Check out this email.  Now don't get me in trouble with Janet. I advised her
"soto voce" in a private email that he was not an attorney.  But note that
in her note she refers to him as an attorney, and he is offering his
opinions about EPMI's options in terms of compliance with Calfornia
laws--and from what Janet said this is part of a nationwide compliance
program LeBoeuf is running for Enron.  The email also references John
Klauberg, who is the main LeBoeuf attorney in NYC that Enron uses on
contract stuff, and all the ENA and EES guys like his work, so he must be
involved in this and you shouldn't mess with that.  I am most concerned that
Enron attorneys not be misled into thinking Boothe is an attorney.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janet.H.Moore@enron.com [mailto:Janet.H.Moore@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:55 AM
To: mday@gmssr.com
Cc: Christian.Yoder@enron.com
Subject: Registered versus Non-Registered ESPs in California


Mike:  Per my voicemail, I am forwarding to you an email from an attorney
at LeBoeuf.  As mentioned, LeBoeuf has been helping us develop an overall
compliance plan for meeting the varied retail regulatory requirements in
the states where EPMI sells to industrials.  They came up with the
suggestion, as discussed further below, of having EPMI deregister as an ESP
in California, and instead become a non-registered ESP.  I understand that
EPMI could still sell to large industrials under this classification.
First, can you remember the historical reason of why EPMI registered as an
ESP to begin with, but with the qualification that it only intended to
serve large industrials?  There may have been an important strategic
decision to do so.  Second, is there any reason why EPMI should not
deregister as an ESP and become a non-registered ESP?
I look forward to hearing from you.  Please feel free to call me at
713-345-7400.
Janet
----- Forwarded by Janet H Moore/HOU/ECT on 05/29/2001 10:28 AM -----


"JAMES

BOOTHE"              To:     janet.h.moore@enron.com

<JBOOTHE@LLGM        cc:     marianne.castano@enron.com,
"CHRISTOPHER HILEN"
.COM>                <CHILEN@LLGM.COM>, "JOHN KLAUBERG"
<JKLAUBER@LLGM.COM>, "JOHN MAAS"
<JMAAS@LLGM.COM>, "SANDY COFER"
<SCOFER@LLGM.COM>
05/23/2001           Subject:     Registered versus
Non-Registered ESPs in California
02:19 PM









Janet,

As you know, EPMI is currently classified with the California Public
Utilities Commission ("CPUC") as a "Registered ESP" (ESP # 1086).  EPMI may
want to consider de-registering with the CPUC and, instead, benefit from
classification as a "Non-Registered ESP".  I have confirmed that an ESP
must only register with the CPUC prior to serving residential and small
commercial customers.  The CPUC defines a "small commercial customer" as a
customer that has a maximum peak demand of less than 20 kW per meter for at
least 9 billing periods during the most recent 12 month period (See
C.P.U.C. o 331(h) and PG&E Tariff, Rule 22).  As EPMI has indicated in its
license application that it only intends to serve large commercial
customers and, per our discussions, does not have immediate plans to serve
small commercial customers, EPMI may elect to de-register and become a
Non-Registered ESP.
The primary advantage of de-registering is that EPMI, as a
Non-Registered ESP, would no longer have continued reporting and compliance
requirements with the CPUC, including the annual submission of a standard
service plan filing, application update and license renewal.  Additionally,
as a Non-Registered ESP, EPMI would no longer have the ongoing obligation
to notify the CPUC within 5 days of changes in address or phone numbers and
to notify the CPUC of all other "material changes", including changes to
officers and directors, within 60 days.  I have confirmed with a contact at
the energy division of the CPUC, on an anonymous basis, that a Registered
ESP can de-register with the CPUC by sending a letter to the address below
requesting cancellation of ESP registration status.
California Public Utilities Commission
Energy Division - Electric Service Provider Registration
Fourth Floor
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Our source at the CPUC also confirmed that the CPUC exercises no regulatory
jurisdiction over a Non-Registered ESP.  Non-Registered ESPs, however, can
file a complaint at the CPUC against a jurisdictional utility over issues
dealing with the utility's compliance with its tariffs with respect to
ESPs.

Please note that while Non-Registered ESPs do not have ongoing
reporting and compliance requirements with the CPUC, both Registered ESPs
and Non-Registered ESPs must submit various environmental compliance
filings with the California Energy Commission and, if participating in the
Green-e Program, make additional filings with the Center for Resource
Solutions.  For additional information on these reporting and compliance
requirements for Registered ESPs and Non-Registered ESPs in California,
please refer to the LLGM website at
http://web-2.interliant.com/llgm/ENRON/llgm.nsf.

If you have any questions about reporting requirements in California,
the de-registering process or would like our assistance with this process,
please contact me at 415.951.1137 or Sandy Cofer at 713.287.2002.

Regards,

Jim


James A. Boothe
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 951-1137
jboothe@llgm.com


============================================================================
==

This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is
confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges.  This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public
information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).
If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including
attachments, and notify me.  The unauthorized use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is
prohibited and may be unlawful.

============================================================================
==