I agree that we are losing money.  That's not the reason for getting out of this case.  What is the upside?  Even if we win, we are only forcing FERC to reconsider at some later time.  Is this really the best strategy?

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolay, Christi L. 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:10 AM
To: Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Novosel, Sarah
Subject: FW: Enron v. FERC appeal at DC federal court (Entergy source
and sink)



FYI.  If you are in agreement, Sarah and I will find out who to contact and see if something helpful can be worked out.  Otherwise, we will stay in the appeal. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Presto, Kevin M. 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:52 PM
To: Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject: RE: Enron v. FERC appeal at DC federal court (Entergy source
and sink)


The source sink issue continues to be a huge thorn in our side and costs my group significant $'s every year.   I estimate $10-15 million per year is lost by our cash traders every year due to the inflexibility in the daily and weekly market.

Therefore, we should continue to fight this issue hard to rectify as soon as possible.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolay, Christi L. 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:06 PM
To: Steffes, James D.; Novosel, Sarah; Presto, Kevin M.; Shapiro,
Richard
Subject: Enron v. FERC appeal at DC federal court (Entergy source and
sink)


The mediator in our appeal of the Entergy source and sink suggested that Enron may want to try and settle this.  I asked B&P for the costs to get through oral argument, which are only $4000.  During the course of our SE RTO mediation, the Entergy person working on congestion management agreed with me that implementation of the LMP/financial rights model in the SE would alleviate the need for the Entergy Attachment M and Southern's similar attachment.  However, that model (should we get it) won't be in effect until sometime next year (at the earliest).  Also, Enron has sold its control areas. (VEPCO, our co-appellant, still has Batesville in Entergy).

It seems that it would make sense for us to approach FERC staff working on this matter, get their thoughts, and then perhaps approach Entergy.  FERC is the one that would actually settle, not Entergy (also, FERC must change the policy -- getting Entergy to simply withdraw Att. M is certainly good for precedent, but Southern can still keep its Att. unless FERC makes Southern change its tariff).  If nothing else, having another FERC avenue to voice our support for the LMP financial rights model (no day ahead balanced schedules), which alleviates this discriminatory practice like Entergy Att. M, would be helpful.  What are your thoughts? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqueline Java [mailto:jjava@bracepatt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:37 PM
To: Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject: Costs associated with the Enron v. FERC matter


Christi -

Dan has informed me that Enron's share of remaining costs in the Enron v. FERC matter will not exceed $4,000, for the work done to prepare for oral argument scheduled for November 7, 2001.

If you need a more formal document indicating this, I would be happy to send one to you.  Please let me know.  Thanks.  

Jackie

Jacqueline R. Java
Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
2000 K Street, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20006-1872
(202) 828-5828