Just to add to Tim's note - I suggest that the number of overlap issues would be few and far between and can be resolved at the operating level.  I think ENA can offer up representatives from each region that have an open line of communication with the appropriate EES people.  If ENA and EES provided each other with a short list of contacts there should be no need to deal with this at the OTC level.  For example, Chris Foster (ENA West Power Mid Market) would direct  questions/opportunities to EES and field calls from EES people looking at deals in the western power market.

ENA Interface List:

Power:
West:  Foster
Midwest: Baughman
East: Pagan
Texas: Sukaly

Gas:
West: Tycholiz
Midwest: Luce
East: Vickers
Texas: Martin

Dave knows all of these people and I believe that they do things in the best interest of "One-Enron".

Regards,

Chris  
---------------------- Forwarded by Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT on 03/25/2001 01:18 PM ---------------------------
   
	  From:  Tim Belden                           03/21/2001 07:05 AM	
		


To:	Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT 
Subject:	EES/EPMI Split

i heard dave's voicemail.  i appreciate his concern.  however, i don't think that the delineation is easy to do.  i am confident that my team knows what we are good at and what we aren't good at.  if we aren't best suited to serve the load, we will act like "one enron" and send the account over to the them.  the split should really be driven by the customer's needs and which utility they are behind.  for example, montana power has a wonderful balancing tariff where the utility looks at the scheduled volume and compares it to the actual volumes and settles directly with the customer for imbalances.  we don't do any metering, we don't do any unique billing, the loads range anywhere from 1 MW to 25 MW.  ena is definitely best suited to serve these industrials because commodity price is their top interest.  the pugest system is about to open up with a structure that is similar to montana's.  ena will be very well positioned to serve this load.  the same company could have a plant in california.  we wouldn't serve that load because the expertise needed to manage the ctc risk (before this thing blew up anyway), the challenge of metering and tracking metered volumes on a schedule vs. actual basis, and the load forecasting.  the same company could also own gas stations in the west.  we have no interest in serving gas stations.

i also heard the message attached to dave's from scott dann (sp?).  his message did little to open communication between groups.  he provided no details on what the issue was in the west with respect to epmi (ena) and ees.  for us to do this right, ees and ena need to be able to solve problems without involving the office of the chair of each company.  i would be happy to work with anyone from ees to resolve who should be covering which accounts.

i still can't think of a clean way to divide customers.  each approach has its problems.  each company (ees and ena) has its strengths.  our strength is commodity pricing and delivering a mw to anywhere on the western grid.  their strength is in tariff analysis, energy management, and aggregating loads.

for the west, i am confident that chris calger and i can sort out any disputes with ees that are reasonable.  we know what we are good at.  we have a proven track record with a large number of industrials in the west.  i still believe that our customers and shareholders are best served with our favored approach.  it will require better communication on the operating level between ees and ena.