|
|
Enron Mail |
That's a good point. I think all of the data on the spreadsheet represents
retail sales. However, we have also been asked to provide data on wholesale transactions. EES does about 95% of its wholesale business with EPMI. What are your thoughts on disclosing data relevant to the 5% of the wholesale purchases that are not with EPMI? From: James D Steffes@ENRON on 11/01/2000 04:46 PM To: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES cc: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Updated Excel Chart Mike -- Before we send this in, I want to make sure that EES is submitting "retail" transactions clearly jurisidictional to the CPUC. Your note says that EPMI will not be turning over similar wholesale data. Jim ----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 04:44 PM ----- Susan J Mara 11/01/2000 02:43 PM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Updated Excel Chart Jim and Jeff I received this from Mike Smith. He also called me. I haven't been in the loop on this stuff and am not sure what to do with it. ----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 12:37 PM ----- Mike D Smith@EES 10/31/2000 11:35 AM To: Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Updated Excel Chart ---------------------- Forwarded by Mike D Smith/HOU/EES on 10/31/2000 01:33 PM --------------------------- Enron Energy Services From: Mike D Smith 10/30/2000 09:11 AM To: mday@gmssr.com, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gfergus@brobeck.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Updated Excel Chart PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION Mike and Sue--attached is the Excel spreadsheet of EES/EEMC trading info that we are considering turning over to the Cal PUC in response to the Subpoena. EPMI will not be turning over similar wholesale data, at least not at this point. In that you have done much of the EES retail regulatory work in California, please let me know if you see any regulatory implications in turning over this info. It seems to me that by doing so we would be at least tacitly admitting to the jurisdiction of the PUC to request and receive this info. By doing so, would we be undoing groundwork you have already laid? Would we be jeopardizing our right to object to similar requests in the future? Would we be opening any doors to more of this type of regulation? My concern is that this info is innocuous and irrelevant now, but what about future requests for info that we do care about? Also, what do the FERC info we learned on Friday and the new ISO price caps do to our response strategy? Please respond asap--we need to be able to tell the PUC something in the next 48 hours. You can call me at 713 853 9503. Thanks. MDS ---------------------- Forwarded by Mike D Smith/HOU/EES on 10/30/2000 09:02 AM --------------------------- Allison McHenry 10/27/2000 12:00 PM To: Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: Updated Excel Chart Attached is the updated chart re the CA subpoena. Please let me know if I can do anything else.
|