Update...while you were out

Just wanted to catch you up on the events over the past week....and a couple
of things I want to talk to you about next week

REPORTING:
It has been a continual challenge as you well know. The good news is the
individual from EES (Chris Luttrell) accepted Jay's offer today and he is
going to start on March 3.
That said, I talked to Chris today and filled him in on where we are and what
we want to accomplish. He feels our best option will be Oracle.
To ensure we are prepared for his arrival next Monday, we are preparing the
detail of what we are doing today, both our assumptions and all of the
various data sources for our current management reporting
Also, Dave and I met with Wanda and Georgeanne on Tuesday regarding revenue.
I believe Dave sent you an update of this meeting. We are meeting with
Georgeanne today to go over our assumptions, conversions, etc. to ensure that
we are consistent with those conversations in the annual report, and to
ensure that we are capturing all of the Enron data
Customer database - we have been fine tuning this all week, and I think we
are about there. There are still some minor differences, but we are working
to sort through these today (everyone is involved in the tie out). I will
review the new report format with you on Monday and we will start sending
this out then.
We also have an Access person that is working on improving our current
database since we will have to live with this in the short term.

TRADING ACTIVITY:
It seems that we are seeing an increase in customers wanting to modify EOL
deals for various reasons (one being Web latency...they are claiming that the
deal did not show up on their transaction summary, so they thought it did not
go through, and they did another deal...and this first deal appeared sometime
later). We have continued to emphasize the importance of not changing these
deals after they are completed, but despite this, it is still happening. I
am going to try and track down Jeff Shankman this afternoon to discuss.
We are also seeing more and more customers trading under the wrong
entities...for example, Aquila Risk Mgmt is executing physical deals, when
they should be only executing financial deals. From my understanding, we
have "left the door open" for them to trade either way and are relying on
them to trade under the correct counterparty. This is causing several
problems downstream..for instance, customers are wanting ENA to send modified
invoices with the name of the correct counterparty (despite the fact that
they were the ones transacting under the wrong entity). We need to discuss
how leaving this door open affects our downstream processes.

OTHER:
I talked to both Dave and Bob yesterday to ensure that we were in the loop on
new products, etc. to ensure that we are better prepared for the launch of
new products (e.g. Credit Derivatives).
Help desk news...Matt M. accepted a position with the Remedy development
team. We are going to move Noel (he works nights) to the day shift to take
over Matt's role. Donna assures me that he is very good. Sandy Rivas also
wants to leave the group. We should be able to handle the volume of calls
without replacing them. I need to go over some call statistics with you next
week. We have not received one phone call from a customer on the weekends,
and we receive less than .1 calls per hour between the hours of 7pm to
midnight. I think we can get away with eliminating weekends, and using on
call pagers from 7 to midnight.
One question - we currently are considering EES an external counterparty and
Enron Canada an internal counterparty. We are now trading with Bridgeline
Gas Marketing (joint venture with Texaco - 40% ownership). We need to
determine what we are considering internal vs external. I would think these
would be external due to the fact that these are settled transactions... any
thoughts?

I know this is a lot of info, but I also know you are going to be in high
demand on Monday!

I hope you are enjoying your ski trip!!!

Sheri