California and Energy Providers in Talks Over Electric Fees
The New York Times, 06/26/01

Taking No Chances; Disaster-Conscious Firms Treat Global Warming as a Reality
The Washington Post, 06/26/01

Conflict of Interest
Los Angeles Times, 06/26/01

India Flagging Asset Sales Risk Lower Moody's Outlook (Update2)
Bloomberg, 06/26/01

SMARTMONEY.COM: California Dreamin'
Dow Jones News Service, 06/25/01

Much Calif Power Price Gouging Beyond FERC's Reach -ISO
Dow Jones Energy Service, 06/25/01

Oregon House May Vote Monday On Electricity Deregulation
Dow Jones Energy Service, 06/25/01

USA: Fresh look at wind energy blows to US from Europe.
Reuters English News Service, 06/25/01

USA: UPDATE 3-Some $15 billion at stake in US power refund talks.
Reuters English News Service, 06/25/01

USA: FPL starts wind farm to power 10,500 Wisc. homes.
Reuters English News Service, 06/25/01

USA: Calif says power refund demand will top $9 billion.
Reuters English News Service, 06/25/01

Business/Financial Desk; Section C
California and Energy Providers in Talks Over Electric Fees
By JOSEPH KAHN

06/26/2001
The New York Times
Page 7, Column 1
c. 2001 New York Times Company

WASHINGTON, June 25 -- For the first time since the end of the Clinton
administration, California and the companies that sell it electricity sat at
the same table today to try to resolve a multibillion-dollar feud over the
state's energy bills.
California is demanding that power companies refund as much as $9 billion for
what it says were overcharges, while power companies say that the state's
nearly insolvent utilities owe them billions of dollars. City and state
officials from across the West are also participating in the negotiations.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened the talks, which are
scheduled to last up to two weeks. The sessions are the first since top
Clinton administration officials tried and failed to broker a settlement to
California's electricity crisis in their waning days in office.
''The time to put California's past energy problems to rest and structure a
new arrangement for California's energy future is now,'' said Curtis Wagner,
an administrative law judge for the energy commission who is presiding over
the settlement talks.
The proceeding, which was standing-room-only on opening day, attracted scores
of people representing multiple sides in the dispute. The main participants
are electricity generating companies, electric utilities, and public
officials from state and local governments and regulatory agencies.
Mr. Wagner urged the public officials and companies involved to reach an
agreement on how much California and other states in the Western grid should
have paid for power over the last year, when California's partly deregulated
market broke down. He said that if they failed to do so by July 10, he would
recommend a solution to the energy agency's five commissioners, who would
then have the option of imposing a settlement.
Wholesale power costs in California, which totaled $7 billion in 1999, soared
to about $27 billion last year and, by some state estimates, could double
again this year. The higher costs, which have not been fully passed along to
consumers, have rendered California's two main utility companies unable to
pay their bills and forced the state to buy power in their place.
The opening bid by Gov. Gray Davis, who set out his views in a letter sent to
the energy commission today, is that the leading electricity generators
should refund about $9 billion that ''they have overcharged the people of the
state of California.'' Michael Kahn, chairman of the California Independent
System Operator, is leading the state delegation.
Generating companies have dismissed that figure as grossly inflated. They
acknowledge that prices are high. But they say the charges are linked to
shortages of natural gas, a crucial fuel for electricity generation, and were
set fairly in a free market.
The companies also contend that a large proportion of what they have billed
California is a credit premium justified because wobbly utilities owe them as
much as $15 billion. Reliant Energy, Duke Energy, the Williams Companies, the
Enron Corporation and the Mirant Corporation are among the major sellers of
electricity in the Western region.
The energy commission, which has the duty of determining ''just and
reasonable'' electricity prices under a New Deal-era law, long ago found that
the California market had become dysfunctional and that prices were
unjustified. But the agency has struggled to come up with a method for
determining fair rates, changing its method three times in recent months.
So far, the agency has identified about $125 million in potential
overcharges. But that number was reached using a restrictive method that the
agency has since abandoned.
Last week, the agency adopted a new price control regime that is intended to
limit price spikes throughout the West. If the controls it is using now were
retroactively applied to electricity sales made over the last year, the
generators would be asked to refund much more money. By some estimates, the
refunds could total more than $1 billion but seem likely to fall well short
of the $9 billion California is seeking.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Financial
Taking No Chances; Disaster-Conscious Firms Treat Global Warming as a Reality
Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer

06/26/2001
The Washington Post
FINAL
E01
Copyright 2001, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved

After two unusually warm winters melted profits at his natural gas
distributing company in Dallas, Robert W. Best decided he needed protection.
So he spent $4.9 million on a new tool called weather insurance.
If global warming causes the customers of his Atmos Energy Co. to continue
using less gas to heat their homes, the policy will pay out cash to offset
the company's operating losses.
That's the kind of practical response beginning to take place throughout U.S.
industry as business leaders face up to the prospect of climate change.
While the Bush administration debates other governments about whether
man-made pollution causes global warming -- and, if so, who should take
responsibility -- many industries are trying to cope with the realities of
extreme weather.
Insurance companies have begun hiring meteorologists to reassess the risk of
natural disasters. Farmers are planting different types of crops and looking
for crisis-proof seeds. Great Lakes shipping companies are petitioning
Congress for dredging to compensate for falling water levels. Colorado ski
resorts are discounting tickets to bring people back to the slopes after two
sweaty winters.
These changes are incremental, not massive shifts in operations. But over
time, those incremental reactions could add up to a major adaptation to
"climate change's pervasive and growing impacts over the next century," said
Nick Sundt, a scientist with the U.S. Global Change Research Program in
Washington.
"I don't know for sure about global warming, but I do know the past 15 or 20
years have been warmer than normal," said Best, the chairman, president and
chief executive of Atmos. "Some people will claim it's the natural cycle, but
for us it doesn't really matter. . . . We've got to do something to protect
ourselves."
Atmos, which distributes natural gas in 11 states, including Virginia, began
investing in weather insurance a year ago. The winter that began in November
1998 and the one that followed were both more than 15 percent warmer than
usual across the company's entire market, Best said.
He read about weather insurance in a trade journal and bought it through
energy broker Enron Corp. If temperatures had been warmer than average last
winter by a certain amount, Atmos would have gotten money back. As it turned
out, last winter was slightly cooler and the insurance didn't kick in. But
Atmos, concerned about the broader warming trend, has signed up for two to
three more years.
Enron began offering the insurance in about 1997, said Todd Kimberlain, chief
meteorologist for Enron Weather Risk Management. El Nin~o -- a periodic flow
of warm surface water in the Pacific that disrupts weather patterns worldwide
-- had produced several extremely warm winters, and companies were looking
for a way to make themselves less financially vulnerable, Kimberlain said.
Some scientists believe El Nin~o and other weather systems intensify when
gases such as carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere by the burning
of fossil fuels. Such substances are called greenhouse gases because they
tend to trap heat, warming up the earth's surface.
The extra heat could provide energy to drive El Nin~o, hurricanes and other
weather events. Warmer air can hold more moisture, so when it does rain,
there is more potential for flooding. The real danger of global warming, some
scientists say, is that it could produce greater extremes in the weather -- a
possible explanation for such recent phenomena as unforeseen high storm waves
in the North Atlantic and flooding in Europe.
An unusually fierce El Nin~o has been blamed for reducing water levels in the
Great Lakes over the past three years. Pleasure boats float below dock level
and cargo ships can't pull up to shore to unload -- all symptoms of a problem
that caused shipping companies to lose thousands of tons of carrying capacity
last year.
George J. Ryan, president of the Lake Carriers' Association of shipping
companies, said he personally worries about the causes of the lower water
levels, but professionally just has to focus on the solutions. "I have to say
from an industrial standpoint, I just have to consider what it will take for
us to remain competitive," he said.
While Great Lakes water levels have gone through low cycles in the past, Ryan
said, none of them came on as quickly as the most recent cycle. The recent
warm winters prevented the lakes from freezing, causing them to continue
evaporating year-round.
For now, boating interests are asking Congress to spend about $2 million to
deepen a pair of Great Lakes channels. But both industry and scientists fear
global warming could cause long-term water loss -- predicted to be as much as
four feet by the end of the century -- that would require far more expensive
dredging and could even threaten the U.S. steel industry with crippling
transportation costs.
The same uncertainty has affected the recreational skiing industry. Beginning
in 1998, U.S. ski resorts suffered two straight winters of unusual warmth and
low snowfall. While this year brought better conditions for the Northeast,
several resorts in Colorado had to extensively discount tickets to boost
their business. That led to sharp drops in profits.
On the other hand, business is fine for Areco Snow Systems North America, the
Vermont-based distributor of Swedish snow-making equipment. Artificial snow
has become the only way ski resorts can guard against increasingly erratic
winters, said the company's president, Peter Geise. "There's definitely a
warming trend," he said.
For some industries, the biggest worry is that the weather is becoming more
unpredictable and extreme.
"What's of increasing concern to those in agriculture is that it seems like
we have greater variation in the weather," said Richard Stuckey, past
executive vice president of the Iowa-based Council for Agricultural Science
and Technology.
What farmers really need, he said, are seeds that can withstand both drought
and floods. In western Iowa, for instance, a recent period of unusual dryness
led farmers to switch from corn to the more drought-resistant sorghum. But
now they are struggling with unseasonably cool, wet weather.
Wanda Sorrells hears similar complaints from gardeners all over the country
who call her for advice at the Park Seed Co. in Greenwood, S.C. As a senior
staff horticulturist, Sorrells said she has become increasingly perplexed by
the weather extremes she hears about from customers.
"There just seem to be unusual occurrences and these fluctuations where it
will be unusually warm for a few weeks and then unusually cold, and that can
be hard on certain plants," Sorrells said.
The biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has an extensive search program for
plant genes that are resistant to drought and other stresses in hopes of
engineering hardier crops. While a company spokesman said those efforts are
not aimed specifically at global warming, they are in response to an
increasing demand from farmers for more resilient plants.
Agricultural scientists agree there are higher levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. But they disagree on whether the increase is caused by human
activity and whether it leads to global warming. Higher carbon dioxide is not
necessarily bad for agriculture; it's what plants breathe, after all.
Even climatic warming could have short-term benefits.
"The temperature change in itself might lengthen the growing season and it
might enable people farther north to grow crops that are now" not feasible,
said Paul Waggoner, a scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station in New Haven. "Maybe the Dakotas would become like Kansas. You'd go
from spring wheat to winter wheat. That sort of thing."
While farmers have years to adapt to such potential changes, the uncertainty
alarms another industry: insurance, which needs to understand long-term risk
to set rates and stay financially viable. "They don't want to get caught
behind the eight ball and have the risks change without them knowing about it
in advance," said John M. Wallace, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the
University of Washington who has taken part in national climate studies.
Many of his colleagues, Wallace said, have held conferences to explain
climate change to the insurance industry, "and they're starting to hire some
of our graduates, as well."
One of those graduates is Lixin Xeng, who advises insurance companies as a
vice president for risk analysis and technology services at Benfield Blanch
Co., a global risk management and distribution firm.
"This year is warmer than 50 years ago on average, no argument," Xeng said.
"And what we're interested in is whether this warming causes more natural
disasters to occur."
Those disasters can range from the unexpected ferocity of a Hurricane Andrew,
which devastated southern Florida in 1992, to the spread of a tropical
disease such as the West Nile virus in a temperate place such as New York.
Meanwhile, British Petroleum PLC not only accepts that rising levels of
carbon dioxide are causing the earth's average temperature to rise, it hopes
to make a profit on it. The company is looking for profitable ways to reduce
emissions and hopes to become the world's largest manufacturer of solar
energy equipment.
"Now people are starting to look at this as a business opportunity," said
Jeff Morgheim, who occupies a new position at BP: climate change manager.
Companies, he said, are starting "to look at this in a whole new way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

California; Letters Desk
Conflict of Interest

06/26/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
B-12
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company

Re "Army Boss Vows No Conflict in Enron Ties," June 20:
I see that Army Secretary Thomas E. White Jr., holder of $25 million worth of
stock in the Enron energy company, is seeking advice from Army lawyers about
whether to recuse himself from any role in Army decisions on Enron contracts.
This is the same man who vowed in his confirmation hearing: "I will
personally commit to you to avoid even any appearance of a conflict in terms
of any future relationships that Enron may choose to have with the department
or attempt to have with the department."
Would somebody please tell Secretary White that no decent, honest person
needs a lawyer to tell him that he does, indeed, have a very serious conflict
of interest.
Bill Sharp
Huntington Beach

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

India Flagging Asset Sales Risk Lower Moody's Outlook (Update2)
2001-06-26 01:50 (New York)

India Flagging Asset Sales Risk Lower Moody's Outlook (Update2)

     (Adds date Fitch lowered its outlook.)

     Mumbai, June 26 (Bloomberg) -- India must step up sales of
state assets and trim its budget deficit to avoid a reduction in
the outlook for its debt, said Kristin Lindow, vice president and
lead analyst for India at Moody's Investors Service.
     ``We are disappointed and would like to see urgency in
completing the economic reform process,'' Lindow said in an
interview. ``Our positive outlook on India is getting to a point
where we are wondering whether it shouldn't be changed.''
     A lower outlook for India's debt would mean the country and
its companies would miss a chance to reduce their borrowing costs,
among the region's highest. The yield on India's benchmark 10-year
bond fell 5 basis points to 9.52 percent today on expectations of
an interest rate cut. That's higher than 6.33 percent for
comparable Chinese bonds and 6.44 percent for South Korean bonds.
     Moody's gave India a positive outlook in June 1999, meaning
it was considering an upgrade of its ``Ba2'' rating, which is two
notches below investment grade and among the lowest in the region.
Since then, India has missed targets for the sale of state assets,
a move that would boost corporate performance and raise revenue
for the state.
     ``The timing of the government's sale of state-run companies
isn't good,'' Lindow said. ``Several of the companies have now
become unprofitable.''
     Among the state-run companies to be privatized are Indian
Airlines and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., a maker of power plant
equipment.

                         Airline Loss

     Indian Airlines lost 1.77 billion rupees ($38 million) in the
year ended March 31 and is expected to lose another 2.51 billion
rupees this financial year, according to media reports. Bharat
Heavy Electricals' profit for the year ended March 31 dropped 49
percent to 3.05 billion rupees.
     India needs money from sales in stakes of more than 200
companies to trim its budget deficit. In the fiscal year that
ended March 31, India planned to sell stakes in 43 companies to
raise 100 billion rupees. It made just one sale -- a 74 percent
stake in a bakery, Modern Food Industries, for 1 billion rupees.
     This year, India plans to raise 120 billion rupees through
asset sales. The government plans to trim the deficit to 4.7
percent of gross domestic product this fiscal year from an
estimated 5.2 percent of GDP last year.

                    Falling Bond Yields

     Government bond yields have been falling to record lows on
expectations that the Reserve Bank of India will cut interest
rates, following a widely predicted move by the U.S. Federal
Reserve later this week.
     ``There won't be any movement in the market based on the
possibility of Moody's lowering its outlook on India,'' said Rajiv
Anand, who manages 16 billion rupees of Indian debt for Standard
Chartered Mutual Fund. ``The correction would happen if Moody's
actually downgraded the rating.''
     Bond yields rose after ratings company Fitch cut India's long-
term sovereign ratings outlook to ``negative'' from ``stable'' on
May 31. Fitch, which rates India ``BB plus,'' one notch below
investment grade, cited ``concerns about fiscal policy,
privatization and a deterioration in the investment climate.''

                         Enron Dispute

     Lindow of Moody's said she was concerned about a dispute
between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Enron Corp.,
the country's biggest foreign investor, which built a $3 billion
power plant. The dispute is widely seen as a litmus test for
foreign investment in India.
     The state electricity board has refused to pay 3 billion
rupees for power supplied by Enron's local unit, Dhabol Power Co.
India hasn't delivered on guarantees to pay for the power. Lindow
also cited the Enron dispute as a cause
     ``Foreign investors are becoming wary because of Enron's
problem and the government failure to honor its contractual
obligation,'' Lindow said. ``It has put up several red flags.''
     A third major ratings company, Standard & Poor's, rates India
``BB,'' two notches below investment grade.

SMARTMONEY.COM: California Dreamin'
By Michael DeSenne

06/25/2001
Dow Jones News Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Of SMARTMONEY.COM

DESPITE THE ROUND-THE-CLOCK efforts of state and federal officials to solve
California?s energy crisis, residents are bracing for more rolling blackouts
this summer. And while the nation?s energy prices on the whole are starting
to decline, it?s clear that fossil fuels won?t light our homes and cool our
offices forever.
Even President Bush, a loyal oilman, understands this reality. While pushing
a reform plan heavy on fossil fuels last month, he acknowledged the need for
new, alternative-energy sources.
Of course, there?s still no consensus on what those sources will be, and this
is a high-risk game. Investors who pick correctly from among the leading
possibilities could find themselves sitting on a gusher during the next
energy crunch. But as anyone who invested in previous alternative-energy
sources like solar power, ethanol or - god forbid - cold fusion - can attest,
this is a business that?s big on dreams, long on waits and short on
commercially viable technologies.
And even the long-term winners among these stocks (if there are any) can be
counted on to deliver some major volatility in the meantime. The blame for
that goes to the California crisis, whose twists and turns drive
alternative-energy stocks up and down, headline by headline. "Anytime it
appears that the California panic is being solved, these stocks tend to trade
down, so the sentiment is shifting on a daily basis," says Christine Farkas,
a Merrill Lynch energy analyst.
For adventurous investors who find such prospects electrifying, the most
promising technology at this point seems to be the fuel cell, a device that
extracts hydrogen from fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal and converts
it into electricity. Environmentalists love fuel cells because the byproducts
of the electrochemical process - mostly heat and water vapor - include few
harmful emissions, especially when compared with what?s put out by internal
combustion engines.
Right now, the fuel-cell sector is crowded, with different companies at
different stages of the product-development cycle aiming for different
end-users. While some are building smaller fuel-cell systems to power cars,
others are constructing large fuel-cell-powered plants that can meet the
electricity needs of huge factories. Still others are targeting residential
uses. Which ones are likely to emerge as leaders? One may be FuelCell Energy
(FCEL). According to Chief Executive Jerry Leitman, the Danbury, Conn.-based
fuel-cell developer expects to start booking orders by year?s end for its
first product, a 300-kilowatt power plant roughly the size of a semi-trailer
that can light up the equivalent of 100 homes. Quieter and more mobile than
traditional electricity generators, the fuel-cell-powered plants can be
located closer to commercial and industrial customers, such as hospitals and
office buildings. Eventually, FuelCell plans to roll out 1.5 megawatt and
three megawatt units. Investors seem to like what they see. FuelCell?s stock
price, while highly volatile, has jumped 76% over the past year. (By
contrast, fuel-cell rival Plug Power?s (PLUG) residential products are
further from retail reality - and its stock is down 65% in the past 12
months. The same goes for Ballard Power Systems (BLDP), a Canadian firm
targeting the auto industry, whose shares have lost 50% in the last year.)
Earlier this month, FuelCell netted $241.5 million through a secondary stock
offering. CEO Leitman says the proceeds will be used to boost annual
manufacturing capacity to between 400 megawatts and 500 megawatts, a goal he
expects to reach in 2004. "That puts us into a profitable position when we
get to that 400 to 500 megawatts of production," he says. (Leitman declined
to offer more specific profit projections.) Merrill Lynch expects the company
to hit 400 megawatts of capacity in 2004 or 2005, with profitability coming
in 2005. In the interim, however, the earnings picture isn?t pretty. For its
second quarter ended April 30, FuelCell booked just $6.5 million in revenues
and posted a net loss of $5.1 million.
FuelCell investors were reminded about quickly shifting sentiment last
Tuesday. During a hearing over state funding of an Enron (ENE) fuel-cell
project in Connecticut, opponents of the plan suggested the money could be
better spent on other power endeavors. As a result FuelCell, which would
supply fuel cells to the power-plant project, saw its shares fall 17% to
$24.50 that day. In response to the sell-off, Friedman Billings upgraded the
stock to Buy from Accumulate, saying the drop was unwarranted since long-term
fundamentals remain very positive. FuelCell shares jumped 10% to $26.97 on
Wednesday. A final decision on the funding won?t be handed down by state
regulators until September. The next hearing is scheduled for mid July.
Another promising player is Active Power (ACPW), an Austin, Texas-based maker
of battery-free backup power systems. The gist: A spinning steel disk stores
kinetic energy, which kicks in when a primary power supply goes down. The
target audience includes high-tech firms and telecoms that rely on
uninterrupted power supplies. Active Power says one of its systems, about the
size of a refrigerator, replaces 50,000 pounds of lead and sulfuric-acid
batteries.
The good news: Active Power already has products on the market. The most
promising, which went on sale last summer, is the CAT UPS, a flywheel-based
backup power system jointly developed with Caterpillar (CAT). Base units
retail for $90,000 to $115,000, with top-of-the-line configurations selling
for as much as $350,000. The product, which is expected to make up about 80%
of Active Power?s sales for 2001, is already having an impact on the top
line: Revenues jumped to $5.1 million in the first quarter, up 91% from the
fourth quarter. (It posted a net loss of $6.7 million, or 17 cents a share.)
Active Power shares, which ended Friday at $18.47, are down 65% from their
first-day close of $52.75 but are still above their August 2000 offering
price of $17.
Active Power is on the verge of announcing the distributor of its next
commercial product, the HIT6, a more advanced power-supply product aimed at
telecoms that?s being field-tested in 2001 with commercial rollout slated for
2002. Upbeat news about another commercial product could do some nice things
to Active Power?s stock - in the short run, at least. And that?s the essence
of alternative-energy investing: lots of promise, little profit and stunning
share price volatility based mostly on the news. But while we?re still a long
way from a fuel cell in every proverbial pot, we?re a lot closer than we used
to be. And the California crisis is only heating up the race to find new
power sources. After weighing the risks, which are substantial, the key
question for investors is, are these technologies of tomorrow worth putting
money into today? If you decide that they are, be sure to plunk down your
money after a big sell-off. There?ll probably be plenty to choose from.
For more information and analysis of companies and mutual funds, visit
SmartMoney.com at http://www.smartmoney.com.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Much Calif Power Price Gouging Beyond FERC's Reach -ISO
By Jason Leopold
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

06/25/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Federal energy regulators only have the authority
to order refunds for about a third of the $9 billion California Gov. Gray
Davis claims energy companies have overcharged the state in the 12 months to
May 2001, documents from the state's wholesale market operator show.
Of the total, $2.9 billion came from the May-September period the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has said it can't act on, and $2.8 billion from
the October-May period is attributable to municipal utilities over which FERC
lacks jurisdiction, according to documents from the California Independent
System Operator.
That leaves just $3.3 billion in alleged overcharges that FERC could
potentially order refunded - far less than the $9 billion Davis seeks.
Talks between generators and state officials to settle billions of dollars in
unpaid bills and issues of overcharging began Monday. Curtis Wagner, the FERC
administrative law judge presiding over the talks, has said California will
likely see refunds from generators, but far less than the $9 billion Davis
expects.
Davis said Sunday California is going to Washington, D.C., "with one goal,
and that is to bring back $9 billion."
Nearly half that amount is attributable to municipal utilities, the ISO
documents show. The ISO said the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
for example, overcharged California $75 million between May and October.
David Freeman, the governor's chief energy adviser and the former general
manager of the LADWP, said the agency didn't overcharge the state, but
conceded it profited by selling spare power to the ISO.
Davis adviser Nancy McFadden said the state needs FERC to lay the groundwork
for the state to seek refunds from public utilities by ordering refunds from
corporate energy suppliers.
But during a conference call Sunday with reporters, McFadden and Davis press
secretary Steve Maviglio couldn't explain how the governor would go about
getting refunds from companies whose wholesale power prices aren't regulated
by FERC.
Davis testified before the U.S. Congress last week that generators
overcharged the state $9 billion and that FERC should order the refunds.
State Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, has asked for an investigation
into Davis's testimony, saying the figures were based on "shaky
calculations."
To come up with its conclusions, the ISO compared hourly market prices
received by sellers to an estimate of market prices that could have been
expected under competitive market conditions.
The ISO established a benchmark for what it determined was competitive - at
times about $125 per megawatt-hour to $200/MWh, a fraction of actual prices
in the market - based on the cost of natural gas and compliance with
air-quality rules.
The ISO, however, typically used the price of gas at California's northern
border, according to the documents. Generators paid a higher price for the
fuel in Southern California, raising the cost of making electricity.
The ISO also used reports of earnings by the state's "Big Five" power
suppliers during 2000 - earnings that for some quadrupled - to draw the
conclusion that generators overcharged the state, according to the documents.
The ISO attributed high power prices in part to the state's three largest
utilities' failure to buy the power they needed in advance, leaving the grid
operator to pick up the shortfall at the last minute, according to the
documents.
The ISO alleges the following companies overcharged the state by the listed
amounts between May 2000 and February: American Electric Power Service Corp.
(AEP): $22.9 million
Arizona Public Service Co. (PNW): $24.6 million
Aquila Power Corp. (ILA): $28 million
Avista Energy Inc. (AVA): $48 million
Automated Power Exchange: $16 million
British Columbia Power Exchange Corp: $439 million
Calpine Corp. (CPN): $236 million
Constellation Power Source Inc. (CEG): $7.8 million
Cargill-Alliant LLC: $1.4 million
Citizens Power Sales: $557,000
Coral Power, LLC,. a unit of Shell Oil (RD): $27 million
Duke Energy Corp. (DUK): $804 million
Dynegy Inc. (DYN): $530 million
Enron Corp. (ENE): $39 million
El Paso Corp. (EPG): $29 million
El Paso Power Electric Co. (EE): $24,475
Hafslund Energy Trading LLC: $712,528
Idaho Power (IDA): $28 million
Koch Energy Trading: $2.5 million
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power: $75 million
MDSC: $24 million
Mieco Inc.:$1.6 million
Morgan Stanley Capital Group (MWD): $124,644
NewEnergy Inc.: $1.5 million
Nevada Power Co. (SRP): $9.1 million
PacifiCorp: $65 million
PECO Energy Co. (EXC): $4.2 million
Portland General Electric (ENE): $44 million
Public Service Co. of Colorado: $14.1 million
Public Service Co. of New Mexico (PNM): $15.5 million
Puget Sound Energy: $24 million
Reliant Energy Inc. (REI) $750 million
Mirant Corp. (MIR), formerly Southern Co., $753 million
*Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SRE): $82 million (this number has been
wiped out by the ISO)
Sierra Pacific Power Co. (SRP): $23 million
TEK: $11 million
Tuscon Electric Power: $1.1 million
UPA: $131,715
Winston and Strawn: $11,917
Williams Cos. (WMB) $860 million

Total FERC jurisdictional sellers: $4.7 billion
*Total without SETC/SDG&E: $4.6 billion

Total FERC and Non-FERC sellers: $6.7 billion
*Total without SETC/SDG&E: $6.6 billiion

Total March-May overcharges: $2.3 billion

-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
jason.leopold@dowjones.com

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Oregon House May Vote Monday On Electricity Deregulation

06/25/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Oregon's House of Representatives may vote Monday
on delaying electricity deregulation for large businesses until March 1,
2002, a spokesman for the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, or OPUC said.
Under the partial-deregulation bill, large business customers of Enron
Corp.'s (ENE) Portland General Electric Co. unit and Scottish Power's (SPI)
PacifiCorp (X.PCP) unit could buy power from competing electricity suppliers,
or opt to retain regulated rates until July 2003, said OPUC spokesman Bob
Valdez.
Residential and small-business customers would continue to have regulated
rates.
If the restructuring bill passes, the OPUC would determine by late July which
customers qualify as "large businesses", Valdez said. He added that he
couldn't speculate on what percentage of the state's total electricity load
might fall under partial deregulation.
The bill, which passed the Senate on Friday and is scheduled for a vote in
the House Monday, delays large customer choice from its original Oct. 1 start
date.
The revised date ensures the state will get through the winter, when demand
is highest, without the possibility of glitches caused by the new system,
Valdez said.
The new date also ensures customers won't mistakenly attribute a rate
increase, also planned for Oct. 1, with the start of deregulation. The rate
hike is necessary because the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal
hydropower marketer which sells to the state's utilities, must buy some power
next year in the high-priced spot market to meet burgeoning customer demand.
The rate hike will reflect the extra costs.
"Delaying the start of restructuring until March provides a separation in
people's minds from the rate hike this fall. It's political," Valdez said.
Monday's vote on the Republican-sponsored bill also may be delayed, however.
Democrats walked off the House floor late Monday morning, because they were
upset about a separate bill on redistricting, Valdez said.
"At most, the delay will last a day or so. At some point, the House Speaker
will get tired of it and just force them back on to the floor," Valdez said.
Republicans have a six-vote majority in the House, but support for the
restructuring bill doesn't really fall along party lines, he said.
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
jessica.berthold@dowjones.com

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

USA: Fresh look at wind energy blows to US from Europe.
By Jonathan Landreth

06/25/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

NEW YORK, June 25 (Reuters) - Windpower is poised for a relaunch in the
United States, where regulators, investors and utilities, following Europe's
lead, are tilting toward improved technology that now makes windpower
cost-effective, experts say.
Long-tainted by failures that burned early U.S. backers and by critics who
saw windmills as an eyesore and as a danger to birds, windpower still only
provides the United States with less than 1 percent of its energy.
"But now there is a perceived shortage of power that wasn't there 5 to 10
years ago," said Maurice Miller, an independent renewable energy consultant
in California, where a bungled attempt at deregulation and a host of other
factors has made rolling electricity blackouts part of life in the state.
"Wind energy companies are now perceived as viable, competitive businesses,"
said Miller, who, as former chief financial officer of U.S. Windpower, the
wind industry's most notorious failure would know.
Nowadays, windpower is a viable business by nearly any standard, and is
growing at 25 percent a year worldwide.
Led by Denmark, which gets 10 percent of its electricity from wind, and by
widespread wind development in Germany and Spain, well-placed windfarms in
spots such as the American plains states are estimated to be capable of
producing three times the total electricity now generated in the entire
nation.
Wind turbine technology, vastly improved in recent years, is ideal for
flatlands where hot air rises - off the plains of the Dakotas, Kansas and
Texas, for instance - and where cool winds are drawn off bodies of water such
as the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific Ocean off California's
coast.
SLOW TO SHIFT
But Merrill Lynch analyst Steven Fleishman said wind is still a "minute
factor" for the two biggest players in the U.S. windpower market, giant
utility Florida Power and Light , and Enron Corp. , the largest U.S. maker of
wind turbines.
Still, spurred by prices that make windpower as affordable as natural gas or
coal as well as by tax subsidies for developers and government mandates
requiring utilities to buy more power from renewable energy sources, both
companies are now involved in big windpower projects.
And now a handful of other U.S. fund managers say wind has huge potential to
make money. So much so, that Jack Robinson's Winslow Green Growth and Green
Century Balanced mutual funds have twice the weighting in renewable energy
companies as the S&P 500 index .
"Wind is at an inflection point where it doesn't need subsidies to be
competitive with traditional power sources," Robinson said.
THE COST OF WIND
While governor of Texas, President George W. Bush signed a law mandating
utilities to buy more power from alternative energy sources. Texas now has
the fourth largest installed windpower capacity in the United States, and can
deliver wind power at a competitive 5 cents per megawatt hour.
But Robert Beningson, chief executive of York Research Corp., an alternative
energy developer based in New York City, said wind only achieves such
competitive prices with the crutch of tax subsidies for developers.
What the U.S. wind industry needs now to catch up with Europe's wind power
craze, Beningson said, is an extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), a
move mentioned but not mandated in the Bush administration's new proposed
energy policy.
Lyn Harrison, editor of industry magazine Windpower Monthly agrees.
"Wind is Bush's chance to marry his big business stance and the environmental
messages in his proposed energy plan," said Harrison, whose magazine has
offices in wind-rich Denmark and California.
Long term forecasts in the early 1990s by Pacific Gas & Electric and the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) said wind would ultimately become
the least expensive electricity source.
Current data shows those forecasts are no longer pipe dreams. Based on its
knowledge of current market conditions, the Washington, D.C.-based American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that the cost of tax-subsidzed wind
energy at good sites ranges from 3 cents to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Without the tax subsidies, or PTCs, wind generated electricity still sells at
a low cost between 4 cents and 6 cents per kWh, comparable with the 4.8 cent
to 5.5 cent per kWh cost of coal and the 3.9 cent to 4.4 cent per kWh cost of
gas.
WIND'S TROUBLED PAST
But experts note that wind still suffers from its early bad reputation with
U.S. investors.
Since its inception in the United States the late 1970s, the American wind
power industry faced an uphill battle against bigger and more established oil
and gas companies.
In September 1993, a California company called U.S. Windpower, then the only
U.S. maker of wind turbines, raised $90 million in an initial public offering
underwritten by Merrill Lynch, hoping to use the money to improve its turbine
technology.
By May 1996, U.S. Windpower filed for bankruptcy after a series of mechanical
failures proved windpower too expensive.
"There isn't a major institutional investor who wasn't burned by U.S.
Windpower," said Jan Paulin, chief executive of Sea West, a private wind
developer based in San Diego. "Their efforts were noble but they
miscalculated."
Because wind development's cost reflects the time and money needed for making
better equipment, scouting the windiest sties, and getting permits to build
wind farms, the economics of the wind turbine business are highly sensitive
to the interest rate banks charge developers, experts say.
"It's a shame that U.S. institutional investors have such an outdated view of
the industry and the technology," Paulin said. "To this day, most of the U.S.
wind power developments were initially funded by European banks."
Also, governmental commitment to windpower in Europe helped jump-start the
industry before it became self sufficient.
WINDPOWER IN EUROPE
If wind farms were financed on the same terms as natural gas plants, their
cost would drop by nearly 40 percent, according to an AWEA study.
Technological improvements that enable turbines to generate steady streams of
power no matter what the wind's speed means that it is just a matter of time
before U.S. investors, like Europeans, head straight into the wind business,
fund manager Robinson said.
"American investors will come to wind, but they may not be investing in U.S.
companies at this point in time as there are very few pure plays," said
Robinson, whose funds hold the shares of Denmark's two biggest publicly
listed wind turbine makers, Vestas Wind Systems , the largest wind turbine
maker in the world, and NEG Micron , the No. 4 wind turbine company in the
world.
Shares of Vestas and NEG Micron - both part of the Copenhagen Bourse's top-20
index, KFX - soared on May 1 after a Danish government researcher forecast
that wind turbines would supply 10 percent of the world's electricity in 20
years.
Soon after, Merrill Lynch started coverage of Vestas with a "neutral" rating
in the intermediate term and a "buy" rating in the long term, citing a belief
that the wind power companies were on course for a sustained period of strong
growth.
Denmark already gets 10 percent of its power from wind, and Vestas and NEG
Micron share prices have doubled in a year.
Vestas also holds a 40 percent stake in world's No. 2 wind turbine maker,
Gamesa Eolica, which is part of Spain's Gamesa Group .

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

USA: UPDATE 3-Some $15 billion at stake in US power refund talks.
By Patrick Connole

06/25/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - California and other Western states angered
by alleged bilking by power generators on Monday sought to convince the U.S.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's chief law judge to refund them some
$15 billion for wholesale power purchases made during the past year.
The settlement talks, involving dozens of companies and state officials from
California and the Western region, were to continue for the next two weeks.
California alone believes it was bilked out of more than $9 billion by
electricity generators during an unrelentingly expensive power price spike in
its partially deregulated wholesale market.
"We are not going to ask FERC for $9 billion. We're going to ask for a lot
more than that for our litigating position," Michael Kahn, chairman of the
California Independent System Operator, told reporters outside the
closed-door settlement conference at FERC. The California ISO operates the
state's electricity transmission grid.
Judge Curtis Wagner, who convened the talks in a packed hearing room at FERC
headquarters, said parties must reach a deal "now" or face the prospects of a
FERC-ordered plan.
"I can tell you now that you are far better off to work out the refund issue
in these settlement proceedings," he told lawyers representing some 60-odd
parties before the conference went into closed session.
"The time to put California's past energy problems to rest and structure a
new arrangement for California's energy future is now. We can do it if we
try. I have the utmost faith in you," Wagner said.
CLAIMS, COUNTER CLAIMS
While California claims it was overcharged by electricity generators who
deliberately pushed prices higher, many of the out-of-state generators claim
they have not yet been paid for some transactions.
The generators - including Enron Corp. , Duke Energy Corp. and Williams Cos.
- have denied wrongdoing.
A representative from energy generator and marketer Reliant Energy Inc.
attending the settlement conference said he was concerned the California
Independent System Operator's method of calculating its $9 billion sales
overcharge figure is based on "black box" methodology.
"Those are mystical calculations," said John Stout of Reliant. "From what we
can gather they don't cover all our costs."
The ISO's cost calculations do not account for operation and maintenance fees
of generating facilities, Stout said.
"That doesn't seem quite fair," he said.
In his statement opening the conference, Wagner acknowledged the enormous
sums at issue.
"This issue includes the enormous number of dollars in wholesale power that
have been purchased for PG&E Corp., SoCal Edison and (the state) Department
of Water Resources, for which the generators have not been paid," Wagner
said.
"On the other hand, the state of California alleges that its distribution
companies and the DWR have been overcharged $9 billion. The amounts involved
must be, both ways, resolved at the outset to put everyone on the same
playing field."
While the state's power grid operator has vowed to press for more money,
California Gov. Gray Davis has said the state is owed roughly $9 billion
dollars for overcharges.
In April, the state's largest utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co., a unit of
PG&E Corp. , voluntarily filed for protection from creditors due to the
state's electricity crisis. Southern California Edison (SoCal), a unit of
Edison International , is trying to avoid the same fate.
Wagner said if the talks were not successful by July 9, he would make a
recommendation on refunds and non-payment issues to FERC's five
commissioners.
FERC previously ordered about $124 million in refunds for overcharges during
January and February.
Last week, FERC expanded a "price mitigation" plan to all 11 Western states
to curb runaway wholesale prices. The plan fell short of the strict price
caps sought by California officials and some Democrats, but has been praised
as a good first step in stabilizing wholesale prices.
California state officials were to meet later on Monday with Wagner to help
set an agenda for the settlement talks, Kahn told reporters outside the
settlement conference.
The settlement conference was open to the public for the first hour before
being closed for companies to discuss confidential business information.
JUDGE LISTS ISSUES
Wagner said in addition to the refunds and payment issues, there were six
other matters that must be considered and agreed on by the numerous parties.
They included the question of how much additional power generation for sale
should be moved from the spot market to longer-term contracts.
"This includes both current and future long-term contracts and the length of
such," Wagner said.
Other matters listed by the judge were:
- Resolution of the credit worthiness of power buyers;
- The independence of the California Independent System Operator board,
possibly including a reorganization of the state grid operator;
- Issues concerning intrastate and interstate natural gas transportation and
the constraints in southern California;
- Question of whether the settlement should offer immunity from existing and
future lawsuits and prosecutions against the generators;
- The issue of the Pacific Gas & Electric bankruptcy.
(Additional reporting by Chris Baltimore).

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

USA: FPL starts wind farm to power 10,500 Wisc. homes.

06/25/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

NEW YORK, June 25 (Reuters) - FPL Energy, LLC, a unit of FPL Group Inc. ,
said Monday it began operations at the largest wind-generating power plant in
Wisconsin, the 30-megawatt (MW) Montfort Wind Farm located west of Madison in
Iowa County.
The plant will generate enough electricity to power 10,500 Wisconsin homes,
FPL said in a statement.
Electricity generated at the facility, in the town of Eden, Wisc., is being
sold under multi-year contracts to Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas, a unit
of Wisconsin Energy Corp. , and Alliant Energy-Wisconsin Power and Light ,
FPL said.
The facility consists of 20 1.5-MW Enron wind turbines atop 215-foot towers
outfitted with 110-foot blades.
Wind trade associations have said that wind power will account for more than
18,000 MW of capacity worldwide before the end of 2001.
Wind power and other renewable energy sources like solar and geothermal have
been spotlighted in recent months as clean alternatives to burning more
fossil fuels to meet rapidly rising electricity demand.
FPL Energy is the largest generator of wind power in the U.S. with more than
1,000 MW of capacity in Iowa, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and
California.
FPL has a net ownership of approximately 600 MW.
The company also has four wind projects under construction that will add
nearly 850 MW to its portfolio by the end of 2001.
FPL Group's principal subsidiary is Florida Power & Light Co., which serves
more than 7 million people in Florida.
- New York Power Desk, 646 223-6074, fax 646 223-6079, e-mail
Eileen.Moustakis@reuters.com.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

USA: Calif says power refund demand will top $9 billion.

06/25/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - A California official said Monday the state
will seek "a lot more" than $9 billion in negotiations with generators for
alleged wholesale electricity overcharges during the past year.
Michael Kahn, chairman of the California Independent System Operator, the
entity that runs the state's power grid, told reporters that overcharge
claims would run much higher than the $8.9 billion previously estimated.
"We are not going to ask FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) for $9
billion. We're going to ask for a lot more than that for our litigating
position," Kahn told reporters outside a closed-door settlement conference at
FERC. The conference led by FERC Administrative Law Judge Curtis Wagner began
earlier on Monday in an attempt to reach a settlement.
Kahn also said that the $8.9 billion overcharge figure previously cited by
California Governor Gray Davis was "extremely conservative but one that the
ISO is confident in." State officials would meet later in the day with Judge
Wagner to help set an agenda for the settlement talks, he said.
While California claims it was overcharged by electricity generators who
deliberately pushed prices higher, many of the out-of-state generators claim
they have not yet been paid for some transactions. The generators - which
include Enron Corp. , Duke Energy Corp. , Reliant Energy Inc. and Williams
Cos. - have denied any wrongdoing.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


We are pretty much wrapped up.

Thanks Matt.

Cara Semperger
West Power Scheduling Supervisor
Enron North America
503/464-3814


You should be aware of these data requests
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 01/16/2001 02:02 PM -----

	"Daniel Douglass" <Douglass@ArterHadden.com>
	01/15/2001 09:31 AM

		 To: <Barbara_Klemstine@apsc.com>, <berry@apx.com>, <dcazalet@apx.com>,
<BillR@calpine.com>, <jackp@calpine.com>, <glwaas@calpx.com>,
<Ken_Czarnecki@calpx.com>, <gavaughn@duke-energy.com>,
<rjhickok@duke-energy.com>, <gtbl@dynegy.com>, <jmpa@dynegy.com>,
<KEWH@dynegy.com>, <jdasovic@enron.com>, <susan_j_mara@enron.com>,
<Tamara_Johnson@enron.com>, <curt.Hatton@gen.pge.com>, <foothill@lmi.net>,
<camiessn@newwestenergy.com>, <jcgardin@newwestenergy.com>,
<jsmollon@newwestenergy.com>, <rsnichol@newwestenergy.com>,
<Curtis_L_Kebler@reliantenergy.com>, <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: UCAN Data Requests on Generators

Board members?might be interested in the attached two sets of data  requests
served on Reliant by UCAN.? Also, note that the second set of  questions asks
for information on conversations with management of Duke Energy  (or any of
its affiliates), the Williams Companies, or the Southern companies  regarding
bids into the ISO or PX markets, including ways to shift power volume  into
real time markets or out of market transactions.
?
Dan
Received: from dymwsm07.mailwatch.com by ArterHadden.com; Mon, 15 Jan 2001
01:50:21 -0500
Received: from dymw0104.mailwatch.com (dymw0104.allegro.net [204.253.83.244])
by dymwsm07.mailwatch.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f0F6oOT22738 for
<douglass@arterhadden.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:50:24 -0500
Received: from 204.253.83.72 by dymw0104.mailwatch.com with SMTP (
WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 15 Jan 01 01:50:02 -0500
X-Server-Uuid: d007647a-7e79-11d4-a501-00508bd358de
Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by
dymwsm10.mailwatch.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0F6o0013526; Mon, 15
Jan 2001 01:50:01 -0500
Received: from Julesan@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id
s.93.58a0994 (4208); Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:48:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Julesan@aol.com
Message-ID: <93.58a0994.2793f742@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:48:34 EST
Subject: Reliant Data Request No. 1
To: To: chrisw@greenlining.org, bfinkelstein@turn.org, jbushee@sablaw.com,
kmccrea@sablaw.com, rogerberliner@bcjlaw.com, rcsstl@cdmnet.com,
anchau@shellus.com, keith-sappenfield@reliantenergy.com,
jsmollon@newwestenergy.com, napedersen@jonesday.com, athomas@newenergy.com,
fchristi@arterhadden.com, kmcspadd@milbank.com, hchoy@isd.co.la.ca.us,
lgurick@calpx.com, douglass@arterhadden.com, glwaas@calpx.com,
uwua@worker.com, fmo@sdcity.sannet.gov, jleslie@luce.com, Julesan@aol.com,
mshames@ucan.org, kmelville@sempra.com, bill.mccallum@ci.fresno.ca.us,
btenney@landuselaw.com, RonKnecht@aol.com,
furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil,   mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com,
theresa_mueller@ci.sf.ca.us, tlong@turn.org,   jjz@cpuc.ca.gov,
joseh@lif.org, jnnc@chevron.com, jlondon@gralegal.com,
imoosen@gralegal.com, phanschen@mofo.com, epoole@adplaw.com,
rschmidt@bartlewells.com, chilen@llgm.com, lys@aelaw.com,
jsqueri@gmssr.com,   jbennett@gmssr.com, bloomje@la.whitecase.com,
pbray@newpower.com,   rick.counihan@greenmountain.com, thoulihan@mdbe.com,
mday@gmssr.com,   jmalkin@orrick.com, edwardoneill@dwt.com, smoss@hooked.net,
mrh2@pge.com,   whe1@pge.com, ssmyers@worldnet.att.net,
pat.williams@dhcmail.com,   wbooth@booth-law.com, jerryl@abag.ca.gov,
mgomez1@bart.gov,   askaff@energy-law-group.com, hf@energy-law-group.com,
PJPowerLaw@aol.com,   psly@ebmud.com, rrcollins@n-h-i.org,
patrickm@crossborderenergy.com,   tomb@crossborderenergy.com,
brbarkovich@earthlink.net,   pjmuller@ricochet.net, pmcdonne@wenet.net,
berry@apx.com,   sberlin@mccarthylaw.com, scottst@mid.org,
jeff@jbsenergy.com,   cmkehrein@ems-ca.com, jweil@aglet.org,
abb@eslawfirm.com,   bpowers@seniors.org, dcarroll@dbsr.com,
dkk@eslawfirm.com,   howens@seniors.org, smutny@iepa.com,
jtachera@energy.state.ca.us,   rpernell@energy.state.ca.us, kmills@cfbf.com,
mpa@aelaw.com,   mhg@hetrading.com, dws@keywaycorp.com, hbd@gweiss.com,
gerhordt.herbert@msdw.com, cread@steptoe.com, jogg@jhenergy.com,
peter_fox-penner@brattle.com, sdefrawi@efaches.navfac.navy.mil,
ad046@detroit.freenet.org, bob_anderson@apses.com, gdreed@sidley.com,
mbrubaker@consultbai.com, georgeperrault@msn.com, foxba@sce.com,
picketse@sce.com, jsilva@edisonenterprises.com, LVanWagenen@sempra.com,
jbarthrop@powersavers.com, foothill@lmi.net, kpoole@adamsbroadwell.com,
fosterbc@sce.com, ktilton@gralegal.com, paul.harris@bridge.com,
oshirock@pacbell.net, natutt@duanemorris.com, j3m9@pge.com,
cafield@pirg.org, luluw@newsdata.com, tom.oneill@abnamro.com, RJP2@pge.com,
ell5@pge.com, jyf1@pge.com, NXK2@pge.com, rrh3@pge.com,
ConsumersFirst@worldnet.att.net, gtbl@dynegy.com, joe.paul@dynegy.com,
honest@compuserve.com, emitchel@angnewspapers.com, rbw@mrwassoc.com,
difellman@energy-law-group.com, dmarcus@slip.net, jeff@hmhresources.com,
ed@apx.com, chrism@mid.org, rmccann@cal.net, blaising@braunlegal.com,
melanie_gillette@rmiinc.com, twetzel@thermoecotek.com,
Slayman@energy.state.ca.us, jdh@eslawfirm.com, lmh@eslawfirm.com,
ddavie@hesinet.com, rliebert@cfbf.com, karen@klindh.com,
cpeyton@sacbee.com,   thaines@smud.org, huse@eesconsulting.com,
mer@cpuc.ca.gov, ang@cpuc.ca.gov,   cmw@cpuc.ca.gov, ctd@cpuc.ca.gov,
dlf@cpuc.ca.gov, fua@cpuc.ca.gov,   jlo@cpuc.ca.gov, kok@cpuc.ca.gov,
kth@cpuc.ca.gov, kim@cpuc.ca.gov,   gig@cpuc.ca.gov, rtf@cpuc.ca.gov,
raw@cpuc.ca.gov, car@cpuc.ca.gov,   ztc@cpuc.ca.gov,
nevillm@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us, dwrlegal1@water.ca.gov,   ath@cpuc.ca.gov,
randy.chinn@senate.ca.gov, rtavares@energy.state.ca.us,
mschwebs@energy.state.ca.us, lss@cpuc.ca.gov, mflorio@turn.org;
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 171
X-WSS-ID: 167C4210101512-01-03
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;  boundary=part1_93.58a0994.2793f742_boundary

Please find enclosed UCAN and Ratepayers data request directed to Reliant
Energy Services, Reliant Energy and Reliant Energy Power Generation. ?Please
inform me at your first opportunity if we have a discovery dispute, as that
term is defined by ALJ Ruling 164. ?Please feel free to contact me regarding
any questions about this request. ?thank you michael J. Aguirre
 - reliantrequest01.wpd
 - reliantrequest2_1.wpd


Attached is the Cost Summary for the 2000 Peakers with actuals thru 10/9/00.
Please call me if you have any questions.

thanks,
theresa
x58173


Here is the clean and red-lined version of section1.
Ben


can you check with bob again, because i got confirms on the deals.  the
broker told me yesterday he forgot to tell bob.

   Kate Symes @ ECT                11/30/2000 06:05 PM

To: Kerri Thompson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: tfs checkout

Bob does not recognize these deals, and tried to check with the broker. He'll
talk to TFS in the morning to verify these and I'll let you know ASAP.

Thanks,
Kate

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
11/30/2000 02:32 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: tfs checkout

missing 2 deals for bob:

buy el paso
cal 01
141.00
25 mw
pv
on peak

sell ees
cal 01
141.05
25 mw
pv
on peak

thanks


Attached is the updated list of master netting agreement counterparties.  The entities added since I distributed the list yesterday (Louis Dreyfus) are in bold.

Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.

Marie
x33907


Craig,

It will be interesting to see what volumes of metal they
purchase/use...especially steel, given my meeting results from yesterday's
meeting w/Tim Battaglia and Art Bieser of Enron Industrial Markets (Steel
Industry origination).  Heidi, thank you for helping us out!

I look forward to working with your team  on this.

Thank you,

Jeff

	Craig Brown
	Sent by: Craig H Brown
	12/05/2000 07:08 AM

		 To: Heidi Smith/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Jeff Youngflesh/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jennifer Medcalf/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Vulcan Signs

Heidi:

Please outline the Vulcan contract for Jeff and Jennifer.  They also have
development questions as to their market capability of metals.  Please call
Lenard at Vulcan and see what is the type, grade and volumes they purchase.
We may be able to provide additional leverage to their purchases.

Thanks,

Craig
----- Forwarded by Craig H Brown/NA/Enron on 12/05/2000 07:03 AM -----

	Jennifer Medcalf
	12/05/2000 12:00 AM

		 To: Jeff Youngflesh/NA/Enron
		 cc: Colleen Koenig/NA/Enron@Enron, Craig H Brown/NA/Enron@Enron, Daniel
Coleman/NA/Enron@Enron, Sarah-Joy Hunter/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Vulcan Signs

Jeff,
Please investigate this company and see if there  are additional Enron
products and services like metals that might be of interest.  They are a
pretty small gas user but there might be greater prospects in other areas.
What is the value of the contract that we have entered with them?
Jennifer Stewart Medcalf
Senior Director, Business Development
Global Strategic Sourcing
(713) 646-8235


Enron announced today that its common stock will now be traded as an Over-the-Counter (OTC) equity security under the symbol "ENRNQ."  This follows a decision by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to file an application to delist Enron's common stock, which means that Enron's common stock and related securities are suspended from trading on the NYSE.  Enron is considering whether to appeal the NYSE's decision.

The NYSE has standard criteria for listing stocks, which can be found on their website at www.nyse.com.  Enron recently fell below the following listing criteria: average closing price of a security less than $1.00 over a consecutive 30 trading-day period.  Quotation service for Enron's stock will now be provided by the National Quotation Bureau, LLC "Pink Sheets."


Hello Vince,
   NIe bardzo wiem czy pisac po polsku czy po angielsku :)
   Co u Ciebie slychac ?
  U mnie troche zmian jak ze juz nie pracuje w SCEM ,  a przenioslem sie do
MIECO  ( a small Marubeni backed energy-america trading company ) . Bardzo
rozne od SCEM. Najbardzij przypomina mi SCEM na poczatku z Joe, jak bylo
20-30 osob. Sa i minusy i plusy. Troche structure i research ale przede
wszystkim weather.   TRrovhe latam miedzy East i West bo sa officy w obydwu
miejscach.  California jest ok w zimie :).
   Na bardziej personalnym froncie;  pamietasz dinner na ktory poszlismy
kiedys na conferencji w NY z Catherine ( she used to work for Williams-
works for Morgan Stanley now ) ,  we are dating  ( for a while) . It is a
good story how we met. So we owe you dinner :)
   Jak bylem w Atlancie to pracowala dla mnie Christa Grey.  Bedzie teraz
konczyla grad school in international relations ( with Eastern European
slant ), i zastanawia sie czy sa jakies mozliwosci polaczenia tego co robila
ze "Wschodem".  Co robila to bylo przede wszystkim VB implementations modeli
, ( roznego rodzaju) , Web based data collections, basic research ,  teraz
jest w gas structuring etc.  She speaks russian and was in Ukraine/Poland
few times on Peace Corp assingments. She is very bright and dedicated.
Myslalem zeby ja zwabic do Californii ale ten Eastern European pociag jest u
niej silniejszy niz u mnie :). I have here resume, wiec jak bys myslal ze
jest jakis fit I will foreward it to you.
  Troche tak mieszanka pisze, przepraszam
  Bede chyba w Houston w pazdzierniku to moze bysmy sie mogli spotkac.
Latwiej pewnie by bylo w NY ( mieszkam po NJ stronie ( rent jest inny niz w
Atlancie :) (201) 222-0435), wiec daj mi znac jakbys mial czas i ochote.
Thanks
Roman


Coming Full Circle: A Plausible Future for Power Generation

Speaker:
Amy Oberg
Manager, Competitive Intelligence and Future Foresight
Enron Energy Services

Wednesday, May 30
11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
EB 5C2

To Make a Reservation, Call 3-1941 and Select Option 1.

Lunch will not be provided, but you are welcome to bring your own.

Please inform us ahead of time if you need special accommodations to
participate in this meeting.  Call 3-9390.


Just for your information

Again, one issue which is key for Enron.  In my view, It took too much time
for us to put a stick on the ground. Back in April, Regulatory Affairs
identified all the riks, opportunities and key success factors one should
face in the rationing.  Now distributors have [finally] agreed that Annex V
is key. The Government proposal to kill Annex V is obscene.

LM
---------------------- Forwarded by Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron on 05/23/2001 11:37
AM ---------------------------

	Debora Klinger
	05/22/2001 07:06 PM

To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V

Maurer,

O primeiro t?pico abaixo foi em sua homenagem!!
A prop?sito, vi Voc ontem no Jornal Nacional, ao lado do Pedro Parente.....??Abra?os??---------------------- Forwarded by Debora Klinger/SA/Enron on 05/22/2001 ?07:11 PM ---------------------------??	Debora Klinger?	05/22/2001 07:45 PM?	?To: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron?cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred ?Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe ?Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT ??Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V  ??I just attended to the Fiscal-Legal Seminar promoted by ABCE. The first topic ?presented by ABCE,s President by the opening of the Seminar was the ?importance of the maintenance of the Annex V of the Initial Contracts.  ??Among other matters, it was discussed during the event the Concession ?Contract and Rationing. Prof. Caio T?cito (one of the most well known and ?respected scholars) was one of the speakers. According with him, the losses ?in sales and revenues that the D/Cs will suffer as a result of the cut of the ?load may be recovered by D/Cs based on the principle of the re-establishment ?of the economic-financial balancing ("equilibrium") of the concession ?agreement. Prof. T?cito further emphasized his belief that the surcharge ?("sobretarifa") sum that is to be collected should be reserved in favor of ?the D/Cs, so as to compensate partially such losses. Finally, Mr. T?cito ?suggested that in order to avoid legal controversies, the Government could, ?alternatively, conceive using the surcharge ("sobretarifa") collected as ?future credits to be used by consumers when rationing is over.??David Watenberg also ratified such understanding. He further expressed his ?belief that the surcharge ("sobretarifa") has no legal grounds to survive. ?This is so, because according to Paragraph One, Article 6 of the Concession ?Law (Law n. 8987/95) every concession shall render adequate services, ?meaning, among other things, the moderation of the tariffs.??Regards,?D,bora??????Sergio Assad?05/20/2001 11:53 AM?To: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron?cc: luiz maurer, debora klinger, sergio.assad@enron.com, Luiz ?Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos ?Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose ?Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT ??Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V  ??Orlando??Acho desnecess?rio o conference uma vez que a Debora est? corret?ssima no que ?diz rspeito a impossibilidade da ANEEL intervir no anexoV.  Al,m da D,bora, ?falei com Jos, Em?lio, David Waltenberg e Alo?sio Miranda (Ulhoa Canto) e ?todos tm a mesma opini?o, ou seja: somente uma lei (ou medida provis?ria)
pode alterar o contrato inicial.

O exemplo mais claro dessa possibilidade de intervens?o foi a lei do plano
Real que alterou todos os contratos administrativos.
Quanto . posi??o ENRON, temos unanimidade quanto a cren?a de se respeitar os
contratos. Estamos executando um forte  advocacy nessa linha.
Sergio Assad
Sergio Assad

Orlando Gonzalez
05/19/2001 09:32 AM
To: sergio.assad@enron.com
cc: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos
Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose
Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V

After today's round of meetings please schedule a  call  tomorrow to review
Enron's position on  all these points.  Sergio Please coordinate and ask
Cristina to set up.  I suggest mid morning on Sunday so we have time to
adjust.  I do not want to defend two or three points of view on the same
subject as Enron.

Luiz Maurer
18/05/2001 22:21
To: Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos
Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V

Debora

Good points.

Economic Equilibrium. You are right. We can claim it. However, it may be
virtually impossible to claim the opportunity cost of a foregone long
position. I would not take this risk.

Your statement that ANEEL has no power to change Annex V makes me feel more
confortable. It makes me believe that the right way of approaching the issue
is to prepare a position paper on Monday and to deliver/explain it directly
to Minister Pedro Parente. No need to spend time on consensus building on
issues which are "zero sum game" by nature (two years of COEX have taught me
this lesson).  Let's preempt the issue by being  faster and smarter.

LM

	Debora Klinger
	05/18/2001 09:46 PM

To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos
Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: Generators want to kill Annex V

Maurer,

This is a very important issue. Although in case of loss to Elektro, we would
always be eligible to claim for the reestablishment of the economic-financial
balancing of the concession agreements, we would be, with no doubt, in a
better position in case we can maintain the Annex V.

Regarding the ANNEL sympathy towards generator,s pressure, I don't believe
ANEEL has the authority to interfere in a duly executed agreement, as it is a
perfect legal act ("ato jur?dico perfeito"). Only the Union is competent to
intervene in such acts, based on the public interest and the social well
being.

I will work hard on the analysis of the matter and come back with further
comments.

Thanks,
D,bora

Luiz Maurer
05/18/2001 09:02 PM
To: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos
Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose
Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Generators want to kill Annex V

The rumor mill says that generators want to revoke Annex V. No surprise. The
bad news is that it seems that Aneel likes the idea.

This may represent a US$ 60 million loss to Elektro, only in 2001.

Distribution companies are [aparently] against this measure. However, D/Cs is
short position will [likely] applaud the idea (to avoid costly exposures in
the MAE)

An Abradee group was created to think about the issue. Joao and Fred will
participate tomorrow.

A few supporting arguments.

1) Contract sanctity. Why changing the rules in the middle of the game if
Annex V was designed specifically to deal with rationing conditions?

2) More subtle argument. The risk of  being exposed is the only economic
incentive  for a D/C to reduce its load. Otherwise, we will have a classical
"free ride" problem: D/Cs will not put any effort to reduce their
loads/revenues and will advocate for an ex-post adjustment on ICs based on
verified load reduction. We can build a case that in the absence of this
exposure, D/Cs will have no incentives to work hand in hand with their
clients to foster load reduction and the whole program will fail.

Debora is working on the legal aspects of Annex V, taking into account the
new MP. Sergio has talked to a few lawyers to get their views/written
opinions.

What about writing a letter to Pedro Parente as Enron, exploring those issues
and explaining why Annex V is so important to the success of the whole
program? (the free ride issue)

LM


Laura,

Congratulations. Well deserved.

Vince


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	Doorstep - Oslo

Date:		5/14/2001
Time:		8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Stacey W White

Detailed Description:


the latest is that they are going to put equity and warrants into raptor and
not the debt.
deb, did mary leave you the questionnaire of jim's re this asset?
that needs to go to mary/sara to do the swap (i can't remember mary's
vacation schedule, but sara i think she is gone now??)

Lisa J. Mellencamp
Enron North America Corp. - Legal
1400 Smith St.
Houston, TX  77002
Tel:  (713) 853-7986
Fax: (713) 646-3393
E-mail:  Lisa.Mellencamp@enron.com


All

On Monday 21st February a new analyst will be joining Enron Europe, and will
have his first rotation in the London Research Group.

Matthew Williams has a PhD in high energy physics, having carried out his
research at Imperial College London and CERN.  His academic experience
includes extensive monte carlo simulation as part of his research on the
phenomenology of supersymmetry theories.

Matthew will be working with me on issues arising from the optimisation and
control of dynamic systems, which we expect to include power generation
scheduling and gas flow.

Steve


Attached are the latest SWAP group calendars.  Please let me know if
revisions are needed.

Thanks!

Holly Keiser
Enron Americas
Legal Department - EB 3887
713-345-7893 (ph)
713-646-3490 (fx)
Holly.Keiser@enron.com


Please do not respond directly to this message. All Necessary actions can be taken with the link below.

Message:

	The following expense report is ready for approval:

	Employee Name: John L. Garrison

	Status last changed by:  Back Office

	Expense Report Name: 032401

	Report Total: $14,117.32

	Amount Due Employee: $53.54

Action:

	To approve this expense report, click the following link to Concur eWorkplace.com.

	http://my.concureworkplace.com