ok with me.

-----Original Message-----
From: BarshK@gtlaw.com [mailto:BarshK@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 5:43 PM
To: Mann, Kay; Krimsky, Steven
Cc: ReetzR@gtlaw.com; Pais, Randy
Subject: RE: Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach/Air Permitting Update 


   Kay,
       Steve has asked that I inquire if you are available tomorrow at 12 :
30 pm (central) for a conference call to discuss the proposed consolidation.
I do not think that the call will require much time.     
         Thanks !  Kerri   

-----Original Message-----
From: Mann, Kay [mailto:Kay.Mann@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:16 PM
To: BarshK@gtlaw.com; Krimsky, Steven; Jacoby, Ben; OrshefskyD@GTLAW.com
Cc: ReetzR@gtlaw.com; Pais, Randy
Subject: RE: Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach/Air Permitting Update 


I predict that we will not prevail in an objection to consolidation.
Judges love to consolidate unless there is a compelling reason not to do
so. A one month delay will not be enough to persuade the AJL to not
consolidate if you consider the advantages to the judges, so we would
need a better reason.  Do we have anything else to go on?  (I don't
think the Margate issue is enough, either.)

I doubt we will have the settlement buttoned up by the second week of
December, which could leave us in the position of needing to continue
the hearing until January anyway.

Kay

-----Original Message-----
From: BarshK@gtlaw.com [mailto:BarshK@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 5:00 PM
To: Mann, Kay; Krimsky, Steven; Jacoby, Ben; OrshefskyD@GTLAW.com
Cc: ReetzR@gtlaw.com
Subject: Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach/Air Permitting Update 


    Kay, Steve, Ben, and Debbie --  
        I spoke with Martha Nebelsiek today and she indicated that DEP
is
intending to file a motion for consolidation of the two air proceedings
into
a single proceeding.  To that end,  Martha believes that the proceedings
should be heard sometime in January 2002, depending upon which of the
cases
is consolidated into the other.  Martha believes that consolidation is
appropriate now because the permit conditions recommended by DEP are
consistent and that, for evaluation purposes, the DEP considered the
sites
as one.   Martha will be filing a motion for consolidation and wanted
our
position on the proposed consolidation.  I told her that we would likely
oppose such a motion but that I would check with you before finalizing
our
position.  
        Consolidation has its advantages and disadvantages.    The
cases, if
consolidated, may be less expensive to try.  Yet, the hearing in
December
may be at risk if consolidation occurs.    In addition, the parties are
not
exactly the same in each proceeding  (Margate is not a participant in
the
Deerfield proceeding).  I need to get back to Martha as soon as possible
with Enron's position on the proposed consolidation.   If she does not
hear
back from me soon, then Martha will likely file the motion and indicate
that
Enron objects to the consolidation.    
         Ryan and I also need to get approval to submit Enron's response
to
DEP's Change of Position on the Pompano Beach air permit.   I promised
not
to file any response last week, given the pending settlement
negotiations
but we need to respond to the Change in the next few days. 
         Please advise me of your thoughts on the consolidation.  
            --Kerri    . 


_______________________________________________________________ 
The information contained in this transmission may contain 
privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only 
for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, 
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an 
email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.


**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you. 
**********************************************************************


_______________________________________________________________ 
The information contained in this transmission may contain 
privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only 
for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, 
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an 
email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.