Subject: Revised Draft Response to PUC
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:11:00 -0800 (PST)

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

Harvey Morris Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, California   94102

   Re:   I.00-08-002  Subpoenas Served on Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
("EPMI"), Enron Energy Services Operations Inc. and Enron Energy Services
Inc. (collectively referred to as "EES"), Enron Energy Marketing
Corporation ("EEMC"), and Portland General Electric Corporation
"Portland General")(collectively sometimes referred to as the "Enron
Entities")

Harvey,

   I am writing in response to the various voicemail exchanges and
phone calls between Michael Day, on behalf of the Enron Entities, and
yourself during the past few weeks.  Here is the current status as we
understand it.  Based upon the agreements we reached between October 6,
2000 and October 18, 2000 (date of your confirming email) the Enron
Entities have made the following document productions in response to the
subpoenas served by California Public Utilities Commission (the
"Commission"):

*  October 13, 2000  Bate Nos. Enron Entities 000001-000025 on behalf
of all Enron Entities Responsive to Request Nos. 1-11, 20.

*  October 27, 2000 Bate Nos. P000001-002115 on behalf of Portland
General Responsive to Request Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 18.

*  November 14, 2000 Bate No. Enron Entities 000026 (Diskette with
EES/EEMC retail data) Responsive to Request Nos. 7 to 11, 13, 15 to 17,
and 19.

*  November 15, 2000 Bate No. P002116-002117 (Diskettes with Portland
General Data, which include approximate 355,000 wholesale transactions)
Responsive to Request Nos. 7 to 11, 13 to 17, and 19.

We believe with these productions, we have complied with the October
6-18th agreement with respect to Portland General and EES/EEMC.  As you
know, these productions were all made reserving the Enron Entities rights
to object or challenge the subpoenas and reserving any claims, defenses,
objections, jurisdictional or otherwise, or other responses.

   We originally had hoped to have all of the Transactional Data for
EPMI, as defined in our October 6th email, available for production by
October 27th.  However, we were also mindful of your expressed
expectation that any data provided be useful and reliable.  The collection
of data
you requested in the subpoenas is neither kept electronically in the same
location nor organized as you requested it.  In fact during our review of
some of the data we found significant errors that called into question
the methodology by which the data was extracted from existing information.
When it became apparent that we could not accurately estimate how long it
would take to get reliable data given the volume of transactions
involved, we informed you of the problem.  We now understand that if we
cannot give
you a firm date when the balance of the Transactional Data will be
available, the Commission believes it will have no choice but to seek to
compel production before the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission
("FERC").  We understand the pressure that you must be under to get data
immediately, but we cannot, at this time, give you another date in the
immediate future by which we are certain that we will be able to produce
accurate data.

   Moreover, during the interim between October 18th and today, a number
of significant events have occurred that we believe bear on the subpoenas
served on the Enron entities.  First, we understand that many other
parties who were served with the same subpoenas have not provided the
detailed information requested and have objected on a variety of very
sound legal grounds.  Second, the Commission itself has, without a hearing
on the motion, unilaterally revised the proposed protective order that is
supposed to govern these productions and summarily denied other changes
sought by other parties served.  Third, the Commission has filed its
motion before FERC seeking an order compelling the production of the data
from those other parties that have objected and seeking an expedited
hearing and production schedule.  We note that the reasons stated in the
motion before FERC as the basis for the production are materially different
than the reasons originally stated in the ex parte application to the
Commission's own Administrative Law Judge who issued the subpoenas.  FERC
has also issued its tentative order as of November 1, 2000 covering some of
the same topics as the Commission's subpoena request.  Finally, FERC has
requested information in 6 specific areas from a number of entities
including Enron. Enron is simultaneously working on preparing responses to
FERC's requests.

   Originally, the Enron Entities had been prepared to accept "most
favored nation" treatment with respect to protective orders and requests
by others to limit the scope of the subpoenas and produce information
that was available.  However, given both the Commission's stated urgent need
for an immediate answer that EPMI cannot in good faith give despite
substantial effort (date for production of reliable and accurate
Transaction Data) and the uncertainty created by the above described
intervening events, EPMI believes it has no choice but to serve its
formal objections and responses to the subpoenas and await the Commission's
threatened motion to compel before FERC.

   We also understand from our discussions with you that the Commission
has created various lists or categories for the entities that have been
served with subpoenas.  We understand that there is a list for those
entities that have been cooperating, a list for those who have been
delaying and a list for those who have been objecting and exercising
their rights to challenge the subpoenas.  We understand that the Commission
intends to punish, by whatever means it has available, those entities
that object and exercise their rights to challenge the subpoenas.  We
deplore
these tactics, but despite all of the efforts to cooperate described
above, we understand that EPMI may in fact be moved from the cooperating
list to the group to be punished for exercising its rights.

   If you have and questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      Gary S. Fergus

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to 
[email-masked]
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com