Re: FW: Letter to Judge Malcolm - RCS Closing Argument
This proposal seems to maximize the usefulness of closing argument for
parties and decision-makers. In particular, all parties should know the
contents of the SDG&E settlement proposal before argument.
Marc Joseph
Quon, Susan L wrote:
>
> >
> >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
> >
> >
.
References: