Subject: FW: MID: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 14:23:26 -0700 (PDT)

Lisa, 

Please research when we delivered power to MID

Mo
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hill, Garrick  
Sent:	Friday, May 03, 2002 1:04 PM
To:	Elafandi, Mo
Cc:	Baughman, Edward
Subject:	RE: MID:  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

I'm trying to reconcile your e-mail with two statements made in a declaration filed by Scott Van Vuren of MID in support of a motion filed with the bankruptcy court to accept or reject their contracts:

          12.	On or about January 11, 2002, Jim Burkle, an Account Representative for EPMI contracted me and stated his belief that the MID Master Agreement and related Transactions had terminated.  In ensuing conversations, Mr. Burkle reiterated his belief, and discussed the calculation of the resultant Termination Payment under the MID Master Agreement.

          13.	Shortly thereafter, the EPMI operations personnel contacted the MID operations personnel and verbally informed them that EPMI would cease delivering power under the MID Firm Power Agreement on February 1, 2002.  On February 1, 2002, EPMI stopped delivering power under the MID Firm Power Agreement.  Based on existing damages and the estimated price of energy through the month of June 2002, MID's damages through June 2002 will likely be in excess of $270,000.

MID claims the Master Agreement covers 4 transactions (in fact, I think it covers 8 - the four they exclude, when taken together, appear out-of-the- money to EPMI).  The Firm Power Agreement covers one transaction, a 7 MW @ $19.30, 7x24 sale by EPMI to MID at COB.  Attached is a summary of the deals we have with MID.

Some understanding of what power actually flowed is needed to reconcile our AP/AR reports with their statements and to determine what, if any, damages MID might be entitled to.  Can you validate or definatively dismiss their statement of facts?

RH

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Elafandi, Mo  
Sent:	Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:02 PM
To:	Baughman, Edward; Hill, Garrick
Cc:	Erwin, Kenton
Subject:	RE: MID:  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

Modesto was terminated, per the master letter log, on 12/2/01.  I've asked settlements to see if they are current on payments, but we have not been dealing with them post bankruptcy on an operational front.

Mo.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Baughman, Edward  
Sent:	Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:53 AM
To:	Hill, Garrick
Cc:	Elafandi, Mo
Subject:	RE: MID:  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

I vaguely remember EPMI scheduling to Modesto for a brief period even though the physical contract was out of the money. The rational for this action was based on moving BPA length that otherwise would have been difficult to move.

Mo: Please check with the schedulers to determine how much power EPMI scheduled with Modesto IRR and for how long.

Thanks. 
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hill, Garrick  
Sent:	Wednesday, May 01, 2002 7:50 AM
To:	Baughman, Edward
Subject:	FW: MID:  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

Who would you suggest I talk to re. establishing the fact pattern for Modesto Irrigation District in terms of scheduling post-petition?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Erwin, Kenton  
Sent:	Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:36 AM
To:	Ward, Charles; Hill, Garrick
Cc:	Aronowitz, Alan; Murphy, Harlan; Erwin, Kenton; Sharp, Vicki; [email-masked]'
Subject:	MID:  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

I spoke with Marshall turner at Weil this morning.  We need to decide whether to oppose MID's motion for order determining that contracts have been terminated.  We have two agreements with MID, and apparently MID would like them terminated as forward contracts not subject to the automatic stay.  In order to know whether we should be developing a legal strategy opposing MID's motion (which might be an uphill struggle), here is the factual info we need:

1.  Are either or both of the contracts in the money?  What is the MTM of each one?

2.  When did we stop serving under each of the contracts?  Are we still serving either of them?

3.  Has MID paid for all the power we delivered?

4.  Are there any other MID issues we should be aware of (unresolved disputes, additional confirms for other deals, etc.)?

Thank you in advance for gathering those answers, and please let me know how I can help.  I haven't yet seen the contracts and confirms, but I understand that you are attempting to gather them from our back office staff.  I have a sense that we may end up supporting MID's motion, but we won't know for sure until we get the above answers.  MID admits it owes us money under one of the contracts, but also wants to set off amounts allegedly due by EPMI under the other one.  If the net is a payment to us, I would expect that we'd support a termination, although we'd likely oppose the setoff claim; we might attempt to sever treatment of the two contracts and reject the one out of the money, if we could.

Kenton