Re: your comment on this today.  Unbelievable!!!  What a ton of _____.  Lets 
talk.  DF )by the way, whats a PAJE?  DF  
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 04/10/2000 
01:11 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Bob Chandler                           04/10/2000 10:05 AM
	

To: Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron@Enron
cc: Allison Millan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Harry Walters/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: 1999 NNG & TW Audited Financial Statements

Heather Mueck (AA) advised me this morning that in spite of our recent letter 
order from the FAO by Jim Guest, AA still does not believe we have enough 
evidence (other than our own opinion) to justify regulatory asset treatment 
for the Y2K costs.  While this position is consistent with what they had told 
us before we made the filing, they had given us no clue last week when they 
were providing their comments on our browncover drafts that they still had a 
problem with the Y2K assets--even when they were relaying Roger Willard's 
comments.

The bottom line is that they will have a PAJE on Northern for the amount of 
the asset  (aproximately $3.6MM), but the amount on TW (less than $.5MM) is 
so small they will pass on it.  As I understand it, that won't preclude a 
clean opinion on NNG this year, but the PAJE will continue in future years' 
audits until the asset is approved for recovery in Northern's next general 
rate case.  Therefore, if we have additional Northern PAJE's in future years, 
the combined effect would be used to determine whether or not a clean opinion 
would be appropriate in those years.

I assume we will suffer the scarlet letter of the multi-year PAJE, rather 
than write off the reg asset in the 1999 Brown Cover and be required to flow 
the write-off through consolidated earnings (and internal scorekeeping) in 
the year 2000.