IN: ... how about an LBO? Certain high net worth executives sponsor the deal in conjunction with a major financial investor such as JPM/Chase or Citibank. Force the share trust participants to go along and cut in all management and employees. It gets the company out of the spotlight and might have some real attraction for deal starved investors... esp at this price level. It could remotivate everyone and provide a way to recover some of the lost value that had accrued to the employees over the years. Obviously, some stakeholders would do better that others but that's the way it goes sometimes. Just a thought. Hang in there. Jim

Generate a subject line.

OUT: I know this sounds crazy but...

IN: Here's the latest that we have on the legislation ("82XX") released on Friday. The Assembly Energy Committee will hold an "informational" hearing on 82XX at 1:30 PM PDT today. "Informational" means that there won't be a vote today. Attended a meeting this morning with the business groups with Assemblyman Dutra (self-proclaimed pro-biz Democrat, who's an "author" of 82XX), Hertzberg's chief staffer, and Hertzberg's outside legal consultant. The DWR contracts continue to be the roadblock to a rational solution. Dutra is unhappy with the process thus far----claimed he wasn't familiar with

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Update on California Legislation---Afternoon of 07.16.01

IN: Here is another matrix of TW "Current Shipper" rates & surcharges. This one is not posted on the web. I don't know whether anyone needs/uses it, anymore, but I have been keeping it up. There is a new tab for each change in Current Shipper Rates. The latest is "200111" Elizabeth - I forgot to send this to you this morning. Jeanette - I don't recall whether I sent this along with the other TW files.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: FYI 11/2001 TW Rate Matrix - same rates, different format

IN: Corporate Charges Tracy Geaccone has suggested (and discussed with Terry West in Corporate Planning) that the pipelines be allowed access to the 2002 Plan once it has been loaded in SAP for the Corporate cost centers that bill us. The Plan would be recorded by GL account within each of the applicable cost centers. Corporate prepares a schedule that shows which cost centers bill us, the methodologies used and the amounts billed. It would be quite an undertaking because of the number of Corporate cost centers involved, but each of the pipelines would be able to derive a FERC breakdown using the Plan, plus the schedule from Corporate. The main issue would be manpower. Tracy mentioned the possibility of having one of the associate analysts perform this task, but said that the Plan would not be finalized and loaded until probably the end of November. Is this an acceptable solution? Do we need a meeting to discuss this further? I am still waiting for return phone calls from Enron Networks and Global Finance. There are just a few Global Finance cost centers that bill us. However, the method proposed above may also be a solution for Enron Networks billings. Enron Property and Services Corp. The mandate that these billings be recorded in individual cost centers rather than at a company level originated with Tracy Geaccone with a promise of cost savings to Stan. However, Tracy told me that rather than coding to a cost center, she has requested that the coding be to a FAR order. I told her that would mean multiple FAR orders. Her thinking is that each cost center already has a FAR order. I attempted to describe our use of custom variants. She said that she would work through Bob Chandler. If we intend to continue using the custom variants, it would mean creating a large number of new FAR orders. Again, is this an acceptable solution? Do we need a meeting to discuss this further?

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Intercompany Billings Follow-Up