FW: Letter to Judge Malcolm - RCS Closing Argument

>
>Dear Judge Malcolm:
>
>I am sending this note on behalf of Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas &
>Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric.  The three utilities believe that
>there would be value in conducting a closing argument in advance of the oral
>argument to the full Commission.  We recommend, however, that the date of the
>closing argument be postponed, for two reasons.
>
>First, the Commissioners may wish to hear argument on the proposed agreement
>between SDG&E and certain other parties.  We understand that the proposed
>agreement is still being discussed, and SCE and PG&E have not been advised of
>its details.  It seems appropriate to postpone the closing argument until the
>proposed agreement has been made public and the parties have had an
>opportunity to evaluate how it might apply to SCE and PG&E.
>
>Second, the closing argument may be more helpful once the record is closed
>and the parties' positions more fully defined.  Under the current schedule,
>the Commission will receive additional rebuttal testimony after the closing
>argument.  Moreover, the Commissioners may benefit from seeing the parties'
>briefs in advance of the argument.
>
>For these reasons, the three utilities propose that the oral argument be
>rescheduled to a date after the reply briefs have been filed.  Because
>counsel for SCE and PG&E will be unavailable the week of July 13, we suggest
>the argument be scheduled the week of July 20 or thereafter.
>
>Thank you for your kind consideration of our suggestion.
>
>			Very truly yours,
>
>
>
>			James M. Lehrer
>
>
.
Follow-Ups: