Message-ID: <1234850.1075848195038.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:36:00 -0800 (PST)
From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
To: skean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, 
	karen.denne@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com, 
	sandra.mccubbin@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com
Subject: UC/CSU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Jeff Dasovich
X-To: skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro, Harry Kingerski, Karen Denne, mpalmer@enron.com, Susan J Mara, Sandra McCubbin, Paul Kaufman
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_4\Notes Folders\Ees
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

FYI.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/25/2001 03:33 PM -----

	Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
	Sent by: Michele Curtis/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
	02/23/2001 08:12 PM
		 
		 To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, 
Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis 
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, Maureen Palmer/HOU/EES@EES, 
Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, wanda.curry/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, 
msmith7043@houton.rr.com@SMTP@Exchange, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom 
Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange
		 cc: 
		 Subject: UC/CSU

Attorney/Client Privileged Information

Summary of our follow-on discussion with UC/CSU Friday afternoon (Tom/Dennis 
from Enron):
1.  UC/CSU's goal is to reach agreement on the interim solution by the end of 
next week (Friday, 3/2)
2.  UC/CSU would like draft language memorializing the structure contemplated 
below by COB Monday, 2/26, and asked what our proposed form of agreement 
would be (letter agreement, amendment).  Their preference is the first and 
expressed concern that if the draft had too many legal terms and/or was too 
one-sided, that it would be unrealistic to expect approval by Friday.  I have 
since spoken to Mike and I will propose to UC/CSU that we get them a term 
sheet on Monday for discussion, with the intent of wrapping the terms into a 
letter agreement of a couple pages.
3.  UC/CSU is considering underwriting the risk they would be absorbing 
through the interim agreement.
4.  It is both our expectations that during the interim period we would gain 
some clarity on the legislative/regulatory landscape such that we could begin 
working on a long-term solution.
5.  If we don't reach a long-term solution, we would flip back to the terms 
of the existing contract, and are back to the existing issues.  
6.  We reinforced the highly confidential nature of these discussions.
Commercial terms
? Intent is to offer an intermediate solution to mediate UC/CSU's concern of 
potential long-term consequences (loss of direct access rights preventing 
them from gaining financial benefits) due to status as a bundled utility 
customer.  Want time for landscape to solidify so we can agree on a long term 
solution that would retain them as a direct access customer or a synthetic 
version of that (i.e., they still receive the benefits).
? Enron would re-DASR accounts, assuming the following:
? UC/CSU assume liabilities from February 1, 2001 through end of term of 
interim agreement, resulting from that action.
? Term to be 90 days, with the option to extend upon the mutual agreement of 
both parties.
? Calculation methodology of the liability:  Spot market price minus the 
prevailing bundled utility rate plus load shaping costs (Dennis - please 
provide the methodology.  Also, what about A/R risk, treatment of 
surcharges?).
? Exposure is calculated ex-post (i.e., we will not agree to an amount, 
capped or fixed, at the outset).  They want an estimation of the potential 
exposure, so we need to make sure we have proper protection that does not 
bind us to that estimation. (Alternatively, we can provide them this 
estimation outside the agreement, with the same caveats).
? Agree during interim period to work together (good faith effort) to 
mitigate the exposure of the liability.
? UC/CSU assumes risk that should we be barred from re-de-DASRing at the end 
of the term (due to legislative, regulatory or other actions or 
circumstances), UC/CSU would assume this exposure as well.  They countered 
with a suggestion for our consideration that such an occurrence be treated as 
a force majure event with the affect of terminating the contract.  (This 
seems counter-intuitive to me to their desire to remain a direct access 
customer - see concern below).
? This was not discussed, but term should include a provision for 
confidentiality.
Concern:
It is somewhat disconcerting they have asked for and are considering this 
proposal.  They are absorbing our risk, which we shared to be a very large 
number ($100M+ over the remaining contract term).  They also did not want to 
discuss their regulatory concerns, and enter into a discussion with Dasovich 
regarding these.  These points lead me to believe that perhaps they know 
something we don't.  Just a consideration for our call Saturday.
Tom 

From: Tom Riley/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange@Exchange on 
02/23/2001 03:56 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, 
Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, 
Maureen Palmer/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, 
Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES 
Subject: 

We had a cordial and outside the box discussion with UC/CSU today.

On the call, UC/CSU expressed a concern that in light of the uncertain and 
rapidly evolving regulatory and legislative landscape, they do not feel it to 
be prudent for them to consider our long-term proposed solutions.  They were 
intrigued by our offers and we will take them up at a later date.  In the 
meantime, they are proposing we price a short term deal.  This will buy them 
re-DASR status until the end of the current uncertain situation.

Proposed Structure:

Enron to temporarily Re-DASR UC/CSU accounts.  UC/CSU liable for any 
additional costs incurred by Enron as a result of that action.  Such costs 
may include, but not be limited to the following: account receivable risks, 
difference between spot market price and utility bundled rate, exposure to 
changes in calculation of PX credit applicable to direct access providers (as 
compared to spot market purchase price), load shaping costs to follow 
customer hourly load without availability of the PX.

Assumptions:

? Enron has sole option to return accounts to De-DASR status at end of term.
? UC/CSU assumes risk should this action be blocked by law, regulation, or 
3rd party action.
? Enron retains right in contract to choose source of electricity supply for 
duration of existing contract term.
? Enron will work with UC/CSU to mitigate liability exposure (i.e., consider 
entering into purchase agreement with utilities, etc.).

Potential liability during term (notional):  $_____ (60 day term);   $____(90 
day term)

Potential liability at end of term if Enron is unable to return accounts to 
utility supply status at end of term due to potential legislative, 
regulatory, or other action or circumstance (notional):   $_____ (assuming 60 
day term);   $____(assuming 90 day term)


It is envisioned that during this short term period that the regulatory and 
legislative landscape will become clearer, allowing both parties to better 
understand their exposure through the term of the contract and beyond.  Once 
this clarity is achieved, it is agreed both parties will meet to discuss long 
term solutions meeting the needs of both parties.

Please comment with concerns, ideas immediately as we will be back on the 
phone with them shortly.

Thank you.

Tom