Message-ID: <4528159.1075858754373.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: sally.beck@enron.com
To: greg.piper@enron.com, mark.pickering@enron.com, kerry.roper@enron.com
Subject: RE: budget questions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Beck, Sally </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SBECK>
X-To: Piper, Greg </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gpiper>, Pickering, Mark </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MPICKER>, Roper, Kerry </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Kroper>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \SBECK (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Beck-S
X-FileName: SBECK (Non-Privileged).pst

Major budget focus for today beginning in a few minutes is to have our act =
together for the Delainey/Dietrich EES review tomorrow - Anthony Dayao, Bet=
h Apollo and Kerry Roper will join me for a walk through. =20
=20
Finalizing EIM budget will likely not get done today.  Can give you the det=
ails on why later today.  Will become obvious.=20
=20
Just meet with Shankman and McConnell.  Not ready to finalize EGM budget ye=
t.  They say that their commercial guys are waiting for Jeff Johnson to get=
 with them on details of IT development projects.  I think that Jeff has be=
en out for a few days, but I did see him on the 3rd floor when I was down t=
here with Shankman and McConnell.  I will leave him a voice mail message to=
 get an update on outstanding issues from his point of view.  Jeff and Mike=
 want to have their stuff finalized by Friday.  I will convey that timeline=
 to Jeff Johnson.=20
=20
After EES budget prep meeting this afternoon, next tall order of business i=
s expanding our receivables monetization beyond EA to other commodities.  H=
igh priorty and very short time fuse on this one, for reasons that should b=
e obvious.  I will have all of the Operations leads and settlements leads t=
ogether this afternoon, along with Ramesh Rao and others in IT who may be r=
equired to help us extract necessary info. =20
=20
Nice way of telling you, Greg, that I understand your desire for a page of =
footnotes with budget explanations for Whalley, and that in my opinion that=
 falls at the end of the list behind some of these other things today.  I w=
ill work with Kerry on this.  I can tell you, however, that updates on budg=
ets are not top on anyone's lists today, including Whalley's.  We will hono=
r your commitment to get him updated information, and will provide as much =
detail as possible.  Best approach given the state of business today may be=
 to provide him with the high level overview (that one page of expense and =
capital), state where we are in the review process with each business unit,=
 and highlight reductions in expense and capital to date.   We can continue=
 to provide updates to Whalley as the EES, EIM, EGM and EBS (yes, I need to=
 coordinate with Mark P. when he is back on some changes here - confidentia=
l at this point).  Don't know how useful detailed footnotes will be for Wha=
lley before we truly finalize the various business unit budgets.  --Sally=
=20
 -----Original Message-----
From: Piper, Greg=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:12 PM
To: Beck, Sally; Pickering, Mark; Roper, Kerry
Subject: budget questions



Some things that jump out at me on the Whalley packet page labelled Global =
Support Dollars - 2002 Plan vs. 2001 Forecast Variance dated 10/23/01
=20
Under EGM, increase of 5,573 in operations expense and increase of 16,159 i=
n IT development expense.  Doesnt that sound like a big jump?
=20
What made EIMs infrastructure go up 2,334?
=20
How is energy operations for EES down 9,092?
=20
What did EES spend capital on in 2001 to make the capital IT infrastructure=
 variance be down 19,726?
=20
What is going on at Corp. with a positive IT infrastructure variance of 13,=
924?
=20
On the front page or Whalley summary page, why did depreciation go from 62,=
028 to 30,124 to 57,843.  I know some of what you said Kerry but we need to=
 make sure that Enron knew the 2001 depreciation number in the 2001 plan an=
d that 62,028 did get depreciated accurately and that it just so happened t=
o turn out that only 30,124 got done on our books.
=20
You get the point.  I think this is what Whalley will do too with the entir=
e packet on all pages.  I know the numbers are right, they just beg alot of=
 questions so make sure we have an updated, very accurate cheat sheet with =
all the explanations so when he gets the packet today, he can follow it!
=20
I assume everything ties that should.
=20
Thanks.
=20
GP
=20
=20
=20
