FYI
Thanks
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meringolo, Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:01 PM
> To: Fergus, Gary S.
> Subject: FW: Enron Proposals Regarding Document Subpoenas
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fergus, Gary S.
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 9:59 AM
> To: Meringolo, Peter
> Subject: FW: Enron Proposals Regarding Document Subpoenas
> Importance: High
>
> FYI.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fergus, Gary S.
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:57 PM
> To: 'hym@cpuc.ca.gov'
> Cc: 'MBD'
> Subject: Enron Proposals Regarding Document Subpoenas
> Importance: High
>
> 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,
>
>  Here are our proposals with respect to the Enron Entities'
> production of documents pursuant to the above described subpoenas issued
> by the California Public Utility Commission (hereinafter "the
> Commission").  The Enron Entities are willing to assist the Commission in
> undertaking its investigation into the problems in the California electric
> markets by producing the information specified on a timely basis.  We
> believe that the production we propose will enable the Commission to
> commence its investigation much sooner than if the parties were forced to
> litigate all of the potential objections to the requests for production,
> which are, by any standard, extremely broad and could involve millions of
> pages of documents.  We make these proposals pursuant to our email
> exchange of October 3, 2000 with the understanding that the Commission
> agrees that by cooperating, offering to produce or producing documents,
> the Enron Entities have not waived any objections or challenges to these
> subpoenas whatsoever and that any claims, defenses, objections,
> jurisdictional or otherwise or other responses have been specifically
> reserved and can be raised in the future, if necessary.   For all of these
> proposals, we exclude documents that are protected from disclosure by the
> attorney client and attorney work product privileges.
>
>  Generally speaking, the Enron Entities propose to produce documents
> for year 2000 as noted below.  We also understand that the Commission will
> be obtaining documents from the ISO and PX and we will not attempt here to
> duplicate documents that we understand will be produced by those entities.
> As you will see in the general documents that are offered here for
> production, Enron Energy Services Operations, Inc. is the parent of Enron
> Energy Services, Inc. and does not have operating authority or engage in
> wholesale or retail purchases or sales of energy.  Thus, the documents
> offered here with respect to those two entities originates with Enron
> Energy Services, Inc. but we have designated them both as EES.  We also do
> not propose to offer duplicative documents as between the Enron Entities.
>
> GENERAL DOCUMENTS
> Requests 1 through 4
>
>  Because of the dynamic nature of the Enron Entities' businesses, the
> burden and expense on them to locate, and produce every corporate
> organizational chart anywhere in their organizations since April 1, 1998
> is significant.   The Enron Entities will provide the Commission with
> exemplars of their current organizational charts, telephone directories
> and so called "family trees" to show its current organization.  To the
> extent that the Enron Entities can readily identify and locate exemplars
> of significant organizational charts, telephone directories or so called
> "family trees" for earlier periods they will also make those available.
> One Enron Entity, Portland General, has published books on its corporate
> history.  If a list of those books would be helpful, we can provide it.
> With respect to the other Enron Entities, to the extent that corporate
> histories can be found, they will be produced.  We anticipate producing
> these documents in the first wave on October 13, 2000.
>
> Requests 5 and 6
>
>  The Enron Entities propose that their responses to Requests 1-4 will
> identify their relationship to affiliated companies and the Transaction
> Documents will identify its customers and suppliers.  We believe this
> information will be sufficient to illustrate these relationships for the
> staff's purposes.
>
> FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
> Requests 7 through 11
>
>  The Enron Entities will produce their public filings for the period
> requested with respect to financial data.  EPMI, EES, and Portland General
> will provide to the Commission electronic transaction data ( the
> "Transaction Documents") for the purchase and sale of energy delivered
> which information includes economic data.   We anticipate producing public
> filings regarding financial data on October 13, 2000 and the electronic
> Transaction Documents in the second wave of document productions.
>
> GENERATING DOCUMENTS
> Requests 12, 14 and 18
>
>  For the Enron Entities other than Portland General, the generation
> facilities are either non-existent or limited in number and there will
> probably be limited documents available.  The Enron Entities to the extent
> they act as a scheduling coordinator or possessed the right to use or
> resell generation output, do not have the specific documents that pertain
> to each generation unit requested.  The Enron Entities, other than
> Portland General, do have documents and information for Las Vegas
> Cogeneration.  We propose to produce these documents in the second wave of
> document productions.
>
>   For Portland General, the production of the requested documents
> would involve a tremendous volume of documents, as Portland General owned
> twenty generating facilities of a variety of types and sizes during 2000.
> Portland General is a net importer of energy and can only generate about
> one half of its total energy demand.  As a result, we question whether the
> effort required of Portland General is warranted as its impact on the
> California wholesale market is necessarily limited.  Nevertheless,
> Portland General proposes to provide for year 2000 electronic Transaction
> Documents in summary form similar to the data being provided by other
> Enron Entities, to the extent relevant as discussed below.  We propose
> that the Commission defer requesting production of other information until
> it has reviewed the information of generators who sell a significant
> proportion of their energy into the California market.  At that time a
> more accurate assessment can be made of whether this enormous effort will
> be valuable given the limited impact of Portland General generation on the
> California wholesale market.
>
> TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS
> Requests 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19
>
>  We understand that the Commission will be obtaining trading data for
> the purchase and sale of energy delivered in California from the ISO and
> PX.  EPMI can provide the Commission several different sets of relevant
> transaction data for year 2000 (in California and outside of California
> and Real Time) for the purchase and sale of energy delivered with the
> date, counterparty, quantity, delivery point, hours, price, and whether it
> is a purchase or a sale.   Because of the speed with which you want this
> information, it is possible that some entries will be incomplete or
> inaccurate.  For those
> transactions where EPMI served only as the scheduling coordinator, we
> understand that the ISO will show part of the transaction, but there will
> not be a corresponding transaction in the EPMI data we can provide
> quickly.  The reason is that this type of transaction is passed through to
> EPMI's customer on an accounting system rather than as part of the trading
> business.  EES can also provide similar data with respect to relevant
> wholesale and retail transactions with the proviso that with respect to
> retail transactions it will not include the specific names of its retail
> customers but instead will provide a blind customer number due to EES'
> confidentiality obligations to those customers.  We anticipate producing
> the Transaction Documents in the second wave of document productions.
>
> FERC DOCUMENTS
>
> Request 20
>
>  The Enron Entities will produce the requests for data they received
> from FERC and to the extent that FERC has been given responses, copies of
> those responses.  We anticipate producing the FERC documents on October
> 13, 2000.
>
>
>  Based upon discussions that we have had with the various Enron
> Entities, we believe that we could make a second wave of productions on
> Friday October 27, 2000.  It is possible that not all Enron Entities could
> make that date but we believe the bulk of the data could be available for
> production by then.
>
>  We propose to make these productions with the understanding that if
> any entity obtains a more stringent protective order than the one
> currently in place, that all of the Enron Entities document productions
> will be protected by the most stringent protective order.  In addition,
> if, at the request of any party or nonparty to this proceeding, the
> Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction orders that the requests
> for production be limited, reduced or eliminated, the Enron Entities
> reserve the right to limit the production of documents in conformance with
> such order.
>
>  We understand that you will consider these proposals and let us know
> if they are acceptable to the Commission.  If you have any questions or
> comments about our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Day
> or myself.
>
> Brobeck Phleger & Harrison LLP
>
> Gary 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