|
|
Enron Mail |
enough of these circular e-mails reinventing the wheel (or circle). We are
getting nowhere fast. The 5 of us need to talk. Please set something up. Roger Yang 08/29/2000 04:01 PM To: Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Rick Bachmeier/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: Top 30 EESI Positions If you are more comfortable with your plan, this will work for us. Our objective is the objective, not necessarily the path taken. I think there is more than one way to draw a circle, and your proposal looks equally as good. We will perform step 1. We hope to have something to you in 3 to 4 weeks. In the meantime, we will provide you a list of the right URM personnel associated with each position. With respect to step 2, we will assume that the top 30 is reported accurately with respect to the risk we have assumed and we will manage the portfolio versus any particular deal. Given all of our responsibilities, we will most likely have difficulty analyzing the specific transactions associated with the position, but we will do what we can if you think this is a useful exercise. Government Affairs can start thinking about step 3 in parallel or wait to get the results from step 1, either is fine. We will wait to do step 4 after steps 1 and 2 are finished. If you choose to start step 3, you may also want to filter out any plans that are improbable or impossible. We will gladly accept the offer for GA to perform step 5. Step 6 is the objective. Roger Harry Kingerski 08/28/2000 09:59 AM To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES cc: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Rick Bachmeier/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: Top 30 EESI Positions (The e-mail you sent was encoded to prevent forwarding, copying or any other form of duplication, so my response needs to be by reference to it..) You asked if GA can provide a list of regulatory and statutory activities that may impact our position on your top 30 utilities. That's not the way we need to proceed. Instead, what I'd like to do (and what I think Scott also agrees with) is have the right people from the desk and the right people from GA jointly develop what the regulatory hedge strategy should be for each of the major utility positions. In each case, the process should be something like - 1) re-review the curve, identify major uncertainties and major certainties, 2) re-review the position, identify what the major deals are that constitute the position, and any nuances about the deal that would be beneficial to know about , like term, type of pricing, etc., 3) brainstorm the things that could be done, legislatively, regulatorily, or other, to protect or improve the position, 4) brainstorm how the things identified in #3 could best be done, what resources would be required, and whether the chances for success warrant the expenditure and effort 5) have GA take the lead in writing up a regulatory strategy, complete with milestones and timelines for when we should expect to see things happen, and what the off-ramps to the strategy will be, perhaps including the point at which the curve would be changed 6) have GA and the desk interactively communicate on the success of the strategy. So far, we are at about : stage 2 for Com Ed, Duke, SPS, Ohio Power, and Illinois Power stage 4 for PG&E, stage 3 for HL&P, and ready to get started for the rest. The integration of people so far is Com Ed, IP (Sue L, Roy Boston, Ajit Gill) Ohio Power (Janine, Burranit?) PG&E (Roger, Mona ) HL&P (Jeff, Pat Keene, Robin Kittel) So, my recommendation for next steps is to drive these existing efforts through to stage 6, and get the rest of the utilities started by naming the right personnel. Thoughts?
|