Subject: Update on WSJ Data Request
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:09:00 -0700 (PDT)

I have received several comments about the WSJ data request.

Enron's Tim Beldon wrote me that he would consider it.  The PX's Gene
Waas was concerned based on previous experiences of letting data go to
the WSJ.  I talked with Dynegy's Lynn Lednicky this morning and he
suggested that the PX has aggregated data for several days, and that
releasing the aggregate data with individual bid data from our members
would give the WSJ a better window into the issues.  That is, simply
releasing your bid data will not tell the WSJ anything of value.

I know that Rebecca would insist that the dates for which any data are
polled our at her choice, not ours.  It must be necessary to assure
there is no possibility of bias.  I am wondering if the PX would be
willing to assist us by putting together aggregate data for days which
the WSJ selects, and then give us the opportunity to release our
individual data for the same days?

I am also wondering if we shouldn't have an off-the-record
teleconference call with the WSJ whereby both sides can get a better
understanding of what the WSJ wants, and how we can best provide it.
Would anyone be interested in me setting up such a meeting for next
week, say Wednesday or Thursday?

gba