Subject: FW: NMED Compliance Order
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 03:28:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jan Cobden
Enron Transportation Services Company
1400 Smith Street, Suite EB4780
Houston, TX  77002
(713) 853-6044
(713) 646-2738 Fax
[email-masked]

 -----Original Message-----
From:  "Bill C. Scott" <[email-masked]>@ENRON 
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Bill+20C+2E+20Scott+22+20+3Cwcs+40modrall+2Ecom+3E+40ENR
[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 12:03 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: NMED Compliance Order

** Proprietary **

Lou,

I received you phone message and fax.  I tried to reach Larry Campbell on 
Friday morning, but got his voice mail which indicated he was traveling until 
Monday.  I hope to talk with Larry on Monday about this matter.

You are correct that the legislature amended the Air Act this past session to 
include a statute of limitations governing enforcement actions.  That 
amendment (H.B. 278) provides that "no action for civil penalty shall be 
commenced more than five years from the date the violation was known by the 
department or local agency."   (to be codified at NMSA Sec. 74-2-12.1).  The 
amendment became effective on June 15, 2001, the day after the NMED issued 
the compliance order here.  NMED doubtless will assert that the limitations 
period is not applicable here because it was not in effect at the time they 
initiated the action by filing the Compliance Order. (Ah what a difference a 
day makes.)  I will need to take a quick look to evaluate the strength of 
their position and our position that the limitations period should apply.

Charlie de Saillan used to be counsel to the New Mexico Natural Resources 
Trustee.  He departed from that position nearly a year ago and, after short 
time off, went to NMED.  He and Eric Ames are the two folks handling air 
issues these days.  I have dealt with Charlie in the past.  He is generally 
pleasant to deal with, but not always flexible in his views.  My sense is 
that he will want to strike some kind of a deal to resolve this and is not 
likely to insist on pressing for the full $15,000 per day for each day of 
violation.  From your voice mail message, it sounds like NMED was advised of 
the change out of the engines.  I will be curious to learn more about what 
they were told or provided in writing and when. I will flesh all that out 
with Larry when I speak to him.

I will be out of the office in the morning but will try to catch up with you 
and Larry as soon as I get in.

Bill Scott
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk PA
P.O. Box 2168
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Phone: 505.848.1824
Fax: 505.848.1889
E-mail: [email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO 
WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, 
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.  If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for 
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited.  If you have received this electronic transmission in error, 
please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender 
by reply e-mail or by calling 505.848.1800, so that our address record can be 
corrected.  Thank you.