We should intervene based on our potential interest in serving customers pursuant to AB661(short answer=Paul's language).  It is possible that we may want to reduce revenue requirements by recommending the use of financial products to minimize utility revenue risk. We have intervened in the AB 661 regulation proceeding as Enron Energy Services, Inc. and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. If you think we can raise issues outside of "unbundling" we should limit our intervention to EES and EPMI.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Bonnie Drinkwater" <bdrinkwater@Mcdonaldcarano.com>@ENRON  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:58 AM
To:	Keene, Patrick; Kaufman, Paul
Cc:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: Intervention into Nevada Power rate cases

Pat,

Shall I use the language proposed by Paul or would you like me to say
something different?  Please let me know ASAP as I would like to get the
petition filed today.  Thanks.

Bonnie

-----Original Message-----
From: Keene, Patrick [mailto:Patrick.Keene@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:55 AM
To: Kaufman, Paul; Bonnie Drinkwater
Cc: Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: Intervention into Nevada Power rate cases


We have intervened in certain cases where we may have an ongoing
commercial interest to require "rate unbundling" in anticipation of
direct access.  We also can intervene on behalf of EWS who may provide
risk mgt. products to reduce utility rates (i.e., weather derivitives to
stabilize rates and reduce utility-reated risk).  In this case we are
there to make sure rates are properly unbundled to facilitate AB 661.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaufman, Paul
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:57 PM
To: 'Bonnie Drinkwater'
Cc: Keene, Patrick; Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: Intervention into Nevada Power rate cases


By this e-mail, I'm forwarding this to Pat Keene.  He will be your main
contact on Nevada matters for a while.  I'm swamped processing the
filings for the sale of PGE.  My view is that it should be both ENA and
EES.  Our interest is:  (1) we are a potential new electric resource
under AB 661; and (2) these cases will influence whether we can serve
customers under the statute as the unbundled costs incurred by our
potential customers will be determined in this case.

Pat:  What do we say in other states where we intervene and there is no
direct access?  I'd rather not say that we that we are representing the
interests of several large consumers in Nevada.  It opens our deals up
for discovery.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bonnie Drinkwater [mailto:bdrinkwater@Mcdonaldcarano.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:23 PM
To: Kaufman, Paul
Subject: Intervention into Nevada Power rate cases


Paul,

As I was preparing the petition to intervene, it occurred to me that
information has changed.  Do you want the petition to reflect both ENRON
ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and ENRON NORTH AMERICA.  Also, since you do not
own LV Cogen anymore, what would you like me to put as the reasons for
intervention for these entities.  I have attached a draft petition.  It
needs to be filed on Wednesday.

Thanks for your assistance.

Bonnie


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate
and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and
delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments
hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not
create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron
Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other
party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by
estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************