Howdy Golfers,

Tee times have been arranged on the East Course (18 holes of golf) at the Broadmoor for Thursday, November 8 (tee times: 1:40pm & 1:48pm).  The price for playing this course is actually $90; slightly cheaper than what is indicated below.  I have arranged for each of your golf charges to be charged to your individual rooms.  Please refer to the list below for additional charges such as, clubs & shoe charges.   I'm hoping to finalize all the activity choices by the end of the week, so please confirm by COB tomorrow Thursday, October 18 that your activity choice will remain golf.

Thanks!

Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dernehl, Ginger
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 4:39 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.; Yoho, Lisa; Nord, Sue; Migden, Janine; Montovano, Steve; Hemstock, Robert; Kaufman, Paul; Ryall, Jean; Kingerski, Harry; Ibrahim, Amr; Dasovich, Jeff; Nicolay, Christi L.; Novosel, Sarah; Linnell, Elizabeth; Petrochko, Mona L.
Cc:	Dernehl, Ginger; Shapiro, Richard; Noske, Linda J.; Warner, Geriann; Sullivan, Lora; Knight, Laurie; Bellas, Kirsten; Sietzema, Linda; Hunter, Bevin; Buerger, Rubena; Stransky, Joan; Alamo, Joseph; Hawkins, Bernadette; Perez, Carmen
Subject:	November Direct Report Meeting Changes

There are several changes to the Direct Report meeting in November.

First, the meeting will now conclude by 12:00 (noon) on Friday, November 9.

Second, the activities portion of the trip will not be sponsored by Enron....each individual will be responsible (personally) for payment of activity of choice.  Most individuals either chose golf or horseback riding.....below is an estimate as to how much these activities will cost.

Golf:
Green Fees	(East/West Course)	$155.00/18 holes (Includes golf cart, use of practice balls, club care & storage)
		(East/West Course)	$85.00/9 holes	(includes - same as above)

		(Mountain Course)	$95.00/18 holes  (includes - same as above)
		(Mountain Course)	$50.00/9 holes	 (includes - same as above)
Rentals:
Golf clubs with sleeve of balls	$55.00
Golf Shoes			$20.00

Horseback riding:		1hour		$25.00/person
				1hour pkg	$35.00/person (pkg includes shuttle ride to stables)
				2hour		$40.00/person
				2hour pkg	$50.00/person (pkg includes shuttle ride to stables)

				mini ride	(group only) $15.00/approximately 20 minutes

If you have an interest in the spa services that are available, please let me know and I will fax the spa list to you.

Please let me know ASAP which activity you choose so I can make the necessary arrangements.

Thanks and please call me if you have any questions.

Ginger Dernehl
Administrative Coordinator
Global Government Affairs
Phone# 713-853-7751
Fax# 713-646-8160


Barbara:

Here are the two revised lists, one with TXU and one without.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gray, Barbara N.
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:36 PM
To:	Heard, Marie
Subject:	FW: Entities to Calpine Master Netting Agreement

would you check to make sure that this jives with our list????many thanks  bng
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Murphy, Harlan
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:08 PM
To:	Cash, Trey; Briscoe, Marian; Gray, Barbara N.
Subject:	Entities to Calpine Master Netting Agreement

 << File: List of Agreements.doc >>

Harlan E. Murphy
Enron Wholesale Services - Legal
1400 Smith Street, EB 3811
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: 713.345.2679
Fax: 713.646.3490
E-mail: Harlan.Murphy@Enron.com


T H U R S D A Y   E X T R E M E   M A R K E T S
A complimentary service from INO.com ( http://www.ino.com/ )

Thursday: The CRB Index is higher 0.32 points to 214.88. The
US Dollar Index moved higher by 0.38 points to 116.37.

The Dow Industrials climbed 43.66 points, at 10910.44, while
the S&P 500 trended lower by 0.36 points, last seen at 1255.18. The
Nasdaq Composite moved down 27.76 points to 2128.87.

***   FREE OPTIONS INVESTORS KIT
***   http://www.ino.com/specials/barkley/
_____________________________________________________________________

OVER $1.5 MILLION PROFIT IN 1 YEAR
_____________________________________________________________________

TWO SOLID PROFIT OPPORTUNITIES EACH AND EVERY DAY
http://store.ino.com/sale/1E78A/TWIDT-Insider

Dear Trader:

George Angell's market analysis and trading methods have
generated over $1.5 MILLION in profits in a single year.

How does he do it? One of his personal favorites is his
SPYGLASS trading method, which can predict market activity
well in advance - often within three ticks and five minutes
of a major move!

********************************************
*
*    I made $2,153 yesterday using your ideas
*    for the first time. I believe you actually
*    have found the secrets of the market.'
*    - John G., Illinois
*
*    Any system that makes money consistently
*    is a good system, and this is one.
*    The best I've ever used.'
*    - Scott Wilson, Colorado
*
********************************************

INSIDE THE DAY TRADING GAME
- Putting A Spyglass On Profits
- by George Angell

More Information On This Exciting Book At:
http://store.ino.com/sale/1E78A/TWIDT-Insider

Click for Inside the
Day Trading Game!

Order Toll Free 800-538-7424 - 410-867-7424

All claims on third-party products are made by the publisher
and not by INO.com. All Products Guaranteed.

_____________________________________________________________________

E X T R E M E   M A R K E T   C O M M E N T A R Y
_____________________________________________________________________

June Nasdaq futures weaker today. Prices are trading sideways but are
still within striking distance of the April high of 1995. Sideways
trading the past week has negated a fledgling four-week-old uptrend
on the daily bar chart. Bulls still have some heavy lifting to do and
their next upside objective is resistance at the key 2,000 area.
First support is seen at the 1,732 area.

June S&P 500 futures closed firmer today. Prices have leveled off the
past week, after rallying solidly off the early-April low.
Technically, bulls still need to push prices above the 1285
resistance area. My bias is still that any recovery in the stock
market and the stock indexes won't be dramatic, but a slower grind
higher, with fits and starts. First resistance is seen at 1285.00.
First support is seen at 1206.00.

LIVESTOCK: June live cattle closed $0.28 higher at 70.25 today.
Prices scored a consolidative "inside" day on the daily bar chart
today. On Wednesday, prices gapped sharply lower and hit a fresh
eight-month low. Reports that cash cattle traded $1.00 lower this
week sent the futures market tumbling. The June futures are still
overextended on the downside, technically, on a short-term basis. The
bears are in full control of the market. Prices are trading way below
an accelerating two-month-old downtrend line on the daily bar chart.
Next support, basis June, is seen at $69.82--Wednesday's low. First
resistance comes in at the $70.50 level.

August feeder cattle closed up 53 cents today at $80.00. Prices also
posted a corrective rebound after the sharp losses Wednesday. Recent
history continues to play out, as the market bounced up from the
losses of the past two days. But if prices break down below the
bottom of the recent trading range, which is right at Wednesday's low
of $87.40, then the door is opened to a lower trend down to the
January low just above the $86.00 level. Next resistance is seen at
$88.30. First support is seen at $87.40.

June lean hogs closed firmer today. The bears still have the momentum
on their side at present. Next support lies at $67.00--today's low.
First resistance is located at the 69.00 level.

GRAINS: July corn futures closed 6 3/4 cents lower at $1.98 1/4
today. A bearish USDA report indicating large carryover stocks of
corn pushed prices lower today. Prices closed near the session low,
after gapping sharply lower on the daily bar chart. Prices were under
pressure earlier this week after weekly crop progress reports showed
good corn-planting progress in the U.S. The past 25 years of chart
history shows nearby corn futures prices do not stay below $2.00 very
long. However, the shorter-term technicals are very bearish at
present, and would-be bottom pickers don't want to stand in front of
a freight train. Next support is now seen at $1.95. Next resistance
is seen at today's high of $2.03.

July soybeans closed 4 1/2 cents lower at $4.35 today. Prices closed
near the session low amid a bearish USDA report released this
morning. The bearish report did put pressure on the market, but not
the strong pressure corn saw. Traders have factored much of the
bearish news into the soybean market. Odds are lessening that a minor
bull flag could be forming on the daily bar chart. Bears still have
the solid advantage. Fundamentally, there is not much in the way of
good news for bulls right now. I would not be surprised to see the
commodity funds make another downside push in beans in the near term.
It's going to take a significant weather scare this spring or summer
to force prices solidly higher. First resistance is seen at the $4.45
area and then $4.50. First support is seen at $4.30.

July soybean meal closed off $1.80 at $154.50 today. Prices did not
put in that bad of a performance today, given the bearish USDA
report. Prices this week are consolidating after they pushed to a
fresh eight-week high last Friday. Recent price action is still
encouraging to the bulls and is one sign the lows are in place in the
meal market. Next resistance comes in at the $158.50 area. First
support is seen at $154.00.

July bean oil closed 6 points lower at 14.77 cents today. Prices
scored a fresh contract low today of 14.75 cents. Oil is technically
weaker than beans or meal right now. But I would be surprised if
there is much downside left in oil. Next resistance comes in at 15.00
cents. Next support is seen at 14.50 cents.

July Chicago wheat closed 2 3/4 cents higher at $2.68 1/2 today. A
bullish USDA report boosted wheat higher, but prices did back off
from the highs and close near the session low, due mostly to the
weakness in corn and soybeans. Prices just Wednesday touched the
contract low of $2.65. If prices can post a strong bounce in the next
couple sessions, a double-bottom reversal pattern could be forming on
the daily bar chart. Bears are in command. Serious technical damage
has occurred the past few sessions. First support lies at the
contract low of $2.65. Next resistance is seen at $2.73--today's
high.

K.C. July HRW wheat closed up 5 cents at $3.27 1/4 today. A bullish
USDA wheat production figure today boosted HRW. Prices gapped higher
on the daily bar chart, but backed well off the highs by the close.
It will be important for bulls to show some follow-through strength
on Friday. Serious chart damage has been inflicted the past few
sessions and bears still rule. For bulls to get back in the ballgame,
they need to push prices north and fill the downside gap on the daily
bar chart (created last week) by pushing prices to the $3.34 area.
That's a tall order right now. Next resistance is seen at the $3.31
level-- today's high. Next support is seen at $3.21 1/2.

SOFTS: July N.Y. sugar closed 6 points higher at 9.06 cents today. We
now could see a minor bullish pennant forming in sugar, on the daily
bar chart. This many times occurs as prices consolidate steep gains.
A three-month high was scored in July sugar late last week. The bulls
have good momentum and a steep and accelerating six-week-old uptrend
line is still in place on the daily bar chart. Next resistance now
comes in at 9.25 cents. First support is now seen at 8.80 cents.

July N.Y. coffee closed 65 points higher at 68.55 cents today. Prices
closed near the session high. The bulls have gained momentum of late.
This recent upmove is the most significant showing by the bulls since
mid-January. The fact that prices have not sold off sharply the past
few sessions is encouraging for the bulls, too--given recent price
history. Still, the bears could be setting a trap, like they did in
early January. If bulls can push prices above 70 cents and then see
follow-through strength, bears will begin to think this uptrend is
sustainable. First resistance comes in at 70 cents. First support is
seen 65.00 cents.

July N.Y. cocoa closed $28 higher today, at $1,050. Prices today
matched the six-week high scored yesterday, and finished close to the
session high. Tuesday's strong gap-higher trade on the daily bar
chart put the bulls back on a level playing field with the bears. If
prices can push higher Friday, bulls will have the edge. Prices this
week pushed above and negated a 2.5-month-old downtrend line on the
daily bar chart. Next resistance comes in at $1,060. First support is
now seen at $1,025.

July cotton closed 60 points lower at 44.83 cents today. Prices
scored a new contract low in the wake of a bearish USDA report.
However, most traders did expect the bearish figures in the
report--namely high carryover stocks. Cotton is presently in a strong
bear market. Right now, any rebounds are likely to be just selling
opportunities for the bears. But, my bias is still that we are not
that far from a bottoming process. Next support lies at 44.00 cents.
First resistance is seen around 47.00 cents. Would-be bottom-pickers
should beware.

July orange juice futures closed 80 points higher today, at 79.50
cents. Prices closed near the session high again today after
Wednesday pushing higher and filling an important downside gap area
on the daily bar chart. Today's USDA report was termed mostly neutral
by the trade. Bulls are gaining confidence after the past two days'
action. Next resistance is now seen at 80.00 cents. Next support
comes in at 78.00 cents.

METALS: June COMEX gold closed off $0.90 today, at $269.50. Prices
corrected a bit today after Wednesday's strong gains that pushed
prices to a two-month high. This market is in a nice uptrend since
scoring its early-April low. This week's type of price action is what
bulls needed to gain confidence to trek farther north on the chart.
Next resistance is located at $273. First support is seen at $268.00.

July silver closed down $0.065 today, at $4.35 an ounce. Prices sold
off sharply today after rallying sharply Wednesday. This should not
surprise many. Silver prices are still not that far above the
contract low. Prices are chopping at lower levels, and this suggests
a "basing" action that many markets need to change the trend from
down, to sideways, to eventually up. Next support is seen at $4.30.
First resistance is seen at $4.425. Bears still have the advantage.

July N.Y. copper closed 40 points lower today, at 75.95 cents. Prices
today matched the contract low scored in early April. The stock
market and the U.S. economy will have to be healthy before the bulls
can really get something going in copper. Next resistance is seen at
77.00 cents. Next support is seen at 75.00 cents.

ENERGIES: July crude closed $0.12 higher at $29.06 today. Prices
closed well off the high of $29.43. Bulls and bears are still at a
stand-off, but bull will gain the edge on a move above $29.50. Expect
more choppy trading. Next support is seen at 28.00. Next resistance
lies at $29.50.

July heating oil closed 5 points higher today, at .7715. Bulls still
have the slight edge. Look for more choppy trading in the near
future. Next support is seen at 75.00 cents. Next resistance is seen
at 79.00 cents.

July unleaded gasoline closed 29 points lower at 1.0040 today. Prices
scored a new contract high just Monday. Bulls are still in command as
peak driving season nears. Top-pickers beware! Next resistance is
seen at $1.03. First support is seen at $.9780.

July natural gas closed 13.7 cents higher at $4.41 today. After,
prices hit a fresh five-and-one-half-month Wednesday, we saw a
corrective bounce today. Next support is seen at $4.20 and first
resistance is at $4.50. This market is still short-term oversold,
technically.

FINANCIALS, CURRENCIES: The June Euro currency closed 32 points lower
at .8812 today. Prices scored a bearish "outside day" down today and
pushed to a fresh four-week low. Bears have the edge. The European
Central Bank (ECB) cut interest rates today, which initially boosted
the Euro, but those gains were short-lived. My bias is still that
there is not much downside left in the Euro. Look for more choppy
action in the near term. Next support is now seen at .8750. Next
resistance is seen at .8900.

The June Japanese yen closed 33 points lower at .8190 today. Bears
are in control. Bulls are hoping for some "basing" activity at lower
levels, and that may be occurring, although it's too early to tell.
Next support now lies at the .8100 level. First resistance is seen at
the .8326 level.

The June Swiss franc closed 3 points lower at .5744. Bears are in
command as prices scored a bearish "outside day" down on the daily
bar chart today. Prices pushed to a fresh four-week low today. Still,
my bias is that prices won't deteriorate much more. Next support is
seen at the .5700 level. First resistance comes in at the .5800
level.

The June Australian dollar futures closed unchanged at .5234 today.
Prices pushed to another fresh two-month high today. The bulls have
the advantage as a six-week-old uptrend line is in place on the daily
bar chart. First resistance is now seen at .5300. First support is
now seen at .5200.

The June Canadian dollar closed 20 points lower today, at .6478.
Monday's key reversal does not indicate prices are headed back toward
the lows seen a few weeks ago. What it does suggest is a downside
correction to the recent gains may occur over the near term. Bulls
still have the slight edge, on a short-term basis. This currency had
been near recent historic lows and I do not think there is much more
downside. Next resistance is seen at the .6548 level. First support
is seen at the .6450 level.

The June British pound closed 18 points higher at 1.4218. Trading
continues choppy at lower levels. This currency was not that far
above recent historic lows and I do not think there is much more
downside in the sterling. One could argue that price action the past
few weeks has been a "basing" before prices eventually turn north. A
move above the 1.4500 level would be considered a bullish "upside
breakout" from the recent congestion area. A move below 1.4100 would
be considered a bearish downside breakout. Next support is now seen
at the 1.4160 level. Next resistance comes in at the 1.4300 level.

The June U.S. dollar index closed 30 points higher at 116.52 today.
Prices scored a bullish "outside day" up on the daily bar chart, and
pushed to a fresh four-week high. Bulls have the momentum in the near
term. Next resistance lies at the 117.00 level. First support is seen
at the 115.50 area. My bias is still that a near-term top is in place
in the dollar index, but if prices push above the 117.00 area in the
near term, odds increase that a new high will be scored.

June U.S. T-bonds closed 1 6/32 lower today at 101 1/32. Bulls today
lost most of the momentum they had gained last week. A surprise
interest rate cut by the European Central Bank pressured the U.S.
debt market. See more on the bond market in this evening's
newsletter. Next support is seen at 100 even--par. First resistance
is seen at 102 16/32 level.

The June U.S. T-note closed off 27.0 (32nds) today at 104.12.5. Bears
have the slight edge and prices scored a bearish "outside day" down
on the daily bar chart today. First support is seen at the 104.00.0
level. First resistance is seen at 105.10.5--today's high.

Daily Extreme Commentary is brought to you by GLOBALcharts,
INO.com's end-of-day charting software for Futures, Futures
Options and Optionable Stocks. http://www.globalcharts.com
Search the INO Store  - http://store.ino.com/
_____________________________________________________________________

T O P   N E W S
_____________________________________________________________________

STOCKS

Japan Stocks Review: Nikkei falls 0.48% ahead of Friday's fixing
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25286
US Equities Review: Nasdaq slips; Retailers, cyclicals support DJIA
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25285
UK Stocks Review: Rate cuts boost fails to push FTSE over 6,000
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25292

FOREX

US FX Review: Euro buckles after surprise ECB interest rate cut
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25288
Asia FX Review: Trading stuck in a tight range in Asia
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25293
Europe FX Review: Euro slides on surprise ECB rate cut
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25287

CREDIT

US Credit Review: Bond dn 1 5/32, weekly jobs data spark sales
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25284
Europe Credit Review: Curve steepens sharply on surprise ECB cut
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25289
Japan Credit Review: Jun posts small gains in range-bound trades
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25291

COMMODITIES

US Futures Summary: USDA data sink corn, cotton; natural gas up
   http://news.ino.com/summary/?id=25290

EXCHANGES

CFTC And SEC Propose Joint Rules For Security Futures
   http://news.ino.com/press/?release=23937
Pacific Exchange To Trade Options on Agere Systems Inc.
   http://news.ino.com/press/?release=23936
Minneapolis Wheat Options Open Interest Tops 10,000
   http://news.ino.com/press/?release=23567
Single-Day Volume Record For Kansas Wheat Options
   http://news.ino.com/press/?release=23566

____________________________________________________________________________

E X T R E M E   F U T U R E S
____________________________________________________________________________

Updated every 10 minutes around the clock.
More at http://quotes.ino.com/analysis/extremes/futures/

WINNERS

BDN1   Oriented Strand Board Jul 2001             220.00      8.00  +3.77
NGM1   Henry Hub Natural Gas Jun 2001              4.348     0.153  +3.64
CCK1   Cocoa May 2001                               1096        30  +2.81
ZM1    U.S. Treasury 6% Bond Jun 2001          103 184/256   2 22/32  +2.66
XHM1   Lean Hogs Jun 2001                          68.55      1.73  +2.59
LHM1   Lean Hogs Jun 2001                         68.400     1.475  +2.20
ERY0   FTSE Eurotop 100 Cash                      3333.7      69.2  +2.12
PBG2   Frozen Pork Bellies Feb 2002               70.200     1.300  +1.85
KWK1   Wheat May 2001                                320         5  +1.59
HOK2   Heating Oil May 2002                       0.7056    0.0105  +1.49

LOSERS

XCN1   Corn Jul 2001                             198 1/4    -6 3/4  -3.29
CN1    Corn Jul 2001                             198 1/4    -6 3/4  -3.29
NGQ3   Henry Hub Natural Gas Aug 2003              4.067    -0.120  -2.95
ON1    Oats Jul 2001                             108 3/4    -3 1/4  -2.90
PAM1   Palladium Jun 2001                         660.60    -14.00  -2.08
SK2    Soybeans May 2002                         447 1/2    -8 1/2  -1.86
NDM1   NASDAQ 100 Index Jun 2001                 1841.00    -34.50  -1.84
SMH2   Soybean Meal Mar 2002                       146.5      -2.7  -1.81
SIU1   Silver Sep 2001                             4.375    -0.076  -1.71
XSX1   Soybeans Nov 2001                         422 1/4    -7 1/4  -1.69
____________________________________________________________________________

E X T R E M E   S T O C K S
____________________________________________________________________________

Updated every 10 minutes around the clock.
More at http://quotes.ino.com/analysis/extremes/stocks/

WINNERS

INGN   Introgen Therapeutics                        7.16      2.56  +55.65
FHRX   FIRST HORIZON PHARMAC'L                     24.66      5.44  +28.19
SRV    SERVICE CORP INTL                            5.86      1.23  +26.39
ROYL   ROYALE ENERGY                               15.06      3.13  +26.30
CVST   Covista Communications                       5.90      1.21  +22.83
NICK   NICHOLAS FINANCIAL INC                       7.00      1.11  +17.76
BIOI   BIOSOURCE INTL                              10.45      1.54  +17.26
PLCE   CHILDREN'S PLACE RETAIL STORES              28.58      4.18  +17.13
FPIC   FPIC INSURANCE GRP                          11.45      1.68  +17.11
MEDM   MEDAMICUS INC                                7.55      1.04  +15.52

LOSERS

CTLM   CENTILLIUM COMMUNICATIONS(IPO)              23.59     -8.00  -25.33
MAXC   MAXCO INC                                    7.50     -1.43  -19.07
VGIN   VISIBLE GENETICS                            15.05     -2.91  -16.62
AMCV   AMER CLASSIC VOYAGES                         5.45     -1.07  -16.34
RTIX   REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES                   11.29     -2.17  -16.30
MCRI   MONARCH CASINO & RESORT                      5.45     -0.85  -15.45
USLBW  U.S. LABORATORIES WRRT                       5.95     -0.94  -15.44
APCS   ALAMOSA PCS HLDGS                           12.30     -2.18  -15.18
QLTI   QLT INC                                     23.81     -4.05  -14.54
AETH   AETHER SYSTEMS                              13.48     -2.26  -14.37

FREE MANAGED FUTURES & IRA RETIREMENT KIT
http://www.ino.com/specials/icm/
_____________________________________________________________________

T H A N K   Y O U
_____________________________________________________________________

Thank you for subscribing to the Extreme Markets Daily Digest from INO.com
( http://www.ino.com/ ). If you want to subscribe to our other email
services, or would like to modify your profile please visit
http://www.ino.com/email/.

To subscribe a friend, visit:
  http://www.ino.com/email/

To unsubscribe, visit:
  http://www.ino.com/email/remove/?email=mike.grigsby@enron.com&list=evening

--
Copyright 1998-2001 INO.com. All Rights Reserved.


The attachment below recaps our meeting from this morning.  Highlights from
last week are noted and commitments for this week are detailed as well.  Let
me know if anything has been left off the list.  --Sally


I did the comparison and gave it to Mary to review.  Credit is deciding what to do in light of the problems with the airlines.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 9:52 AM
To:	Heard, Marie
Subject:	FW: American Airlines ISDA

Any idea where this stands?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Friedman, Richard
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 9:01 AM
To:	Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:	American Airlines ISDA

Has anything happened on this? Has credit ever responded to you?

Rich Friedman
Enron Global Markets LLC
richard.friedman@enron.com
713-853-5137


ENA sold the 10,000 dth of EOG pool supply from Power Gas Marketing to EES
for the month of August at CNG IF flat - this is the same thing we did for
July.


Michelle,

Gee, not sure if you've gotten this lovely little bit o' Houston trivia  making its way on the web.  But sure is funny and a nice commentary on how  we use Powerpoint presentations to do just about everything  today.

Hey, sent you a Christmas card, um, to your parent's address.  Gee,  where did I put your new address? Want to send it on over for next  year??

Unfortunately, won't get to see you in Houston this year b/c, gasp, my  parents are coming to California!  It's gonna be the whole family plate -  Mom, Dad, Laura, Mary and I.  Add Ben and his mom and it's going to be a  terrifying holiday.  Don't you wish you were  here???

Karin Snelson might come down, but not sure she wants to join us.   Shoot.

Hope all is well with you.  I realize work must just be nuts.   Wishing you a bit o' peace there, too.

Cheers,
Suzy

PS - just gave notice here at work (a good story, detailed in my  Christmas card), so from now on, it's best to use my personal email (which I  actually  might start checking), which is  suzannethomas@yahoo.com
 - DoubleTreeShow.ppt


Dan and I are working on draft.

Debra Perlingiere
Enron North America Corp.
Legal Department
1400 Smith Street, EB 3885
Houston, Texas 77002
dperlin@enron.com
Phone 713-853-7658
Fax  713-646-3490


just a quick reminder that we need to cover the Entex delivery off of Oasis.

currently ENA has a transport agreement on Oasis.  This agreement will not be assigned.

Not use AEP has an agreement on Oasis.  Just to make sure, I would recommend we
sale the gas to AEP/HPL at the point for the month of June just to make sure the delivery
is made.

Let me know what you think.

thanks

bob


Please provide comments to the attached minutes by Monday, November 19th. If you approve as written, please let us know. Regards, Paula

Kelly M. Johnson
Executive Assistant
Enron Corp.
Tel: 713-853-6485
Fax: 713-853-2534
E-Mail: kelly.johnson@enron.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email or its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank you.


Donnie,

Thank you for meeting with us last week.  The information you provided was
very useful.  We have the following additional questions regarding the
correlation of power curves and the related controls surrounding changes to
curve correlation factors:

   How are correlation factors calculated?  Do the correlations typically
   change?  How often and how are they reviewed for accuracy?
   Do the factors change for delivery month (i.e., are they different in
   the short-term versus longer terms)?
   What approvals exist for changes to correlation factors by traders, if
   applicable?
   Do system controls exist to limit or prohibit changes to correlation
   factors?
   What other controls are in place to monitor or prohibit changes in
   correlation factors?
   What are the applicable correlations between the curves you provided?
   (If the correlations are difficult to provide, please let me know)

I am assuming that you would be the appropriate contact for these questions
since Stacey had referred us to you previously for overall curve
correlations.  However, if you are not the correct contact, please feel
free to call me at x56953 or e-mail me with the appropriate contact name.

Thank you for your assistance,

Jennifer
*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.  If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your
employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.


SB 1626: Author Hayden -- Introduced 2/22/00
Author Sponsored
Summary:
This bill would, for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2000,
and before January 1, 2005, allow a one-time refundable personal income tax
credit, not to exceed $500, in an amount equal to 80% of the cost paid or
incurred for obtaining a personal computer, printer, and access to the
Internet, as provided.
This bill would require the commission to establish a class of lifeline
Internet access service necessary to meet minimum residential Internet needs,
set rates for that service, develop eligibility criteria, assess the degree
of achievement of universal Internet access.
The furnishing of lifeline Internet access service is in the public interest
and should be supported fairly and equitably by every Internet Service
Provider, and the commission in administering the lifeline Internet access
service program, should implement the program in an equitable,
nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral manner for the Internet Service
Provider industry.

Position
I assume we want to monitor this bill. Do you need any more immediate
information?

Attached is a copy of the bill


Hey Guys,

We have been researching PJM transmission settlement and have found an
inconsistency in how deals are settled in PJM and
how they are getting into Enpower.

I would like to propose that any deal for transmission be entered into
Enpower as documented below.  Please come to me if you
have any questions.

Volume Management is attempted to set up a process to reconcile these volumes
on a daily and monthly basis, so bear with us
until the process is in place and everyone is up to speed.

Thanks,

Rebecca

PJM TRANSMISSION PROCEDURE

Every time an OASIS request is accepted in PJM a deal is entered into
Enpower...

 1)  with a demand volume equal to the amount reserved
 2)  demand price of $0.67
 3)  trans volume equal to the volume FLOWED (or expected to flow)
 4)  trans price of $0.48
 5) Comments with the PJM OASIS number for reference (buy and sell
transaction ids if available)

Examples:

A) If EPMI reserve 100mw of transmission on peak for the whole month, but we
are not sure if or when we are going to use it, enter
demand volume of 100mw and trans volume of zero, and then when it is used
change the trans volume in Scheduling to the amount
that actually flowed.

B)  If EPMI reserves 50mw for HE8-12 and expects to use it, enter demand
volume of 50mw and trans volume of 50mw, and then of it
is cut change the trans volume in Scheduling to the amount that actually
flowed.


ABX1 60 (Hertzberg) was just scheduled for hearing this afternoon in the
Assembly Energy, Costs and Availability Committee.  In brief, the bill
does the following:

Require, as a condition of certification by the CEC, that an applicant
offer to sell to an electrical
corporation, a municipal corporation, or the Department of Water
Resources, at a just and reasonable cost base price electrical power
generated by the facility.

This bill would also prohibit a person or entity, as defined, from
operating an electrical generation facility unless the person or entity
has submitted to the commission, within the time prescribed by
regulations adopted by the commission, a maintenance and outage
schedule, and the commission has approved that schedule.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/abx1_60_bill_20010216_introdu
ced.pdf


All -

Starting Wednesday, we all have lots of work to do to get the new company up and running on time.  Going forward,  we need to be a proactive organization as opposed to a reactive organization.  Given that we have the best people in the organization going over, this should not be difficult to accomplish.

Let me be very clear.  Playing on the internet will not be tolerated.  There is too much that has to get done over the next two weeks.  That message needs to be communicated to everyone going to the new company.  If people feel like they do not have anything to do,  they should be reading about options or the gas business.  This is a great opportunity for people to make themselves better employees.  I have no problem changing the lists if someone steps up,  or if someone doesn't.

Below,  are a few things I need your help with over the next few days.

(i)    Budget (due Jan 2, 2002)
        First year budget to include all start up costs (some of which can be amortized)

Each of you needs to draw up a budget for your region by the end of the day Wednesday.  Use the format that we used for the Enron 2002 Budget process.  Russ and Greg.  You will be one cost center in the new organization.

John,  can you be responsible for coordinating this and compiling all budgets into one by Wednesday night?

(ii)     Re-start/Integration Plans (due on Jan 3)                               To be forwarded to Louise
        These plans need to be detailed and show clear detailed timelines and detailed responsibilities for getting us up and running as soon as possible.  The current restart date is January 21, 2001 but may be pushed forward to January 14, 2002.

I need to detailed plans for what files we are moving,  the systems we need,  and anything that will make the move better for the business.

Kam - Can you coordinate and give me the list be Thursday evening?

(iii)   Seating Plans                                                   Tammy Shepperd to co-ordinate
        We need to start the planning process for seating as we will be living on floors 5 & 6 of the Enron South building.

If you have any preferences in this area let me know ASAP, so that I can make requests now.

(iv)    Due Diligence
        We continue the process with two new companies this week (Wednesday and Thursday). Andy Zipper is taking the lead for the company arriving on Wednesday, please help him with his requirements.

Just so you know, there will be more people in this week.

Please let me know how I can help in getting everything done.  I look forward to a great year working with all of you.  Thanks for all of your hard work.

Jeff


I think I still need the data sheet for this corp.  Thanks


Rick:

Here is the presentation in its final format and as communicated to Jim, Doug, and Paul.

Brgrds

AI


Dennis, see attached

Dennis Howell
10/04/2000 02:17 PM

To: Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Docket 2.55(B)

Larry,

Could you take a look at the attached file's, and answer question concerning
Environmental Permit / Survey at Keystone.  I am not to sure about some of
these questions.

Many Thanks,

Dennis


In case the money he gets for selling the Whitehouse silver and crystal runs
out....

Chinese Firm Offers Clinton Two Million Dollars to be "Image" Envoy
BEIJING, Feb 18, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) A major Chinese garments
firm unveiled Sunday a two-million-dollar offer to Bill Clinton to represent
the company and said he was considering the proposal.
Fapai, a firm specializing in men's garments and based in the freewheeling
Wenzhou city in eastern China's Zhejiang province, had asked Clinton to be
its "image ambassador," a company spokesman said, confirming a Beijing Youth
Daily report.
The company had written to Clinton in May 2000 but the offer was considered
premature by the then U.S. president, the report said.
When the offer was repeated after he left the White House, Hillary Clinton
acknowledged it in a letter, it said.
"Mrs Clinton thanked us on her own and her husband's behalf for the offer
and expressed readiness to discuss it face to face with the company
director," the daily said quoting the firm.
A company spokesman told AFP that Hillary Clinton's letter was received last
week.
Fapai has already roped in top Hong Kong film actor Tony Leung, who made a
name for himself in the French film "L'Amant" directed by Jean-Jacques
Annaud. ((c) 2001 Agence France Presse)


This may not pertain to everyone.  However, in the interest of
over-communicating rather than under-communicating, please read the following.
---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Belden/HOU/ECT on 11/01/2000 08:48 AM
---------------------------
From: Tim Belden on 11/01/2000 09:41 AM
To: Mike Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean
Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diana
Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Alonso/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark Fischer/PDX/ECT@ECT, John
M Forney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Choi/SF/ECT@ECT, John Malowney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Holli
Krebs/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Stewart Rosman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim Ward/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debra Davidson/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lester Rawson/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Monica Lande/PDX/ECT@ECT, Valarie Sabo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Fran
Chang/PDX/ECT@ECT
Subject: Communicating with Risk

A couple of things happened yesterday where communicating with our risk team
could have saved them a lot of time.  I have asked the risk group to put
together a list of things they need to know from us each day;  until we
distribute the definitive list, this e-mail should serve as a reminder that
more communication is much better than less.

First, you need to hear about how a simple little thing can cause our risk
systems to blow up.  My goal is not to point a finger, but rather to
highlight the fact that we need to be thinking about the risk group any time
we change something in Enpower.  Yesterday, somebody on the short term
california desk entered a 1 MW deal for 1 hour with the wrong delivery
point.  The delivery point was somewhere in the eastern US.  The deal was
promptly changed, but not before the east desk had "calced" their books.
When the west risk group attempted to "calc" our books, the system found a
deal (the same 1 MW deal) that had already been "calced" by the east.  The
result was that the portcalc blew up and there was no way to know why.  The
technology group in Houston worked through the night to figure it out.  Our
risk group was here until about 11 PM trying to figure it out.  Finally, the
problem was discovered this morning.  The result was that we didn't publish a
preliminary P&L last night and we didn't have correct positions this
morning.  On top of that, people who are already overworked had to put in
long hours.  IN THE FUTURE, IT IS YOUR JOB TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION --
LARGE OR SMALL -- TO THE RISK GROUP.  It is impossible to know what types of
things may cause problems.  Therefore, I can't prescribe exactly what has to
be communicated.  Obviously, you don't need to tell them about every deal
that you have entered, but you need to tell them about any changes to deals.
Try to communicate too much.  Let them tell you when it is too much
information.

Another area of communication that must be improved concerns long term
deals.  The interest rate group needs to know about material changes in cash
flows in the future.  Our risk group currently communicates this information
to the interest rate group.  If we don't tell them, they can't tell the
interest rate group, and the interest rate group yells at our risk group.
Nobody likes to get yelled at.  Yesterday, we did a couple of long term deals
with BPA in the 2002 to 2006 timeframe.  Nobody on the desk communicated this
to the risk group.  In the future, please communicate any deal that is longer
than a year to the risk group.

Again, my goal is not to chastise the people who caused the problems
yesterday.  We had no idea that changing a small deal could blow up our
system.  But going forward, I am going to be really mad if our lack of
internal communication leads to uneccessary work and/or headaches for others
on the floor.  All of our lives will be much better if we communicate more.

Thanks for your attention to this matter,
Tim


----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 10/25/2000 10:08 AM -----

	Richard B Sanders
	10/24/2000 05:34 PM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kazeem
Khan/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christian
Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Some thoughts on options

----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 10/24/2000 05:24 PM -----

	"Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
	10/24/2000 04:45 PM

		 To: "Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>
		 cc: "Meringolo, Peter" <PMeringolo@brobeck.com>
		 Subject: Some thoughts on options

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

Richard,

 After today's discussion here are our brainstorming ideas on
options:

1.   WAIT FOR A BETTER PROTECTIVE ORDER
 Ask Harvey Morris where they are on fixing the protective order that
is being litigated by others.  If the protective order has not  changed,
then unilaterally postpone production until it is.  Pro: Better protection
and more time; Con: Even with a more stringent
 protective order Enron still questions whether the PUC is entitled
to financial performance data.  Thus, this option does not fully
disclose all of Enron's positions and the company may be accused later of
simply engaging in delaying tactics.  Under this option  we file our
formal objections as well.

2. TURN OVER THE TRANSACTION DATA AS IS
 Continue on our present course of turning over transaction data for
electricity that was delivered.  Pro: PUC will get the data  anyway
either through FERC, unfair competition, antitrust or price gouging
litigation.  By turning over the data that will show  profits, PUC might
slow down investigation there as opposed to interrupting the business by
seeking to depose witnesses etc.  Con:  This would be waiving the
legitimate question that Enron has as to the PUC's ability to discovery this
information through a  subpoena.  There is also a question of how
confidential this data would be given the current political agenda.  It
might also serve  to whet the appetite of the PUC for more Enron
information and discovery.   This option would also provide confidential
proprietary information to the PUC about how Enron gets its competitive
advantage.

3. TURN OVER DATA FOR OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA AND LET PUC GET REST OF
DATA FROM ISO AND PX.
 We have told the PUC we do not want to duplicate the efforts of ISO
and PX so the way to relieve the burden on us is to give  only missing
data. PRO:  It would be easier and quicker to just give the outside of
California data and would sidestep for the
 moment the ongoing jurisdictional question.  Con:  Without Enron
cost data for the California ISO and PX transactions, the PUC
 would not be able to arrive at what they want -- a profit and loss
picture.  We would have a hard time representing to the PUC that  the
combination of the PUC data and the Enron data would be all that they need
to calculate the answers to Request Nos. 7-10.

4. TURN OVER EVERYTHING BUT PRICE
 This option would simple omit the price data.  Pro:  It would not
reveal the profit and loss information.  Con:  It would not reveal the
profit and loss information.  In other words, the PUC is clear that this is
what they are after.  By giving them everything else, we
 would in effect be telling them we will not turn over profit and
loss.  Moreover, by piecing some of it together with the ISO and PX
data, the PUC might be able to put together a revenue picture which will be
quite large, but just not the cost or expense side.

5. DECLINE TO PRODUCE THE DATA
 We would tell Harvey Morris that Enron has reconsidered its position
for the following reasons:  (1) Our firm belief that the PUC is  not
entitled to the profit and loss data they are seeking; (2) in his latest
email, Harvey has made it clear that the PUC wants more  data (1999)
than we discussed earlier; (3) continued threat that if they do not like the
transaction data they will come back and  ask for profit and loss
information that we do not believe they are entitled to; (4) Commissioner
Wood's statement that the purpose  of this investigation is to get
money from market participants in the hands of consumers; (5) investigation
by the AG into activities  of other market participants and the notice
that other governmental agencies are cooperating -- who are we producing
this  information to and for what purpose; (6) Enron favors public
disclosure of trading data but only if all participants are required to
do so; (7) Enron is a small player in this market and many other market
participants are not involved in the process BPA etc.    PRO:  This
may be the only way to preserve Enron's challenge to the jurisdiction of the
PUC to get this data.  Moreover, in the  current political
environment there is no assurance where this information will be leaked.  It
also makes sense to see what FERC  will do with their published 11/1/00
report on investigation date. Under this option, we file our formal
objections and sit back and  wait.

6. ME TOO
 Upon reflection, we agree with the approach taken by the other
market participants.  We will not produce until the protective order  is
modified and then only data that is within the PUC jurisdiction.  PRO:  This
makes it look like all the market participants are  acting in concert
and really is no different than option 1 above.  Moreover, if you read
Reliant's responses, they appear ready to  turn over financial data if
the protective order is modified. (Terry and Mike Day are both out of their
offices today.)  Note that  Williams is adopting a strategy that says
the PUC needs to go to Superior Court to enforce its subpoena.  This may be
met with  strong opposition by the PUC given their California
constitutional contempt authority.

7. MOVE TO QUASH BEFORE THE ALJ
 Here we would raise all of the arguments that we have about why the
PUC does not have jurisdiction and fight it out on the merits  before the
ALJ.  PRO:  The ALJ is a forum to raise the jurisdictional questions.  It
has the least procedural risks of being  dismissed.  CON:  Reading
the tea leaves, we believe it unlikely that the ALJ will determine that the
PUC has no jurisdiction.
 Moreover, because the PUC has its own constitutionally granted
contempt power, the PUC will take the view (according to Mike  Day) that
they need not go to the Superior Court for enforcement.  They will also take
the view that the Superior Court has no  jurisdiction  to hear our
appeal.  Appeals have to go to the PUC and those orders are appealable at
the Court of Appeal level.   Thus, the only de novo review of our
objections might be at the ALJ level.

8. FILE DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT IN CALIFORNIA
 We would claim federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Power
Act and in particular the provisions of 824(g) under which the PUC
issued its subpoena in part.  The dispute to be decided is whether the PUC
has the jurisdiction to seek the profit and  loss information from the
wholesale market.  The authority for this would be Mississippi Power & Light
v. Mississippi  487 US  354 (bright line between wholesale market regulated
by FERC and the retail market regulated by states); Bristol Energy Corp v.
New Hampshire 13 F.3d 471 (1st Cir. 1994)(federal question whether state
agency can inquire into business and financial data  in the wholesale
market but found no cognizable claim.)  PRO:  The federal forum may be more
even handed than the ALJ, but  the question is whether we can state a
cognizable claim.  There may be greater protections from disclosure of the
information as  well.  CON:  The PUC may continue on a parallel track unless
we are able to obtain injunctive relief.  The PUC might seek  discovery of
the same information in the Federal court proceeding.  We should assume that
this action will trigger the strongest  response from the PUC and/or the AG
in form of further investigations or alternative forums for getting the same
information (e.g  unfair business practice suit, price gouging,
anti-trust etc.).   We should anticipate deposition requests for traders
etc.  By taking  this position, we will clearly be conceding that if
FERC asks for the data it is germane to their authority.

9. SEPARATE RESPONSES/STRATEGIES FOR DIFFERENT ENRON ENTITIES
 It may make some sense to chart a different course for Portland
General, EES and EEMC and continue to produce some data from  those
entities.  PRO:  The information provided for these entities is not likely
to generate profit and loss information that would be  germane to the fight
we are about to engage in (e.g. EES's description of % off tariff rates for
example.)  For Portland General,  Dave Aamodt is out of the office and
not able to participate in any change of direction discussions.

Hope this is helpful.
Thanks
Gary

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is 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, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com


- 188_194PIP_Language.zip


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 03/07/2001
05:41 PM ---------------------------

Pamela Vande Krol Castro <castro@rice.edu> on 03/07/2001 04:19:01 PM
To: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Fwd: latest roster - Rice

Let's try this again! - Pam

>Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:13:42 -0600
>To: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
>From: Pamela Vande Krol Castro <castro@rice.edu>
>Subject: latest roster - Rice
>
>Here is your latest roster for MGMT 656. Let me know if you need the list
>of e-mail addresses or if there are any discrepancies that I should
>address. Thanks for your help! - Pam (713-348-6223)

 - 656.doc


This has some frequency vs. Genration MW Lost info.  Thought you could compare it to what you guys have seen on your frequency display in the past when generation has been lost.  - Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Donohoo, Ken [mailto:KDonohoo@ercot.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 5:15 PM
To: 1 DemandSideTF; 1 2001 ROS and others(Reliability and Operations
Sub.)
Subject: Trying again - Hiset Study

Apparently some folks are having problems receiving this report.  So I
am trying again.  Thanks Ken D.


I am leaving now.  I will see you at my house at 12. Thank you so much!


fyi--

-----Original Message-----
From:?? Schultz, Don
Sent:?? Monday, November 27, 2000 9:31 AM
To:???? Morse, David E.; Cauchois, Scott; Kinosian, Robert; Logan, Scott;
Scarff, James E.; Morse, Jay; Smith, Don; Greenspan, Randi; Danforth,
Christopher; Casey, Sean F.

Subject:??????? R.00-10-002, I 00-11-001: SJ Calpine dispute

 <<restructuring_need analysis_San Jose Capline dispute_SJMN 11_00.doc>>

 - restructuring_need analysis_San Jose Capline dispute_SJMN 11_00.doc


Pulpex Bulletin for Monday, October 29, 2001

Market News:

NBSK ------------------------------------------------------------
Nov01     420.00   425.00   422.00   422.00   422.00     5    81
Dec01     425.00   430.00   426.25   426.25   426.25     3   167
Jan02     430.00   435.00        -        -        -     -    26
Mar02     428.00   448.00        -        -        -     -   158
Jun02     452.00   475.00        -        -        -     -    40
Sep02     470.00   481.00        -        -        -     -    35
Dec02     480.00   497.00        -        -        -     -    15
Mar03     480.00        -        -        -        -     -     -

BEK -------------------------------------------------------------
Nov01     400.00   407.00        -        -        -     -   126
Dec01     403.00   410.00        -        -        -     -    40
Jan02     406.00   416.00        -        -        -     -     -
Mar02          -        -        -        -        -     -     -

Settlement Prices Futures
          Today      Chg      Prev
NBSK -------------------------------
Nov01    422.00     -0.25    422.25
Dec01    426.25     -5.50    431.75
Jan02    432.50     -4.00    436.50
Mar02    438.00     -8.00    446.00
Jun02    463.50     +1.50    462.00
Sep02    475.50     +0.00    475.50
Dec02    488.50     +5.00    483.50
Mar03    503.50     +5.00    498.50

BEK --------------------------------
Nov01    403.50     -2.50    406.00
Dec01    406.50     -2.50    409.00
Jan02    411.00     -5.00    416.00
Mar02    418.00     -5.00    423.00

The above tables should ideally be viewed using Courier or other fixed fonts.
During Pulpex opening hours (0830-1600 UK Time, 0930-1700 CET),prices
are distributed on our web page: http://www.pulpex.com

If you would like someone else to receive this bulletin or to cancel your own
please mail: info@pulpex.com or fax: +44 20 7065 8941


FYI.

---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Healy/HOU/ECT on 10/27/2000 07:40
AM ---------------------------

Michael D Nanny@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/26/2000 04:33 PM
To: Scott Healy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephen Plauche/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Robert P Virgo/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Revision No.1 for ENA Fuelcell Estimate dated 10/26/2000

---------------------- Forwarded by Michael D Nanny/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
10/26/2000 04:25 PM ---------------------------

Ray Danner@ENRON
10/26/2000 03:44 PM
To: Michael D Nanny/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike
Coleman/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Terri
Austin/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Jay Patel/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Robin Long/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Revision No.1 for ENA Fuelcell Estimate dated 10/26/2000

Mike,

Attached are the revised (Revision 1) BOP Estimates for the Wallingford Fuel
Cells Power Project (10 cells - 21.2 MW) and the Midcon (Hartford) Fuel Cells
Power Project (12 cells - 28.8 MW) in the amount of $9.5MM and $9.6 MM
respectively. These estimates reflect our discussions today with the
following comments provided:

 1. I have lowered the Contingency to 10% from 15% per the direction from
Mike Coleman. Estimating does not agree with this reduced contingency and I
feel it is inadequate for the level of detail provided.

 2. Because of this reduction in contingency, I have re-evaluated the
concrete account and moved the Slab on Grade from the FCE Scope to the EE&CC
Scope of Work. I have also revised the foundations for FCE based on the
quantities they provided.

 3. We are using $10,000 per cell for Grounding Grid based on reviewing
additional estimating data. (The earlier number of $75,000 for the first two
(2) cells  and $25,000 for each additional cell was provided as an estimate
from FCE.  We agree it is too high.

 4. Based on our discussions, we are using $450,000 per project for
Engineering Services.

A Basis of Estimate is also provided.

Please call if you have questions or if you want to have additional meetings.

Ray Danner

---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Danner/NA/Enron on 10/26/2000 03:26
PM ---------------------------
From: Jay Patel@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 10/26/2000 03:24 PM
To: Ray Danner/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Revision No.1 for ENA Fuelcell Estimate dated 10/26/2000

Ray, herewith, please find the subject Estimate and respective Basis of
Estimate.

Regards
Jay N. Patel
   X-55262


Tom-

Given the difficulty we're having getting our gas from Lone Star at Katy,
please give Entex a call on Monday and ask them to remain at the current
level or lower until further notice.  Thanks!!


Brant,  Attached are the form of the JV Cinergy Guaranties.  I will route the
ENA for signature.  Please note Section 2.  I made these JV guaranties
secondary to the Bridgeline Guaranty.  Is March 1, 2000, the correct
effective date for these.


Shirley,

He will have to pay the rent.

Vince

Shirley Crenshaw
04/05/2001 03:49 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Bhala - Apartment

Vince:

Molly called me today and Bhala wants us to get him an apartment for the
summer.  Will this be charged to our cost center or does he pay the rent
on this?

Please let me know as soon as possible.

Thanks!

Shirley

---------------------- Forwarded by Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT on 04/05/2001
03:43 PM ---------------------------

Stinson Gibner
03/19/2001 01:14 PM
To: Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Bhala

Shirley,

FYI -- Bhala is planning to start 5/28

--Stinson

---------------------- Forwarded by Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT on 03/19/2001
01:13 PM ---------------------------
From: Molly Magee/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/16/2001 02:13 PM
To: Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Bhala

Stinson:   Just a friendly reminder about the job description for Bhala.  He
called us today, and is becoming somewhat apprehensive about time.   He said
that you need only provide 3-4 lines of a job description, and that it's not
necessary to go into any real depth.   Bhala also wanted to confirm a start
date of 5/28/01 so that he can give notice at his apartment.

Thanks,

Molly
x34804


Please approve the following 7 product types in Datamanager at your earliest
convenience.  The product type descriptions and GTC are attached.

US East SPF Lumber Phy
US Newsprint Phy
US OSB Phy
US Recycled OCC #11 Phy
US SYP Lumber Phy
US West SPF Lumber Phy
US Recycled ONP #8 Phy   changed since last email

STEPS FOR APPROVAL:

click the  START button
select  PROGRAMS
select  TEST APPLICATIONS
select ENRONONLINE CLUSTER(PROD)
 PROCEED WITH USUAL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click the Enron Online Production Cluster "START" button
select EnronOnLine (this is the EOL Datamanager)
 PROCEED WITH EOL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click on the "+" for EnronOnLine
click on the "+" for Product Types
click on the "+" for "Awaiting Approval" (OR  "Partially Approved")
select the product requiring review as stated in e-mail above
Right "mouse" click on "properties" to view product set-up
TO APPROVE:  Right mouse click on "Approved"


Hi Sara, Anna and I have recommended that you call her to give your
perspective on an outstanding concern that Anna maintains with respect to the
Assignment Agreement.  Anna and her MD want specifically to discuss the
substance of the Exhibit that you would like to attach to the Agreement.
Call me first so that if I am not at lunch (I am leaving for a late lunch in
the next fifteen minutes) I can join in.  Otherwise, please call Anna
directly at 212-272-2727.

Cheryl Nelson
Senior Counsel
EB3816
(713) 345-4693


http://www.consultrci.com

************************************************************************

Miss last week? Catch up on the latest in the energy industry at:
http://www.consultrci.com/web/infostore.nsf/Products/IssuesWatch
************************************************************************

===============================================================
SCIENTECH IssueAlert, October 10, 2000
PG&E's Rate Cap Proposal: Leading the Charge for Re-Regulation, or Protecting
Itself from Economic Disaster?
By: Will McNamara, Director, Electric Industry Analysis
===============================================================

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E), in filings with the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Independent System Operator
(Cal-ISO), has requested that a rate cap be placed on wholesale purchases
in the state. The utility is asking the CPUC to lower the current rate
cap from $250 per megawatt hour to $100, or 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
In seeking the rate cap, PG&E is joined by Edison International, the parent
company of Southern California Edison, and The Utility Action Network (TURN),
a ratepayer advocacy group.

ANALYSIS: The current rate cap of $250 per megawatt hour in the wholesale
market of California resulted from the price spikes experienced in San
Diego this summer. As San Diego Gas & Electric had paid off its stranded
costs, the retail rate freeze in its area was lifted and SDG&E customers
were exposed to market-based prices, which doubled and at times tripled
due to increased demand in the state and power supply concerns. PG&E customers
were not exposed to the price spikes because, at the time, PG&E had not
paid off its own stranded costs and was still under a retail rate freeze.

Yet the company has felt the impact from the price spikes just the same.
PG&E buys a great deal of its power on the wholesale market, and as a result
is about $2.2 billion in debt (some figures suggest it is as high as $2.7
billion). Due to the retail rate freeze still in effect, PG&E has been
unable to pass this debt on to customers by raising its rates. In real
terms, PG&E was paying up to 19 cents per kilowatt hour on the wholesale
market this summer, when by law it was only allowed to charge its customers
on average 5 cents per kilowatt hour. In total, PG&E has paid about $2.7
billion more to suppliers than it can bill customers for, and this amount
is growing by hundreds of millions each month. This explains the utility's
motivation in wanting to see the CPUC further lower the cap on wholesale
rates in California.

However, even though PG&E as a whole is in debt, the utility*as well as
other divisions under parent company PG&E Corp.*is still making money off
deregulation in California. For instance, PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear
plant has been able to capitalize on the high value of power on the wholesale
market. The utility confirmed recently that altogether its power facilities*
the
ones left after the utility was forced to divest the bulk of its power
assets*still provide about $150 million a month to the utility. In addition,
PG&E Corp.'s unregulated energy commodity trading operation has been doing
very well. And the unregulated National Energy Group*which operates in
markets outside of California, such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island and
New Hampshire*posted a 233-percent profit increase for the second quarter.
Thus, it is important to note the distinction between PG&E and its parent,
PG&E Corp. Ironically, as a whole, PG&E Corp. has stated that it does not
support rate caps, and has opposed the issue when it has surfaced in other
states.

PG&E reported second-quarter earnings of $216 million on $2.3 billion in
revenue, representing a 26-percent increase over the same quarter last
year. Third quarter earnings also reportedly will be strong. This puts
PG&E in an awkward predicament. On one hand, PG&E wants to convince
shareholders
that the company is doing well and making money from the commodities that
it sells. On the other hand, PG&E is attempting to convince regulators
that it is losing money due to the high wholesale prices that it must pay
for power. In fairness, though, the revenue PG&E has earned cannot come
anywhere near to paying off the massive debt the company has accrued due
to its obligation of serving customers.

PG&E's rate freeze is scheduled to end March 31, 2002, at the very latest,
or sooner if it is determined that PG&E's stranded costs have been repaid,
something that utility executives say may already have taken place. Due
to higher-than-expected revenues and higher-than-market valuations of the
utility's assets, it may very well be the case that PG&E's stranded costs
are already paid off. When this is officially determined by the CPUC, PG&E
will argue that customers should be liable for some or all of the debt
it has assumed while the rate caps were in place. The CPUC has scheduled
a hearing to address these issues on Oct. 19. The core question of these
proceedings will be whether or not PG&E should be allowed to turn over
its debt to customers through rate increases once the rate freeze is lifted.
PG&E wants to be able to retroactively bill customers for its debt, based
on the date which the CPUC determines that PG&E had in fact paid off its
stranded costs, a point groups such as TURN will surely protest.

It may seem surprising that TURN was among the group with PG&E that filed
the petition to lower the rate cap on wholesale prices. Typically, TURN
and PG&E (along with most utilities) are at polar opposites regarding most
issues. However, both agree that wholesale rates are too high and want
to see a new cap put into place, but for completely different reasons.
TURN says that PG&E and other utilities took a risk when agreeing to the
rate freeze and they should not be allowed to pass debts that resulted
from that risk onto customers. TURN continues to retain a watch over the
proceedings related to PG&E's proposal, specifically with regard to the
possibility that the CPUC will allow the utility to raise rates on customers.

Within the course of these new developments, it's important to be clear
on PG&E's motivations. Some California lawmakers and consumer advocates
have called for a complete return to regulation, arguing that deregulation
in California has become a failed experiment. Many have surmised that PG&E's
proposal for wholesale caps is essentially a call to return California
to a regulated structure. I think this is a misinterpretation. PG&E has
very clearly stated that its proposal is a "necessary short-term step to
try to bring prices back in line." PG&E's efforts really shouldn't be viewed
as a move to return California to a regulated market. Rather, PG&E is merely
attempting to protect its own interests. The utility wants to secure temporary
lower rates for the power it needs to buy on the wholesale market and transfer
its debts to customers once the rate freeze is lifted. A return to regulation
via a permanent rate cap would not be in PG&E's best interests as it continues
to sell power from its nuclear plant. In addition, PG&E probably recognizes
that regulation would discourage additional companies from building new
power plants in California, which would not be good for the long-term economy
of the state. This also would do little to lower wholesale prices in
California.
As we discovered this summer, the less supply, the higher the price for
power.

PG&E's proposal to lower rate caps on wholesale prices is, more than anything
else, an attempt to protect itself from what it perceives as disastrous
economic impact if it is not able to transfer its debt to customers. A
recent Wall Street Journal report inferred that if wholesale prices continue
to exceed what PG&E can charge customers, the utility could become
"technically
insolvent" sometime next year. It will be interesting to see if the CPUC
has the same perception when it evaluates PG&E's proposal later this month.

==============================================================
Need to design and implement your IT infrastructure? Learn more about
SCIENTECH's
Information Technology team and what they can do for you at:

http://www.consultrci.com/web/rciweb.nsf/web/Depts-IT.html
===============================================================

SCIENTECH is pleased to provide you with your free, daily IssueAlert. Let
us know if we can help you with in-depth analyses or any other SCIENTECH
information products including e-commerce and telecom in the electric utility
industry. If you would like to refer a colleague to receive our free, daily
IssueAlerts, please reply to this email and include their full name and
email address or register directly at:

http://www.consultrci.com/web/infostore.nsf/Products/IssueAlert

Sincerely,

Will McNamara
Director, Electric Industry Analysis
wmcnamara@scientech.com
===============================================================
Feedback regarding SCIENTECH's IssueAlert should be sent to
wmcnamara@scientech.com
===============================================================

SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts are compiled based on independent analysis by
SCIENTECH
consultants.  The opinions expressed in SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts are not
intended to predict financial performance of companies discussed or to
be the basis for investment decisions of any kind.  SCIENTECH's sole purpose
in publishing its IssueAlerts is to offer an independent perspective regarding
the key events occurring in the energy industry, based on its long-standing
reputation as an expert on energy and telecommunications issues.

Copyright 2000.  SCIENTECH, Inc.

If you do not wish to receive any further IssueAlerts from SCIENTECH, please
reply to this message and in the body of the email type "remove."


Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but I have some work.

How are everybody?
ohhhhhhh it's your promotion, grate
Say hi to your wife and your brother in low everybody.

Mea by a will go to Houston en semana santa

talk to you soon

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Griffith@enron.com [mailto:John.Griffith@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:16 PM
To: Antonio Paez
Subject: Re: Hi!!!!!

---------------------- Forwarded by John Griffith/Corp/Enron on 02/28/2001
11:13 AM ---------------------------

John Griffith
02/28/2001 11:15 AM

To:   "Antonio Paez" <paez1000@hotmail.com>
cc:

Subject:  Re: Hi!!!!!  (Document link: John Griffith)

Tony,

Whats up?  Hey I think that Mexico is playing US tomorrow in Ohio for the
World Cup qualifying.  Is Mexico any good?  Should we wager on the match?
Hope things are going well with you.  Talk to you soon.

My work number is (713) 853-6247 if you want to call me anytime.  I got a
promotion.  I am now trading Natural Gas Options.  We trade them over the
internet also.  We have a website (Enron Online) that we make markets on
many different commodities and we just started making option markets in
natural gas a couple of months ago.  I am helping with this.

Tell your family hi and have a great day.

John


No trouble in N.O.  I was there for a conference with all 300 Enron lawyers &
paralegals from all around the world - it didn't seem prudent to go looking
for trouble with all those Company folks wandering around the Quarter!  I
just came on home Friday evening & went to bed.

T. said you looked like you were having fun Friday night but didn't stay out
late enough to find out how much fun.....


---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Neal/HOU/ECT on 03/09/2001 11:02 AM
---------------------------

David Forster@ENRON
03/09/2001 10:54 AM
To: Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Communication Error Message

Message as discussed.
---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/Corp/Enron on 03/09/2001
10:59 AM ---------------------------

David Forster
03/01/2001 04:07 PM
To: Jay Webb/HOU/ECT
cc: Savita Puthigai/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Communication Error Message

Jay,

Here is the current communication error message:

Can you please replace the above paragraph as follows:

"YOUR TRANSACTION MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL due to a communication
failure."
"To confirm whether or not your transaction was successful, please try to
login again and use the "Transaction History" function to see a list of all
your completed transactions.

If you have any questions or are not certain of the status of a transaction,
please contact us immediately on:"

Thanks,

Dave


For your reading pleasure...

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 07/06/2000 01:24
PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Kay Mann                           07/06/2000 09:45 AM

To: Lisa Bills/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Herman Manis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew
Berry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carl Tricoli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Thomas M
Suffield/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew F Gockerman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roseann
Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, robtaylor@andrews-kurth.com, Kathleen
Clark/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: ABB Agreement for Review

Lisa,

Thank you for the timely comments.

Credit support.  On the issue of credit support for a project company
partially owned by Enron, ABB has some concerns even when Enron still holds
an equity interest due to some late payment problems they had in the past
with an Enron project company.  Also, the ABB and GE payment schedules are
different, with GE being more front end loaded. For example, GE will have
received 45% of the total payments due by the time the first 4 units are
ready to ship; by the time the last 6 units are ready to ship, they will have
received 95% of the payment.  In contrast, we hold 25% of the price of each
ABB unit until delivery (15%) and acceptance (10%) of that particular unit.

Effective date.  The typical reason for an earlier effective date is to
capture any work which ABB may have chosen to do during the option period in
order to hold their guaranteed completion dates.  In the GE contract we
addressed the issue in section 30.3, stating that it governs all work
performed pursuant to the agreement in principle. It is fine with me to make
the effective date a current one.

 Price change. I will confirm why the prices changed $78,000 from the latest
option agreement. I suspect there were changes in the specifications since
the data sheets have changed.

Hope this was helpful.

Kay

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Lisa Bills                           07/05/2000 09:02 PM

To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Herman Manis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew
Berry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carl Tricoli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Thomas M
Suffield/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew F Gockerman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roseann
Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, robtaylor@andrews-kurth.com

Subject: ABB Agreement for Review

Here are my comments:

Assignment Language:
in (i) "WestLB" should be changed to "Purchaser"
in (ii) - although this is a business point I think it is important to
question: why should we provide credit support to the JV/partnership/llc when
we are required to keep a min. 19.5% interest?  This is not a GE requirement
and it is a doubling up of Enron-type support which will make the venture
much more expensive to finance.

Purchase Agreement:
Def. of Business Day:  let's add New York since this is where WestLB funds
from.
2.1(B):  It should be "Agent's" person to approve change orders, not
"Purchaser's"
2.2:  "Purchaser" should be used rather than "WestLB" since it is not as
limiting.
7.1:  Why is the Effective Date backdated to the date of the first option
agreement execution date?
Exhibit N - Purchase Amount Reconciliation:  The total amount of the three
purchase amounts is $78M less than the same amounts detailed in the latest
Option Agreement.  I'd like to understand why this is, especially in light of
the Effective Date in 7.1, to insure that AA won't determine that the Option
Premiums paid were somehow a deposit or credit toward the purchase price of
the transformers.

Regards, Lisa
---------------------- Forwarded by Lisa Bills/Corp/Enron on 07/05/2000 08:45
PM ---------------------------

Matthew Berry@ECT
07/05/2000 02:43 PM
To: Lisa Bills/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: ABB Agreement for Review

---------------------- Forwarded by Matthew Berry/HOU/ECT on 07/05/2000 03:42
PM ---------------------------

	From:  Kay Mann @ ENRON                           07/05/2000 02:36 PM

To: Herman Manis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew Berry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carl
Tricoli/Corp/Enron@Enron, Thomas M Suffield/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matthew F
Gockerman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: ABB Agreement for Review

Gentlemen,

I've made some changes to the assignment language of the ABB contract. The
language is not identical to the LM 6000 language, but is substantially the
same, and in some respects better.  Please let me know if you have any
substantive comments:

I am also attaching the current draft of the contract.  It is being revised
to incorporate delivery dates and to clarify the scope to include
installation obligations of ABB (haul and install).  Also, in the fourth line
of the first paragraph, the word "Purchaser" will be added to the
parenthetical, after "WestLB". Any other changes should be very minor or
technical.

We are trying to get this finished this week.  Please let me know if you have
any questions or comments.

Kay

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 07/05/2000 02:25
PM ---------------------------
From: Kathleen Clark@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 06/30/2000 01:40 PM
To: ben.jacoby@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: ABB Agreement for Review

Attached is the latest ABB agreement for your review:


Sounds like a family man.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 03/14/2001 03:39
PM ---------------------------

TJ Butler
03/14/2001 01:07 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Re: kayak

Great,  I have some things going on this weekend and will be in and out of
the house running carpool and errands.  I'm sure we can arrange a time so I
can be there to show it to you.

tnx

tjb
pager 713-768-8444
cell 281-686-7546
x 54698
EB 2561D


Good morning -

Just wanted to let you know that I've been running the stage version of the
Forward Obligation report using production data, and I seem to be getting all
the same numbers as I do with the production version of the report. I will
continue to compare the two today when I run these reports, just to make
sure. But in the meantime, all looks well. Thanks for your help.

Kate Symes
Trading Support
503-464-7486

From: Kroum Kroumov/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/19/2001 11:32 AM CST
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Cara Semperger/PDX/ECT@ECT

Subject: RE: Forward Ob test run

    Thanks Kate,

    We were looking for somebody like you. You can run it with any settings,
   as you run it every day.  Make sure you see version 3.0.0.30.

    I think however it is better if you can run  the report against
production data
    because the test data are not good enough. I think David Poston created
    a shortcut on Cara's and Valarie's computers, you can talk to him to do it
    for you as well.

     The command from the command prompt should be:
      C:\Enpower\stage > FwdObl user_id user_password  pwrprodn_ded
    (ask the IT people if this doesn't mean anything to you, I can phone
       David as well you want me to)

     Thanks,
     Kroum
     713-853-9980

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Symes, Kate
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:11 AM
To: Kroumov, Kroum
Cc: Semperger, Cara
Subject: Forward Ob test run

I'd be more than happy to run a test of the new forward obligation report in
order for you to move it to production. I do use the application everyday
when determining the West desk positions in relation to each other, so it's a
report I'm familiar with and also one that may affect me if it's changed.
Please let me know if you'd like me to run the report and under what terms.

Thanks,
Kate Symes
Trading Support
503-464-7486


Sorry for the delay in responding.  I needed the quiet time during the
weekend to think through all of the changes and get the draft in order.
Rasmani is going to go through the revised draft on Monday and will send it
out later on Monday.  She will be available to meet with you during the
week.  I will be out of town and generally unavailable, but I would be happy
to set up a call if that would help.  I made many, many changes to the
Accenture draft.  The more I listened and learned about the deal, the more I
felt that the Accenture draft was just the wrong starting point.  I have
tried to incorporate many of the approaches that we have used in earlier EOL
deals, but there my draft will require extensive review and perhaps revision
before it is ready to share with Accenture.  As we go through the new draft,
we should probably start a dialogue with Accenture and its attorney to
prepare it for some rather fundamental changes (like, instead of an
"exclusive" license, I have added an exclusivity provision that sets forth
exactly what Enron agrees not to do...).

Please feel free to call Rasmani at 713 758-2109 to coordinate while I am
out of the office.

Ted Stockbridge
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
(713) 758-1032

-----Original Message-----
From: Bridges, Michael [mailto:Michael.Bridges@ENRON.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:10 AM
To: McCullough, Travis
Cc: tstockbridge@velaw.com
Subject: Accenture Agreement

Can you please update me on the status of the Accidenture Agreement.

Thank you.
          ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.  This
email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any,
or the information contained herein is prohibited.  If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email
and delete this email from your system.  Thank You


Heeey!  I started to email you at CHARLES200064.  I wasn't sure that you had
access to retrieve that other adress' email.

Check this out.  This is what Candis just emailed me

Subject: Hello sugar pudding

Hello,Mama

I love you!!!
You are such a sweet mom!!!!\
Mother I just wan't you to stop YELLING!!!
I haven't ate anything yet but some chips.
Can I make a grilled chesse sandwhich
I know how.Well,I have to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![Unable to display image]

Isn't that cute.  She's at home today (AND FINE!! Thank you.)  She's probably
going to email me all day (like you  : ) so be patient, I will respond.


please put this on my calendar.  thanks,

fletch


First, congratulations to all five of you and the others on your staffs who
were involved for working together to get the excess line pack deal done
today.  As I understand it, TK was able to sell 10,000 MMBtu at the Cal
Border for something like $15 thanks to your efforts.  This thing went from
Dave and Kent's idea to you guys' execution in about two days, even with a
(slight) delay due to my panic attack on whether we can make downstream
sales.   Great job!   Second, I think TK, Kevin, Maria and Glen and I have
come up with a workable set of guidelines on when similar deals can be done
in the future.  The key, as I expressed in the attached email, is that the
sales be driven by a legitimate operational basis.  If Gas Control verifies
that we have excess line pack at a location and that making the sale helps
get line pack to optimal levels, such sales are appropriate.  Gas Control
should also verify that the operational basis for the sale can be documented
if the need ever arises.  Today's deal is a great example of that as we
actually communicated to outside parties that we anticipated some pressure
management issues.  If there are ever any questions about when such deals are
appropriate, or about how to document the operational basis, please give me,
Susan, or Maria a call.  Again, great job!  DF

	From:  Drew Fossum                           11/27/2000 06:01 PM

To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Dave Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kent
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: TW Fuel

This morning I raised a concern regarding TW's sale of excess fuel at
downstream points.  Here's the problem:  the tariff requires shippers to
tender fuel to us at their receipt points.  With rare exceptions, those
receipt points are not at the Cal. border.  Order 636 mandates that pipelines
unbundle transportation from storage.  It also requires that pipelines that
make gas sales do so at the furthest upstream point on their pipeline.  That
latter requirement means that if a pipe buys gas at point "x", it should
resell the gas at point "x" and not haul the gas to point "y" and then sell
it there as a delivered (i.e., bundled) product.  My concern this morning was
that our receipt of fuel gas in the San Juan or Permian and shipment of that
gas to the Cal. border for sale arguably violates the unbundling requirement
(because the Cal. border sale is a bundled combination of the sale and the
transportation of the gas to the downstream location) or the "furthest
upstream point" requirement or both.  Susan and my recollection was that when
ECS wanted to receive the Gallup fuel deliveries at  a point other than
Permian pool, we made them sign a transport contract to move the gas to where
they wanted it.  I haven't confirmed that recollection but I am recalling
that we told Courtney that we couldn't just move our fuel gas around
whereever we wanted it--we needed someone to pay us to transport it.

Irrespective of what we did with ECS, I think the following is the correct
way to look at this situation:  We receive fuel at the shippers' receipt
points.  Once we receive it, however, it is no longer "fuel."  It becomes
line pack until it is burned.   Line pack moves around based on a lot of
reasons, including shipper imbalances, etc.  It also, obviously, has to move
to the compressors where it is burned as fuel.   It is our job to  manage
line pack, and that means we buy line pack at locations where we are short,
and sell it at locations where we are long.  If we end up long at the Cal.
border from time to time, we should sell excess line pack to get line pack
back to optimal levels.  I wouldn't want to get into a pattern where we are
consistently buying line pack in the San Juan and Permian and selling line
pack at the Cal. border, but  thats not what we are talking about here.  I
can't think of anything in the tariff or otherwise that is inconsistent with
this interpretation of our authority as operator of the pipeline.  MKM--OK
with you?  DF


Kathy,

Here is the FT Can Position including the Exotics file.  Let me know how it
looks.  I'm having trouble getting the IM position to pull in, so if I don't
send you a file soon just assume I'll plug the numbers to match the excel
file that Brian saved in the directory.

Thanks,
Robin


Can't get email out to the masses without losing your ISP???  Don't know how to get sales for your product???  Can't get traffic to your site???   Call 1-877-293-1511  I have plenty of fresh verified email names and can get you results.    Price List Discounts for larger orders  100 Thousand - $200 500 Thousand - $650 1 Million - $1250       It is this easy! You simply furnish your message and I do the rest.. I guarantee you 100% delivery. It can even be done in full color at no extra cost     NOTICE  To be removed, hit reply and type remove in the subject line.


Using information pulled together by Jennifer and BAN, I requested West
Tradings Risk/Structuring Group do a more careful analysis of the
above-market costs associated with the DWR contracts.  Attached is their
analysis.

In this analysis we examined only the executed contracts and NOT the
agreements-in principle.  (Only executed contracts were released by the state
in the last few weeks.) Also, gas-indexed contracts were examined on their
nongas costs only.  Since gas costs are a pass through on some contracts, we
excluded them as a conservatism; i.e., we did not ascribe costs to the gas
portion of the contracts since they will float with market costs over time.
These contracts were marked to market using current, applicable curves.
Finally we discounted at the LIBOR rate, which is around 4%/year.

The stranded cost under these assumptions  is approximately $10 billion.  The
spreadsheet shows the overmarket costs by contract.  Note: a negative
"mark-to-market" equals a positive stranded cost.

As before, this analysis is based upon Enron's confidential forward curves.
Approval from Tim Belden is needed before this analysis can be released.

Alan Comnes


*We apologize for the previous message, we experienced an error in our system

Henwood Power Market Symposium, April 29th-May 1st

We are excited to offer you an invitation to attend the Henwood Power Market
Symposium.  This annual three-day event will take place from April 29 to May
1, 2001 in Atlanta, GA at the
Evergreen Mountain Resort.  The goal of the Symposium is to provide our
guests a forum to conduct business across all energy markets through the
sharing of experiences and innovations, and
through numerous networking opportunities.  Participants will also gain
access to Henwood's software products, consulting services and e-Business
products, as a means to develop competitive
strategies and unequalled value in restructured markets.

The focus of the Symposium is to provide relevant discussion topics,
technologies and competitive strategies.  This year's featured speakers
include senior representatives from Enron, Conoco,
Electric Power Research Institute, FERC, New England ISO, and more.

Please register early because space is limited! If you register prior to
April 1st, the symposium cost is only $875.  After April 1st, the
registration fee will be increased to $975.  Your registration is
inclusive of the following:

* Complete hotel accommodations for Sunday April 29th and Monday April 30th,
2001
* All meals and refreshments for April 29th through May 1st. A welcome
reception is planned for Sunday, April 29th.  This reception is an excellent
opportunity to network with market participants
and decision-makers of the electric power industry.
* A river boat dinner cruise scheduled for Monday, April 30th on board the
Henry W. Grady Paddlewheel Riverboat. Spouses are welcome to attend the
evening reception and dinner cruise.

A captain and crew golf tournament is also planned for Sunday, April 29th for
an additional fee.  We invite golfers of all levels to participate in this
event.

For more information contact Heather Mason (e-mail: hmason@hesinet.com) at
916 569-0985. You can also learn more about the Symposium by visiting our web
site at www.hesinet.com.

* Make sure to ask about our special 2001 Henwood client discount.


Given the sheer amount of work necessary to complete the Disclosure
Schedules, how about if we revise our request for completion of drafts of the
Disclosure Schedules to be by the end of the day on Monday, as oppossed to
this Friday.  We will of course take the information early.

I have been informed by Cullen Duke as follows:   that the attached list of
entites has been compiled by Jan Johnson.  It is based on their Hyperion
system roll-up of companies for management reporting.  It does include some
companies that we will not want to transfer.  Accounting and tax are jointly
combing the list to identify such retained entities.  You may be able to help
Cullen on identifying such entities.

I will be calling the GCs soon to see about setting up a time to call local
counsels to confirm our thinking on being able to implement the A,B,C
structure in the various foreign jurisdictions.  As part of that "call"
relates to regulatory matters, Rick Shapiro and others will be involved, as
well as  Bill Weiland, from V&E.  We would like to set up these calls to go
through the structure and discuss the issues identified with the local
counsels very soon.  They will obviously need some time to reflect on the
various issues.

Again, all remains highly confidential.

Thanks for all the help.  Lance.


What's the status?

   Kate Symes @ ECT                04/10/2001 06:29 PM

To: Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: deal 577823

This is the price Prebon quoted to Mike tonight - he'll be checking in the
morning to see what the spread should have been.

Thanks,
Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
04/10/2001 03:23 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: deal 577823

Mike Driscoll
deal 577823
Prebon shows price as $97.95 ....enpower has $79.95


I understand now.     Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 3:10 PM
To:	Hayslett, Rod
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

At mid year, Rodney and Wes went through a fair amount of discussion about whether the transaction accounting folks should be specialized technical or commercial support.  Same for some tax jobs.  It was probably my mistake to not recognize that London's not sticking to the same categorization created a problem.  In the end I think Fernley saw the problem, too.  So if there is a "message", it's to Fernley to do what the rest of the Global Accounting group is doing (and that message is pretty explicit below, I think).

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayslett, Rod
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 2:57 PM
To:	Becker, Melissa
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

I didn't realize there was a choice.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 1:26 PM
To:	Hayslett, Rod
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

Noooo....  What is your question or concern?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayslett, Rod
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 12:02 PM
To:	Becker, Melissa
Subject:	RE: Peer Groups

Is there some secret measage here?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Becker, Melissa
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 9:18 AM
To:	Causey, Richard; Colwell, Wes; Butts, Bob; Faldyn, Rodney; Hermann, Robert; Sommer, Allan; Wasaff, George; Beck, Sally; Dyson, Fernley; Hayslett, Rod; Stubblefield, Wade
Cc:	Migliore, Todd
Subject:	Peer Groups

I don't believe that there will be any change at year end in the use of Peer Groups (Commercial, Technical, Specialized technical, Commercial Support).  Do we want to go with the same usage of these Peer Groups as we did at mid year?  The one thing I would suggest, if possible, is that London go with the same usage as the rest of the BUs.

Please let me know your opinion on this.  Thanks!


Dear Student,

Attached please find your lesson.  You can open the attached Lesson as
you would any other attachment by downloading the attached file to one
of your directories and then opening it in a browser. If you need
additional help in opening this attachment, please go to
http://www.parlo.com/parlo21/help/faq/email_en.asp
for more instructions.

If you would like to receive Parlo's Lessons in html, please go to the
'My Parlo' section of our website at
http://www.parlo.com/parlo21/home/myparlo/myparlo_en.asp and change your
preference to an html formatted lesson in our subscription center.

Thanks and we hope you enjoy today's lesson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To view your lesson online:

Please click here

http://www.parlo.com/parlo21/emails/FREN/20011022/index.asp

or copy and paste the above url into your browser.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 - parlo.htm