Richard and Gary:

I can shed some light on this.  Harvey called me on my way back into town
yesterday to ask if we were contesting service on EEMC, as you will recall
we asked him to confirm whether EEMC had actually been served.  I replied as
Gary and I had discussed that we were not going to question the
effectiveness of service on EEMC as counsel had both notice and copies of
the subpoena.  Harvey then went on to indicate that he would be sending an
email to "confirm" the phone conversation which Gary and I had with him,
particularly emphasizing that he had verbally reserved the right to seek
additional information, especially confidential profit information, after
reviewing our transactional information.  I agree with Gary that we only
raised going back to June 99 data as a possibility we were going to discuss
with the client, but Harvey did continue to reserve the right to seek data
back even farther than that if they were not satisfied with our response.
This email is his confirmation.  If we wisht o offer a clarification, we
could have Gary send a short e-mail saying our inquiry into the June 99 data
is continuing and we had not formally committed providing that data subject
to further discussions with the client.

Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: Fergus, Gary S. [mailto:GFergus@brobeck.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:16 PM
To: Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail); Michael Day (E-mail)
Cc: Meringolo, Peter
Subject: FW: Enron Proposals Regarding Document Subpoenas


Richard,
    I am not sure what prompted this email today but here it is.  You will
note that Harvey did reinterpret the 1999 request slightly from whether we
would go back that far to how long it would take.  I wonder if the newspaper
articles had anything to do with it.....

Thanks
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Morris, Harvey Y. [mailto:hym@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 5:12 PM
To: 'Fergus, Gary S.'; Morris, Harvey Y.
Cc: 'MBD'
Subject: RE: Enron Proposals Regarding Document Subpoenas



Gentlemen:
This will confirm our tentative agreement to your e-mail subject to our
right to follow-up (under the subpoenas already issued) to the extent that
the Enron Entities' responses on Oct. 13, 2000 and Oct. 27, 2000 are not
sufficient. For example, per your request, we will review the electronic
data base you provide us on the various transactions before we decide
whether we will insist on the confidential financial records addressing any
of the Enron Entities' profits or losses in the purchase and sale of
electricity in the WSCC. You also stated that we would receive the
electronic data base for 2000 on Oct.27, 2000 and that you will check with
your clients as to how soon you can get us the data for the transactions
from June through December, 1999.

 This will further confirm that your response to the subpoenas on behalf of
the Enron Entities, includes Enron Energy Marketing Corporation (EEMC), as
your Oct. 13, 2000 cover letter states. Therefore, as Mike Day orally agreed
in today's telephone conversation, there is no need for the Commission to
reissue or serve a new subpoena on EEMC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fergus, Gary S. [ mailto:GFergus@brobeck.com
<mailto:GFergus@brobeck.com> ]
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 <http://www.brobeck.com>




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