We will add the new plan data to the historical file and sub-total like 
items.  We'll also work with Marketing to split revenues into categories that 
will help them, going back as far as we can.




Rod Hayslett

11/07/2000 06:41 AM
To: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000  

I want to have the detail schedule fixed to include themost recent forecast 
and plans, including the plan for 2000.    Where there are obvious reclasses 
(like variable pay in 1999 vs 1998) then I want those made comparable.   This 
schedule has to somehow be made more usable.   I would suggest putting all 
the O&M and G&A in one bucket to avoid the shifting around explanations 
possibly.   Also on the revenue side can we get revenue broken down by North, 
South and Offshore?





	Elaine Concklin
	11/06/2000 06:43 PM
	
To: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tracy Geaccone/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Bob Chandler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000  

I don't see any other items in the historical file like the Y2K costs.  It 
was an issue of whether these costs were truly incremental or not.  Over the 
years, there have been numerous shifts in philosophy regarding recurring 
versus non-recurring.  We have attempted to go back to 1993 and make the 
methodology more consistent between years with the information that we had 
available.

Tracy,  I will send you a revised Detail Income Statement file for the Plan 
because it includes 1999.




Rod Hayslett

11/06/2000 04:59 PM
To: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000  

Are there any other things like this in this table?     The only split that 
really matters in this table is the recurring/non-recurring split.





	Elaine Concklin
	11/06/2000 11:33 AM
	
To: Bob Chandler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@ENRON
cc: Harry Walters/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Vera Apodaca/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Henry 
Baker/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steve Kleb/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000

In 1999, we treated the increase in expense for Y2K as recurring, but 
reflected the deferral as non-recurring.  It probably would have been more 
appropriate to treat both the increase and deferral as non-recurring.  We 
will change the historical file to reflect that methodology.  This will 
decrease the 1999 recurring Direct O&M by $3.5MM on NNG and $.4MM on TW.  The 
attached file reflects the changes.  This does not have any effect on total 
O&M or IBIT, only the split between recurring and non-recurring.


---------------------- Forwarded by Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron on 11/06/2000 
11:14 AM ---------------------------

11/01/2000 04:39 PM
Vera Apodaca
Vera Apodaca
Vera Apodaca
11/01/2000 04:39 PM
11/01/2000 04:39 PM
To: Harry Walters/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Elaine Concklin/ET&S/Enron 

Subject: O&M Variance - 1998 to 2000


Harry,  here is the explanation.  The biggest portion is the variable pay 
which was not part of G&A in 1998 $4.6MM and then we expensed Y2K of $3.5MM.