|
|
Enron Mail |
We will add the new plan data to the historical file and sub-total like
items. We'll also work with Marketing to split revenues into categories that will help them, going back as far as we can. Rod Hayslett 11/07/2000 06:41 AM To: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000 I want to have the detail schedule fixed to include themost recent forecast and plans, including the plan for 2000. Where there are obvious reclasses (like variable pay in 1999 vs 1998) then I want those made comparable. This schedule has to somehow be made more usable. I would suggest putting all the O&M and G&A in one bucket to avoid the shifting around explanations possibly. Also on the revenue side can we get revenue broken down by North, South and Offshore? Elaine Concklin 11/06/2000 06:43 PM To: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON cc: Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Bob Chandler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000 I don't see any other items in the historical file like the Y2K costs. It was an issue of whether these costs were truly incremental or not. Over the years, there have been numerous shifts in philosophy regarding recurring versus non-recurring. We have attempted to go back to 1993 and make the methodology more consistent between years with the information that we had available. Tracy, I will send you a revised Detail Income Statement file for the Plan because it includes 1999. Rod Hayslett 11/06/2000 04:59 PM To: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000 Are there any other things like this in this table? The only split that really matters in this table is the recurring/non-recurring split. Elaine Concklin 11/06/2000 11:33 AM To: Bob Chandler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON cc: Harry Walters/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Vera Apodaca/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Henry Baker/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steve Kleb/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000 In 1999, we treated the increase in expense for Y2K as recurring, but reflected the deferral as non-recurring. It probably would have been more appropriate to treat both the increase and deferral as non-recurring. We will change the historical file to reflect that methodology. This will decrease the 1999 recurring Direct O&M by $3.5MM on NNG and $.4MM on TW. The attached file reflects the changes. This does not have any effect on total O&M or IBIT, only the split between recurring and non-recurring. ---------------------- Forwarded by Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron on 11/06/2000 11:14 AM --------------------------- 11/01/2000 04:39 PM Vera Apodaca Vera Apodaca Vera Apodaca 11/01/2000 04:39 PM 11/01/2000 04:39 PM To: Harry Walters/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron Subject: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000 Harry, here is the explanation. The biggest portion is the variable pay which was not part of G&A in 1998 $4.6MM and then we expensed Y2K of $3.5MM.
|