It looks like a good letter.... heavy on explanation of our position. At some 
point I'd like to hear more of the background that's leading us to this 
position.



	Richard B Sanders@ECT
	11/17/2000 10:19 AM
		 
		 To: Eric Thode/Corp/Enron@EN.ON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J 
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Draft letter to the CPUC


----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 11/17/2000 10:19 AM -----

	"Meringolo, Peter" <PMeringolo@brobeck.com>
	11/16/2000 03:27 PM
		 
		 To: "'Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com'" <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com>, 
"'msmith1@enron.com'" <msmith1@enron.com>, "'Mary.Hain@enron.com'" 
<Mary.Hain@enron.com>, "'David_Aamodt@pgn.com'" <David_Aamodt@pgn.com>, 
"'Christian.Yoder@enron.com'" <Christian.Yoder@enron.com>, "'mday@gmssr.com'" 
<mday@gmssr.com>, "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>, "Stephen C. Hall 
(E-mail)" <schall@stoel.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Draft letter to the CPUC


Please let either Gary or me know your thoughts and comments regarding the
below draft letter to the CPUC.

Thanks,

Peter

> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
> ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
> ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
>
>
>
> Harvey Morris Esq.
> California Public Utilities Commission
> 505 Public Utilities Commission
> San Francisco, California   94102
>
>  Re:   I.00-08-002  Subpoenas Served on Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
> ("EPMI"), Enron Energy Services Operations Inc. and Enron Energy Services
> Inc. (collectively referred to as "EES"), Enron Energy Marketing
> Corporation ("EEMC"), and Portland General Electric Corporation ("Portland
> General")(collectively sometimes referred to as the "Enron Entities")
>
> Harvey,
>
>  I am writing in response to the various voicemail exchanges and
> phone calls between Michael Day, on behalf of the Enron Entities, and
> yourself during the past few weeks.  Here is the current status as we
> understand it.  Based upon the agreements we reached between October 6,
> 2000 and October 18, 2000 (date of your confirming email) the Enron
> Entities have made the following document productions in response to the
> subpoenas served by California Public Utilities Commission (the
> "Commission"):
>
> * October 13, 2000  Bate Nos. Enron Entities 000001-000025 on behalf
> of all Enron Entities Responsive to Request Nos. 1-11, 20.
>
> * October 27, 2000 Bate Nos. P000001-002115 on behalf of Portland
> General Responsive to Request Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 18.
>
> * November 14, 2000 Bate No. Enron Entities 000026 (Diskette with
> EES/EEMC retail data) Responsive to Request Nos. 7 to 11, 13, 15 to 17,
> and 19.
>
> * November 15, 2000 Bate No. P002116-002117 (Diskettes with Portland
> General Data, which include approximate 355,000 wholesale transactions)
> Responsive to Request Nos. 7 to 11, 13 to 17, and 19.
>
> We believe with these productions, we have complied with the October
> 6-18th agreement with respect to Portland General and EES/EEMC.  As you
> know, these productions were all made reserving the Enron Entities rights
> to object or challenge the subpoenas and reserving any claims, defenses,
> objections, jurisdictional or otherwise, or other responses.
>
>  We originally had hoped to have all of the Transactional Data for
> EPMI, as defined in our October 6th email, available for production by
> October 27th.  However, we were also mindful of your expressed expectation
> that any data provided be useful and reliable.  The collection of data you
> requested in the subpoenas is neither kept electronically in the same
> location nor organized as you requested it.  In fact during our review of
> some of the data we found significant errors that called into question the
> methodology by which the data was extracted from existing information.
> When it became apparent that we could not accurately estimate how long it
> would take to get reliable data given the volume of transactions involved,
> we informed you of the problem.  We now understand that if we cannot give
> you a firm date when the balance of the Transactional Data will be
> available, the Commission believes it will have no choice but to seek to
> compel production before the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission
> ("FERC").  We understand the pressure that you must be under to get data
> immediately, but we cannot, at this time, give you another date in the
> immediate future by which we are certain that we will be able to produce
> accurate data.
>
>  Moreover, during the iterim between October 18th and today, a number
> of significant events have occurred that we believe bear on the subpoenas
> served on the Enron entities.  First, we understand that many other
> parties who were served with the same subpoenas have not provided the
> detailed information requested and have objected on a variety of very
> sound legal grounds.  Second, the Commission itself has, without a hearing
> on the motion, unilaterally revised the proposed protective order that is
> supposed to govern these productions and summarily denied other changes
> sought by other parties served.  Third, the Commission has filed its
> motion before FERC seeking an order compelling the production of the data
> from those other parties that have objected and seeking an expedited
> hearing and production schedule.  We note that the reasons stated in the
> motion before FERC as the basis for the production are materially
> different than the reasons originally stated in the ex parte application
> to the Commission's own Administrative Law Judge who issued the subpoenas.
> Finally, FERC itself has completed its investigation and has issued a
> tentative order as of November 1, 2000.
>
>  Originally, the Enron Entities had been prepared to accept "most
> favored nation" treatment with respect to protective orders and requests
> by others to limit the scope of the subpoenas and produce information that
> was available.  However, given both the Commission's stated urgent need
> for an immediate answer that EPMI cannot in good faith give despite
> substantial effort (date for production of reliable and accurate
> Transaction Data) and the uncertainty created by the above described
> intervening events, EPMI believes it has no choice but to serve its formal
> objections and responses to the subpoenas and await the Commission's
> threatened motion to compel before FERC.
>
>  We also understand from our discussions with you that the Commission
> has created various lists or categories for the entities that have been
> served with subpoenas.  We understand that there is a list for those
> entities that have been cooperating, a list for those who have been
> delaying and a list for those who have been objecting and exercising their
> rights to challenge the subpoenas.  We understand that the Commission
> intends to punish, by whatever means it has available, those entities that
> object and exercise their rights to challenge the subpoenas.  We deplore
> these tactics, but despite all of the efforts to cooperate described
> above, we understand that EPMI may in fact be moved from the cooperating
> list to the group to be punished for exercising its rights.
>
>  If you have and questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
> contact me.
>
>         Sincerely,
>
>
>
>         Gary S.
> Fergus

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to 
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com