Subject: Comments on Proposed Gas Reporting Requirements for California Markets
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:17:00 -0700 (PDT)

---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT on 06/01/2001 
03:58 PM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 06/01/2001 03:57 PM
To: Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: 

These comments on FERC's proposed gas reporting requirements are due on June 
18.  The draft takes the position that the FERC should NOT adopt reporting 
requirements for natural gas sellers, which is a different approach than some 
of you had discussed earlier.  If after reading my very persuasive comments, 
the consensus is we should not oppose the reporting requirements but rather 
attempt to water them down, I will of course rewrite the comments (or resign 
in protest).

On page 6, I make the argument that we do not do our business in the manner 
the reporting requirements seem to contemplate.  I go through a very high 
level description of our "books," but I really do not want to be more 
specific, as we then get into proprietary matters.  Where we have given FERC 
the more detailed description, we have asked for confidential treatment.

Please get comments back to me and Becky as quickly as you can.  Thanks.