Q: Friends... Chris Bartlett at Harvard presented (last week) the 2 most recent Enron cases he wrote to the "Harvard Program for Global Leadership". This is an Exec Ed program for CXO's and Senior management from throughout the world. Chris called me today to say that the cases received outstanding reviews, and that the largely international CXO audience was both knowledgeable about, and very 'pro-Enron'! Best!
Propose a subject line
A: Enron Harvard cases

Q: I have reviewed the La Plata Facilities O&O Agreement. Lee, could you please review the same and see if you agree with this assessment? It appears to me that the pigging facilties could qualify as either of the following: Special Services. This would be subject to prior written consent and agreement between the Operator (TW) and the Operating Committee (TW & NWPLRepresentatives). If NWPL agreed, their share of the cost would be in proportion to their ownership interest. If we did obtain their approval, future O&M cost attributable to the pigging facilities could be shared among the owners. (We've agreed to a flat fee for 2000 through 2003 with a 3.5% escalator starting in 2001.) Addition or Expansion. Demonstrate that the pigging will add incremental transmission capacity. We have to give notice to NWPL and they have 60 days to participate. If they participate, they share in the cost at their ownership interest, but they get a share of the incremental capacity at their ownership interest. If they don't indicate a desire to participate in 60 days, we can proceed with the Expansion (without any approval, but also no cost sharing). Also, any incremental O&M associated with an expansion cannot be passed on to any owners not participating in such expansion. I think if we went the Special Services route, we would need to justify the need for these facilities to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the facilities at current levels. I think we would spend alot of time arguing this with them and in the end they would probably approve it subject to them not incurring any cost. (They probably don't have $260,000 ($1.5MM * .174) sitting around in a budget somewhere that they'd like to fork over for these facilities.) Rich, what do you think? How difficult would it be to demonstrate that these facilities are necessary for maintaining the current operating levels of the facilities? Recommendation: To save us the 60 days notice period of an Expansion, I think we should notify them that it's a necessary Special Service and ask for approval (& to pass along their share of the cost), but to be prepared to eat 100% of the costs to obtain their timely approval and proceed with the installation of the facilities. In this event we would need to agree on the inclusion of future O&M attributable to these facilities. FYI, their ownership interest is still officially 22.3% since they have not executed the Amendment that has been tendered to them 3 times, first by me and twice by Lynn Blair. If they execute the Amendment that incorporates the 4/1/98 expansion of the facilities, their ownership interest will be 17.4%.
Propose a subject line
A: Installation of Pigging Facilities

Q: As both of you are well aware, ENA currently owes Midland Power Cooperative ("MPC") past due amounts for power delivered pursuant to an Agreement for Purchase of Power dated March 31, 1995 by and between ENA and MPC, as amended. I am working with Chip and Dave to determine if we can pay the past due amounts. Two questions need to be answered ASAP: 1) Is there any other entity that might be able to supply the power if ENA defaults under its agreement with MPC? 2) Is MPC considered a "utility"? Dave has learned that "utilities" cannot refuse to serve entities in bankruptcy on a going forward basis for failure to pay pre-petition obligations (so long as adequate assurances of future payments are provided). Gerald, you might need to consult with one of the bankruptcy lawyers to see how this determination is made. Please respond at your earliest possible convenience. Thanks
Propose a subject line
A: ENA - NNG Hubbard Transaction - Past Due bill from Midland Power Cooperative

Q: Jeff, as per our discussion, this would be a great opportunity for you to spend some time with and instill your vision for Enron to the leaders of the ENA organization. I have attached a preliminary agenda which has you speaking to the group right after dinner the night of December 14th. You have no time constraint on the length of your talk (ie) whatever you find find appropriate in order to get your message across. I though it might be interesting for you to give your vision of Enron's 2001 goals, objectives and strategy. As well, a brief business overview of EES, EBS and Networks may be valuable in building connections. Regards
Propose a subject line
A:
2000 ENA Offsite