Message-ID: <19717888.1075855206758.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:00:24 -0800 (PST)
From: legal <.hall@enron.com>
To: alan.comnes@enron.com
Subject: EES load data
Cc: timothy.coffing@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: timothy.coffing@enron.com
X-From: Hall, Steve C. (Legal) </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SHALL4>
X-To: 'scofer@llgm.com', Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jdasovic>, Comnes, Alan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Acomnes>, 'john.klauberg@llgm.com', Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>
X-cc: Coffing, Timothy </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Tcoffing>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Jim_Steffes_Jan2002\Steffes, James D.\Inbox
X-Origin: Steffes-J
X-FileName: jsteffe (Non-Privileged).pst

Just a reminder when drafting any documents that refer to EES's load:  there are over 17,000 meters associated with this load and any estimates of projected load are based upon incomplete data and a fair amount of guess work.  Tim Coffing has significantly improved this process; however, it is my understanding that we do not have, even at this time, a 100% accurate picture of historic usage, much less precise forecasts.  Therefore, I strongly suggest liberal use of the word approximate when referring to Enron's California load. 

Thanks,

Steve