Subject: Re: Confidential Attorney Client Privilege - Attorney Work Product
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [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]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:38:00 -0800 (PST)

The letter looks fine.  Eric H's letter was addressed to "market 
participants."  Can we get EPSA or WPTF to file this letter?

Alan C.

Mary Hain
01/25/2001 04:58 PM
To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email-masked], Richard Sanders, 
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe@Enron, Sarah 
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D 
Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Dennis 
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, [email-masked], Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, 
Richard Shapiro, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Greg Wolfe@ECT, Chris H 
Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro
cc:  

Subject: Confidential Attorney Client Privilege - Attorney Work Product

I have drafted the attached letter denying the Cal ISO's request to send it 
(and the EOB) EPMI and EES' cost information for transactions over the FERC's 
cost cap.  Since I believe we are on very firm ground, my initial inclination 
was to send no response to the ISO's letter, so there would be nothing to 
quote in the press.  However, I drafted this letter at Alan's suggestion for 
purposes of discussion.  We should decide whether to send a letter before 
distributing this draft more widely in-house to discuss how to parse the 
message.