Subject: Municipality Issue
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:19:00 -0800 (PST)

Dear Mike,

As various companies have expressed on several occasions, Enron, Reliant and 
Constellation strongly believe that the WSPP should provide some guidance to 
the membership as to the various issues that are unique but must be addressed 
when dealing with municipalities in the west (such as Public Utility 
Districts, Cities, etc...).  As was evident during the Las Vegas meeting, 
several members do not seem to have any experience in this regard and 
therefore should at the very least be apprised of the issues that might 
confront them when entering into transactions with such entities.

While we agree with you that an amendment might not be the appropriate 
mechanism at this time for addressing this issue, we think that it is 
imperative that the WSPP educate its membership as to the potential pitfalls 
involved.  Therefore, we propose that Wright and Talisman draft a memo that 
describes the authorizations that entities involved in trading other 
commodities commonly request (i.e. statutory authorizations to transact, 
signature authorizations, resolutions setting forth transaction parameters, 
board resolutions, city council approvals, etc.).  We would also request that 
W&T point to some relevant examples over the last few years - specifically, 
City of Springfield, Illinois and Orange County - as well as any other 
guidance that W&T might be able on the topic.  

Therefore, this issue is different than what Morgan Stanley proposed during 
the Las Vegas meeting. 

With regard to bringing up issues which have already been addressed, it is 
our understanding that the WSPP Working Group overwhelmingly voted not to 
incorporate East product definitions into the WSPP.   Therefore, we wonder 
why it appears in the agenda for SFO meeting.

Thank you, 

Shari Stack, Enron 
Randy Osteen, Constellation 
Dede Russo, Reliant