Q: You made a comment on page 13. It says "(c) purchase of power ...." I think this is one of your comments. What does it mean? I'm on a conference call, so an email response would be appreciated. ckm
Propose a subject line
A: q

Q: Bizarre as it sounds, we've now heard that they are calling the Assembly members back. So it appears that the Assembly leadership will at least make a run at this. We are getting more information and mobilizing industry. Some key considerations: The Governor is putting immense pressure on the Legislature to get something done. The Legislature is fearful of getting blamed by the Governor for having "done nothing." Becauase the Assembly has thus far "done nothing," the only thing it has in front of it is 78. The Assembly could not agree to the Speaker's bill because it felt the bill was too far to the left; but 78 is even more one-sided. So there's a reasonable likelihood that 78 would have to be amended considerably in order to get the support necessary to get voted out. Once voted out of the Assembly, it would have to go back to the Senate, where the Senate would have to approve it. Again, the Senate has adjourned, so Burton would have to round them up and call them back for a vote, and there's no indication at this time that Burton's inclined to come back. In addition, Burton has said that he's not interested in making any changes to 78, that "it's 78 or nothing." Consequently, for the Sentate (i.e., Burton) to vote it out, it would first have to agree to the Assembly's amendments. Thus far, the Assembly and the Senate have not seen eye to eye on the issues. All that said, this Legislature is far from rational, and nothing can be counted out. We're therefore operating under the assumption that 78 could move. Will report back as information becomes available. Best,
Propose a subject line
A: Rumor That The Legislature May Reconvene

Q: Sorry about that. I should have said Cindy came in first for the week, not Andy, as you can see. I apologize to both for the mistake
Propose a subject line
A: Picks of the Week--Correction

Q: David, As we discussed, Mark Haedicke and I discussed the possibility of providing Kevin McConville with some sort of indemnity in order to make sure that he remains available and cooperative during the pendency of the NSM case and other litigation matters. We could agree to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with Kevin. The terms of that Agreement would include: 1. He agrees to be available and cooperative with Enron and its counsel regarding litigation matters. He will agree to meet with counsel, prepare for testimony, review documents, testify, and provide other assistance, as needed. 2. Through February 1, 2001, Kevin would not be directly compensated for this cooperation/testimony (because he is to be receiving his salary pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement). After Feb.1, 2001, he will be paid a rate of $125 per hour for his services in this regard. 3. Enron would agree to indemnify Kevin for his conduct taken in the ordinary course and scope of his employment with Enron, up to the last date of his employment with Enron. Excluded from this indemnity would be allegations or claims based upon the following:
Propose a subject line
A:
Confidential re: McConville--Indemnity