RE: PGE 2002 Capital Costs and IT Detail ,
 Jessica,

I have not finalized the PGH II/Other capital budgets, but they will conform to the disclosure schedule.
Let me know if you want us to pursue securing NNG approval for the decommissioning variance.

Jim B.

>>> "Uhl, Jessica" <Jessica.Uhl@ENRON.com> 10/23/01 12:26PM >>>

Jim,
Thank you for the update.  The 2002 Capital Slide/Budget for PGE (excluding subsidiaries) is now consistent with the disclosure schedule, except for the decommissioning increase mentioned below.  I believe as the SPA is written, that we still need to obtaina pproval by NWN as the total amount of the capex is increased (eventhough the funds will come from the decommissioning trust).  Kristina, am I reading this correctly?

Additionally, I have not seen a summary for the PGH II capex or Other numbers that are included in the 5.8d isclosure schedule.  Please confirm that the budget is also consistent for these items as well.

Thank you.

Jessica
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Barnes [mailto:Jim_Barnes@pgn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:51 AM
To: Geaccone, Tracy; Uhl, Jessica; Rod Hayslett
Subject: PGE 2002 Capital Costs and IT Detail


Hello, following up our PGE Budget presentation I am forwarding you the following information.

Jessica - the 2002 Capital Slide has been revised to be consistent with the NNG disclosure schedule.  The decommissioning forecast is up by $1.6 MM, however since this is funded by the decommissioning trust it should not be an issue.

Tracy - Do you have a time and agenda set for the Nov. 1 dry run of the budget presentation?  I may be sitting in for Piro so please keep me posted as to what the plan is.

Rod - you asked for some detail on our IT capital expenditures.  The file IT_Teresa includes the requested detail.  Note that in our UE-115 ratecase we were authorized to expend up to $96.8 MM for the  2000-2002 budget years. This is a balancing account, such that if we don't expend the money we have to refund it to customers.  As an fyi - I've pasted in below the language from our UE-115 Stipulation on IT costs.


Q.  What is the basis for the stipulation relating to issue S-45, CIS / IT Disallowance?

A.  After a Staff review of new IT systems and their associated capital costs, Staff has determined PGE's capital costs for new IT systems to be prudent.  As a result, the Parties agreed to full recovery of PGE's IT investments, subject to a Staff audit.  PGE will place into base rates 100% of the 2002 revenue requirement related to the 2000, 2001, and 2002 capital additions for the CIS/IT capital items listed below.  The 2002 revenue requirement included in base rates will be trued-up to the actual revenue requirement for the CIS/IT capital costs.  OPUC Staff will audit PGE's actual capital expenditures for the CIS/IT capital items listed below.

1. Customer information system.
2. Enterprise resources planning (ERP) system.
3. Network meter reading (NMR) backbone and data store (excluding the meters).
4. Miscellaneous capitalized information technology costs.

Some of the forecasted 2000-2002 capital additions may be delayed until 2003.  Delayed costs can also be recovered, subject to the same Staff audit procedures and standards.  Only those costs that are reasonable and prudent will be authorized for inclusion in the "actual" revenue requirement calculation.  Accordingly, customers will receive a refund for any costs PGE does not expend or costs the OPUC finds imprudent.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Jim B. 503-464-8931



**********************************************************************
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. 
**********************************************************************
jessica.uhl@enron.com, mark.metts@enron.com, tracy.geaccone@enron.com, 