Subject: Muni Summary
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:16:00 -0800 (PST)

Here is a report on current Muni deals in the west.  

1. Grant County PUD:  (Washington)   we have orally agreed (no signed 
confirms) to two identical deals,  each calls for us to deliver power to 
Grant during year one and for Grant to deliver us power and money in year 4 
or 5.  Our effort to get an opinion from them that these deals have been 
properly authorized has foundered badly.  We have the classic situation of a 
PUD whose procedural practice does not fit with the statute.  They are 
irritated to have this pointed out to them and so far, unwilling to go back 
and fix their practices for fear of embarassment before the Board.  
Delicate,  complex, difficult mess.  Pat Boylston of Stoel Rives helping.   

2.  Clatskanie: (Oregon)  We have done a deal ( signed confirms and EEI soon 
to be signed) whereby we deliver Clatskanie power in year 1, for which we 
receive a monthly payment which is roughly akin to a contract price,  and 
they deliver us power in year 5.   We have every expectation of receiving a 
satisfactory legal opinion from them when they return the signed EEI 
agreement.

3. EWEB: (Oregon)   We have done a deal (being documented as a swap by the 
swap group) which I believe is a five year deal.  The deal was originally 
conceived as being a physical transaction.  We  received satisfactory 
documentation about authorization from EWEB for the physical transaction, but 
when it switched over to being a swap at the last minute,  and Sara 
subsequently reviewed the authorization issue,  her conclusion was that we 
were not satisfied with what EWEB had shown us.  I have gotten Pat Boylston  
to get EWEB to promise to give us a Board resolution in a couple of weeks 
addressing the financial risk concern.  

4. Valley Coop. (Nevada)  We have recently done a 4 year vanilla commodity 
sale to Valley and are in the process of checking out their authorization to 
do longer term deals.   We have a services agreement with them whereby we are 
their SC for load balancing purposes involving the California market.  A 
question has arisen as to whether or not certain sales we make to them as 
part of this arrangement  may generate revenue for them in excess of 15%,  if 
so, perhaps putting their tax exempt status as a muni in jeopardy.  It is a 
tax, accounting issue.  Pat Boylston of Stoel Rives is helping us sort it out.

5. LMUD (California)  City of Lassen.  We are trying to do a long term sale 
of power to them.  Attempts to check out authorization have run into a 
complex, California municipality statute and a small town lawyer and we are 
presently stalled out.  Sandy Skaggs of McCutcheon Doyle is helping as best 
he can.  The commercial deal died its first death yesterday but rigor mortis 
is not complete and we may have to revive authorization efforts.

6.  Tracy Ngo has given us a long list of munis, prioritized as to our credit 
exposure to them.  Presumably I am busy checking all of the most serious ones 
out and making sure we have proper authorizations.  In fact, I have done 
nothing with this  because I am busy with other immediate priorities.  

Pat Boylston of Stoel Rives and Sandy Skaggs of McCutcheon Doyle are 
providing very valuable service in this area.  They are both very good at 
dealing with these muni type folks and, with the exception of Grant, (and not 
because of Pat, who has been great)  have gotten fairly good results so 
far.----cgy