Subject: RE: Torrence Cost Sharing Agreement
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:45:00 -0700 (PDT)

Fred,

My understanding (which I will verify) is that Enron would still be at risk 
from an environmental standpoint with a lease.  We could try to lessen our 
exposure as much as possible with the lease, and get indemnity from PGL. 

Kay

Fred Mitro@ECT
06/13/2000 01:37 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura Luce/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rusty 
Stevens/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: RE: Torrence Cost Sharing Agreement

Attached is the cost sharing agreement proposed by PERC on the Torrence 
site.  It proposes that ENA agree to share all future development costs and 
environmental liabilities on the Torrence parcel on a 50/50 basis.  I believe 
that there are some inconsistencies between the language in this Agreement 
and the PDA signed in April of 2000 (i.e. dates, terms, and the members of 
the management committee).

I have informed PERC that it is ENA's policy not to step in the chain of 
title on properties with known environmental liabilities.  I have recommended 
to PERC that PGL (Peoples regulated utility) buy the Torrence property (they 
want if for remediation purposes anyway) from Air Liquide on June 26th and 
hold it while PERC and ENA complete the due diligence required to develop a 
commercially viable power plant development project. It will be my 
recommendation that ENA does not execute this cost sharing agreement as 
written.  If the environmental liability risk was removed and stronger 
language inserted on the control of going-forward development expenditures 
then it would represent a commercially reasonable agreement.  Ideally we 
would like this agreement to provide for ENA to market the Torrence and other 
development sites (ENA's sell-down strategy) under a known value sharing 
formula and transaction financial "triggers".  I will discuss this approach 
with Laura Luce and Curtis Cole this week.

From a legal perspective, could we structure a long-term lease between PGL 
and Torrence Power LLC (PERC & ENA as owners) that could provide commercial 
site control to PERC/ENA while leaving the environmental liabilities on the 
Torrence property with PGL?  (this would be fitting, because PGL has owned 
the property in the past and have likely been the major contributor to the 
site's environmental contamination).

Call me to discuss these issues.  

Fred

---------------------- Forwarded by Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT on 06/13/2000 01:58 PM 
---------------------------

[email-masked] on 06/12/2000 12:59:56 PM
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: Torrence Cost Sharing Agreement

Sorry. Attachment was missing

 <<Enron cost sharing ltr Ag v2>>

> ----------
> From:  Stawasz, Stanley M.
> Sent:  Monday, June 12, 2000 11:39 AM
> To:  'Fred Mitro-Enron'; 'Laura Luce - Enron'
> Cc:  Nassos, John G.; Badeusz, John; Cole, Curtis; Anderson, Dean;
> Morrow, William
> Subject:  Torrence Cost Sharing Agreement
>
> Attached for your review is the Letter Agreement to share expenses for the
> development of the Torrence project.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

 - Enron cost sharing ltr Ag v2.doc