Message-ID: <3189949.1075855206431.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 07:10:57 -0800 (PST)
From: doug.gilbert-smith@enron.com
To: d..steffes@enron.com
Subject: RE: Load schedule data
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Gilbert-smith, Doug </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DSMITH3>
X-To: Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Jim_Steffes_Jan2002\Steffes, James D.\Inbox
X-Origin: Steffes-J
X-FileName: jsteffe (Non-Privileged).pst

All they want is a scapegoat for the $140 MM paid out and as we did not make money off it I will not be the scapegoat. Having talked to them previously regarding balanced/unbalanced schedules they will not want the discussion to be diverted.

Thursday works for me.

Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D. 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:27 AM
To: Gilbert-smith, Doug
Subject: RE: Load schedule data


Doug --

It seems to me that keeping the PUC somewhat appeased makes sense.  I'll try and get some formal questions, but sooner or later they will want to talk directly. I appreciate that this is a pain, but maybe it's a good opportunity to push to get rid of balanced schedules?

Let's sit down on Thursday am and talk.

Jim  

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert-smith, Doug 
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:00 PM
To: Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: Load schedule data


I am out til wednesday. I would be happy to answer any qustions they have if they could send them over. I am not going to educate them on anything else.

Thanks,

Doug
Doug-Gilbert Smith