Richard --

We need to make some decisions very soon (this morning) about Enron's submission of data into the Pacific Northwest ("PNW") refund case.  The data is due at FERC no later than Thursday August 16.

The key strategic issues in submitting the data to the ALJ include the following --

1.	Do we exclude bookouts (ie, only physical transactions)?

It appears that other market participants intend to exclude bookouts.  EPMI should also exclude bookouts given that these transactions never went physical and hence are not appropriate to consider in this case.

2.	Do we provide only sales transactions or do we include our purchases?

The ALJ's Order allows parties to include purchases only if the selling party is not an intervenor in this case and hence, our purchase would not be included in the data.  The ALJ wants to limit the amount of data to be provided to ease the workload.  Our initial analysis of some data from other parties is that there will be transaction data irregularities and hence, we should provide all of our relevant sales and purchases.  By having the data in the case, we can dispute any inappropriate transaction and ensure that all of our purchases are included in the calculation of refunds.  This is key for Enron in that our primary defense is that Enron deserves refunds as a purchaser to offset any sales refund amount.

3.	Do we provide data for all 4 time blocks (through 24 hours, through 7 days, through one month, through 1 year)?

The ALJ's Order indicates that parties are to provide data for transactions that are not consistent with the initial definition of "spot" - deals less than 24 hours done day ahead or day of.  Our initial recommendation is to provide the data but to retain our arguments that this is not consistent with FERC's Order.  The primary downside of not complying with this element of the data submission request is that we anger the ALJ and end up providing the data anyway after being told directly to comply.  In addition, it is possible that by providing all of the data we could be creating the problem that some economist or competitor could get their hands on the data at a later date and "determine" our trading strategies.  Weighing these risks, I would still recommend to include this data but argue before the ALJ and the FERC the ultimate relevance.

4.	Do we provide data based on contract date? 

The ALJ has requested data for contracts that were valid on December 25, 2000 that had physical energy flowing after December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001.  This would explicitly include Balance of the Month transactions for December 2000 and the associated physical flows. To minimize the hours on these transactions, we intend to enter the transaction date in the data submission to allow for FERC staff to delete inappropriate transactions.

I will call you this morning.  

Thanks,

Jim