Subject: RE: Potential Conflict-Multiple Pollutant Legislation
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT)

We need to talk further.  As I discussed yesterday, our concern goes well beyond the limited question of NSR.  I did not even raise a concern about how this representation might impact the multi-pollutant legislation, although I believe Jeff Keeler may have raised this issue in his conversation with Scott.  My concern is that Bracewell's representation of this coalition creates a real and, at a minimum, practical conflict with Enron's interest in electric transmission access and the full range of topics we have worked on under Enron's retainer.  All of our electric power and, for that matter, naural gas legislative and FERC issues are in direct conflict with EEI and Southern Co.  I readily foresee a scenario where Enron's issues are in the very same legislative negotiations as NSR.  I also am uncomfortable that during our strategy sessions we constantly discuss global energy (thus environmental) strategy in conflict with Southern.  Thus, at present, I do not see how a "Chinese Wall" or any other conflict-related strategy can adequately protect Enron.  Thanks for looking into this.  Please let me know how we should resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc F. Racicot [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:02 PM
To: Robertson, Linda
Subject: Potential Conflict-Multiple Pollutant Legislation

Linda:  Scott, Gene and I met this morning to discuss the potential conflict  issue you raised with me yesterday.  I want to advise that Bracewell & Patterson does not represent a client or interest adverse to the passage of multi-pollutant legislation.  If you want to discuss this further, please advise.  Marc