IN: Met early this morning with Jack Steward (pres. of CMA) and Keith McCrea (lawyer for CMA) to follow up on the meeting that Steve and I had with them regarding the proposal Ken Lay was pushing last week: They like taking Tx out of the MOU, they like getting DWR out of the power purchase business, and they think that Edison's MOU needs a little haircut. McCrea pushed back initially on core/noncore ("why should it be mandatory to go the market? "), but after much discussion they agreed that our idea for core/noncore has a lot of merit. Our idea is that 1) the core/noncore would take effect in 18-24 months, when the markets settle and prices come down, 2) everyone (core and noncore) should pay for DWR's "past" purchases, since everyone consumed it, 3) core customers should take IOU generation, QFs and DWR contracts (which eliminates the core's "net short" position, and 4) noncore would go to market and would not have to pay for any of DWR's "going forward costs" (since core gets them, in exchange for getting all the low-cost IOU generation) I told them we are still crunching the numbers to see what the rate effects would be and would share it with them when we're done. While they are supportive of this approach and agreed that it would be useful to continue to flesh it out, they are not convinced that it will get the necessary support to get passed. They are also withholding final judgment until they see all the numbers, i.e., we've still got some work to do. They are very cynical about anything getting solved in California, and are extremely upset about the PUC's proposed rate decisions released by the judge and Loretta Lynch. They place very little trust in the Governor or the Legislature. Interestingly, the rate increase decisions, coupled with calls in Sacramento for an immediate move to core/noncore, makes our proposal very attractive to CMA. Nonetheless, they said that they will continue to engage and are willing to commit to continue meet to try to get California's mess resolved.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Follow-up Meeting this Morning w/CMA

IN: FYI. Most recent versions. Matt, sorry I missed you call. Roger, does signing the letter agreement cause any balance sheet problems? We anticipate closing a few days later. Kay

Generate a subject line.

OUT: ENA / Coral Turbine Transaction

IN: All, We currently have 7 associates and 2 analysts yet to place in ENA. These A&A are new hires and will be joining Enron in August. Please advise me if you would like to see these resumes today. Rgds, Karen. x54667

Generate a subject line.

OUT: A&A to be placed

IN: I spoke with Oscar Wyatt this afternoon on Crown and subsequently to Tom Bachtell, an attorney in Utah who is attempting to organize shareholders to replace existing management. Crown has an asphalt oil sand production facility in northeast Utah and an asphalt distribution company. Bachtell owns about 4-5% of the stock. Mr. Wyatt indicated he had a "small" holding. I indicated that we would consider any proposal that might result in salvaging some value from this investment. We hold convertible preferred and a small amount of common at an original cost of $5.5 million in 1997. Fully converted, our ownership would be approximately 25%. The Company has a net deficit of $21 million and a "going concern" paragraph in its audit opinion. We have written down our carrying value to nil. The Company in engaged in an arbitration proceeding against MCN Energy and MCNIC Pipeline. MCNIC has interests in the asphalt assets and is a lender to Crown. MCNIC attempted to foreclose on certain Crown assets and Crown in turn counter-sued for $100 million. The arbitration hearing will be held July 23 - August 10. If Crown obtained an award from the arbitration, some value could be restored to our investment. We will get further information from Bachtell on the details of his plans and recommend what position Enron should take in this matter.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Crown Energy