbsr.com>;
<PaulAmirault@aec.ca>; <ALEXANMS@sce.com>; <Mark.C.Moench@wgp.twc.com>;
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>; <burkee@cts.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:01 AM


> Greetings Folks:
>
> As you know, the Gas Accord is coming to an end and PG&E's trying to
figure
> out where to go from here.  I would argue that what happens with PG&E is
> equally, if not more, important as what happens with SoCal.
>
> As you also know, we're faced with a retrograde PUC that, by all accounts,
> longs for the "halcyon days" of command-and-control regulation.  As such,
I
> think it would be very useful, and cost-effective, to pull together the
> effective coalition we established in the SoCalGas settlement.
>
> In that coalition, some of us contributed dollars and some contributed
> experts.  I think we should employ that approach again.  I asked Mike Day,
> who I think most agree, did a pretty good job of representing us in the
> SoCal settlement, to make a proposal for representing us in the PG&E case.
> Mike's proposal is attached.  Finally, if there's anyone else you think we
> ought to include in our coalition, please let me know.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Hope all is well with you and yours.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff:
>
>            Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition
of
> end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord
> II
> proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties
in
> the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements.  We would
propose
> to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
> the parties who agree to join such a coalition.  In exchange for joining
> the
> coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
> settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
> reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on
the
> GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
> any other useful information.
>
>            I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
> proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
> other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings,
etc.
> However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
> Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
> partner on the case.  I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD
> attorneys
> who would likely have some involvement in the case.  Because the majority
> of
> this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
> fees.  However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
> and because several potential members of the coalition are past or
existing
> clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for
all
> participants in the coalition.  With this discount, these would be the
> lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
>
>            I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
> proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
> proceedings will be.  Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
> collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation
in
> the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
> budgetary estimates.  If you require some type of estimation sooner than
> that, please let me know.
>
>            Thank you for your interest in using our services.  Please
> contact
> me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
>
> Mike Day, partner
> Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
>
>
>
> GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
>
> Michael Day                                   $300
>
> James McTarnaghan                              $260
>
> Jeanne Bennett                            $220
>
> Alexandra Ozols                                $130
>
> Heather Patrick, paralegal                     $ 85
>
>