Subject: California bankruptcy expenses
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:53:00 -0800 (PST)

Vicki, how much $$ are we talking about for the bankruptcy and the class 
action suit? It does not seem inappropriate for us to share the bankruptcy 
costs given the CTC issue.  I agree with you on the class action suit.  Lets 
discuss further before we approach ENA.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 02/20/2001 
07:43 PM ---------------------------
From: Vicki Sharp@EES on 02/20/2001 05:01 PM
To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: California bankruptcy expenses

I would like some guidance about  outside counsel fees related to the 
California situation.  We ( EES and ENA) retained joint counsel in early 
January. As you may recall, in January a substantial amount of work was done 
with the attempted rescue effort by the US Department of Treasury, and the  
managing down of the trading positions with PG&E's unregulated entity.  

I would say that  EES and ENA have used this counsel relatively equally, and 
it would not be inappropriate to split the bills on a  50/50 basis.  However, 
there are two other issues that we should consider: (a) on an overall basis, 
I would say that ENA will have more  issues  that will come out of the 
bankruptcy, and (b) certainly, they will be easier able to absorb as  a 
company  the increased legal expenses.  

Please let me know whether we should go forward with the 50/50 arrangement or 
whether we should adopt another approach.

One other fact:  We also have joint representation in the class action 
lawsuits filed against the power marketers.  To date, no sharing  has been 
agreed to, based on EES' position that in is improperly named in the lawsuit 
(i.e., it is not a participant in the wholesale markets and did not  benefit 
from the  volatility this summer).