Message-ID: <11687998.1075860569047.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:51:00 -0800 (PST)
From: mary.hain@enron.com
To: christian.yoder@enron.com, richard.sanders@enron.com
Subject: Comments on Mary Hain's Memo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mary Hain
X-To: Christian Yoder, Richard B Sanders
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Px
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsander.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 01/04/2000 08:45 AM 
---------------------------
   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>                           
12/29/99 02:53 PM
	

To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Comments on Mary Hain's Memo



I've attached our comments on Mary's analysis of the PX's authority re: the 
Silver Peak Line investigation.  As you will see, we agree with Mary's 
analysis, subject to minor quibbles that do not affect the conclusion, that 
EPMI should not be found to have violated the literal terms of the PX's 
tariff, that the PX has no sanction authority over this matter, and that 
publication of the Compliance Unit's findings would be inappropriate.

We would, however, take a harder line on the proposed compromise.  In our 
view, we should insist that the PX never publicly link EPMI to the events of 
Mary 24-25.  Thus, we should agree to support a tariff filing by the PX to 
clean-up the loophole in its tariff revealed by these events, as long as the 
tariff filing does not mention either EPMI or these events as the basis for 
the filing.


 - 0118351.01