COMPANIES & FINANCE INTERNATIONAL: Energy groups' earnings likely to be hit hard
Financial Times; Oct 15, 2001

COMPANIES & FINANCE INTERNATIONAL: Tata in talks to buy Enron power plant
Financial Times; Oct 15, 2001
Base Metals Traders Struggle In Tough Trading Conditions
Dow Jones International News, 10/15/01
INDIA: Tata Power Q2 net seen down 8.5 pct yoy.
Reuters English News Service, 10/15/01
India: FDI: Suffering from sectoral infirmities
Business Line (The Hindu), 10/15/01
International: Indian Enron looks for way out of Greenfield Shipping
Lloyd's List International, 10/15/01

COMPANIES & FINANCE INTERNATIONAL: Energy groups' earnings likely to be hit hard
Financial Times; Oct 15, 2001
By JULIE EARLE

Disintegrating oil and gas prices are set to weigh on third-quarter earnings for US energy companies due this week.
Oil drillers, which have been pummelled in recent months as energy companies scale back on drilling and exploration in response to lower commodity prices and the terrorist attacks, are likely to report sharply lower third-quarter earnings and could issue further profits warnings, analysts said.
Oil prices have slumped to Dollars 26.50 a barrel, from Dollars 31.58 a barrel in the year-ago quarter and natural gas prices slid in the third quarter to Dollars 2.63 MMBtu (million British thermal units) from Dollars 4.31 MMBtu in the same quarter a year ago, and from Dollars 4.19 MMBtu at the start of 2001.
A slowdown in activity in the gas-rich Gulf of Mexico following the September 11 terrorist attacks is also likely to hit offshore drillers' earnings in the next six months.
Global Marine, which is being acquired by Sante Fe International to create the second-biggest offshore drilling contractor, is due to report today. Consensus estimates were for 33 cents a share. Sante Fe International is also due to report today.
Salomon Smith Barney expects North American spending on drilling to fall by 20 per cent in 2002, with spending outside North America to rise by 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
Mark Urness, an SSB analyst, said earnings estimates for most drillers remained too high for the fourth quarter and needed to be cut. "We are expecting them to provide lower guidance for 2002 as third quarter earnings are reported," he said.
On the exploration and production front, Bill Featherstone, a UBS analyst, said fourth-quarter results for companies including Devon and Apache would also be hit by weak oil and gas prices. "Obviously fourth- quarter results will trend down for the sector given reduced oil and natural gas prices," he said.
Companies will need to show financial discipline and outline policies of keeping their spending in line with operating cash flow. Analysts are likely to look closely at capital expenditure budgets.
Energy trader Dynegy also reports today, followed by rivals Enron and Duke Energy tomorrow.
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited

COMPANIES & FINANCE INTERNATIONAL: Tata in talks to buy Enron power plant
Financial Times; Oct 15, 2001
By SHEILA MCNULTY and KHOZEM MERCHANT

Tata, the Indian conglom-erate, has held exploratory talks to buy a controversial power plant from Enron, the US energy giant.
Tata Power, part of the Bombay-based industrial group, has written to the Indian government expressing interest in the plant, which is India's biggest foreign investment. However, it said any deal would have to address the high tariff structure and interest rate burden on the project.
Kenneth Lay, Enron's chief executive and chairman, told the Financial Times in August that Enron and its partners wanted to retrieve the Dollars 1bn incurred building the now-defunct Dabhol plant.
It is understood that Enron is considering an offer price of about 80 cents to the dollar.
Enron declined on Friday to confirm it was in talks with Tata, but said the best solution would be for the Indian government, or one of its Indian financial backers, to take on Dabhol.
Tata Power recently held talks with Indian financial institutions involved with the project. Officials from Dabhol Power Company, Enron's Indian arm, also attended.
About 70 per cent of the Dabhol plant was funded by debt, with Indian financial institutions providing Dollars 1.4bn and foreign lenders the balance. Enron's Indian unit defaulted in September on interest payments to international lenders, blaming stopped payments by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), the plant's sole client.
Analysts favour a quick sale. "Tata would be a faster exit and resolve it once and for all," said Ronald Barone of UBS Warburg. "It is better to take a small loss and move along. Dabhol periodically becomes a problem and an issue, and it depresses the stock."
Analysts said the fit between Tata and its putative target would be complementary, though it would probably stretch the company's balance sheet.
The Tata group is already committed to a heavy capital expenditure of some Rs30bn (Dollars 625m) on power-related projects over the next three years.
A further Rs9bn is slated for telecommunications and broadband projects.
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited

Base Metals Traders Struggle In Tough Trading Conditions
By Wong Chia Peck
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

10/15/2001
Dow Jones International News
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

SYDNEY -(Dow Jones)- The spate of decisions by big-name participants to scale down or quit base metals trading last week didn't surprise participants in Asia, given the market's tough trading conditions, they said.
In fact, should the current dismal conditions prevail for the next six months, more such announcements are likely, they added.
Their comments follow the recent decisions by prominent members of the London Metal Exchange to either downsize their base metals trading divisions or quit entirely.
"Clearly, they, like us, are victims of reduced volumes," said a senior LME trader in Sydney, adding that all market participants are suffering from the declining throughputs and trade volumes.
Figures from the LME's Web site show that the trading volumes for aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, tin and zinc fell a total 10.6% to 41,027,075 contracts for the first nine months of this year from the same period last year.
"We're just seeing the beginning of it," a senior trader with a big U.S.-based trading house in Tokyo told Dow Jones Newswires Monday.
Last week, N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd. said it would cease base metals trading except for its Australian business.
Chairman Evelyn de Rothschild said in a statement, "In light of difficult trading conditions in the base metals markets, we have concluded that our limited base metals operations are no longer viable."
ScotiaMocatta, the base metals trading unit of Toronto-based Bank of Nova Scotia (T.BNS), said it would cut staff as well as exit LME ring dealing.
With ScotiaMocatta's exit, there will be 11 LME ring dealing members. These members have the exclusive right to trade in the open-outcry ring.
Earlier, Houston-based Enron Metals said it would cut staff by 10%-20% in Europe, while associate broker clearing member Mitsui Bussan Commodities Ltd. in July ceased its market-making activities to focus on clearing and broking.
The senior trader said he wasn't surprised by these developments and ominously projected more to come should the difficult trading conditions continue in the next six months.
Market Not Pricing Future Demand

"People are really not pricing any future demand" into their positions, he said.
One indication is the lack of forward pricing in LME's base metals contracts despite the current depressed prices, he said.
With LME three-month copper and aluminum prices around 25% down from their levels at the start of the year, he would have expected to see forward buying following previous experience.
"But if everybody's restructuring, you don't even know if you are going to be here into 2002, 2003," he said.
Despite having tumbled to very low levels, analysts and market participants project further downside for base metals prices as they push back forecasts of a price recovery following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
One of Japan's trading giants, Marubeni Corp. (J.MRB), said Monday that the attacks have pushed back the timing of the aluminum market's recovery by two to three months.
It also cut its forecasts for this year's trading range of the LME three-month aluminum contract to $1,250-$1,450 a metric ton, compared with last year's $1,451-$1,730/ton range.
Indeed, the past few years have thrown base metals into extremely difficult trading conditions, traders said.
Just as the Asian markets were recovering from the 1997 financial crisis, the U.S. economy sputtered to a halt, they said. The terrorist attacks Sept. 11 and the subsequent retaliation threw a spanner in the works, they added.
The bellwether copper and aluminum contracts last week fell to their lowest levels in 28 months, while zinc prices also notched 14-year lows. Tin prices are at their lowest levels in 20 years.
A prominent casualty is the world's largest combined lead and zinc producer, Australia's Pasminco Ltd. (A.PAS).
Having to compete for business in such a tough environment, brokers have had to cut their commissions, said the Tokyo-based trader.
Another Tokyo-based trader said buying interest has been thin, as buyers prefer to wait for lower prices.
"There are buyers in the market, but their (price) targets are lower," he said.
He added that the company he is with stopped trading for a week after hearing talk that Rothschild was scaling down its operations.
At 1010 GMT, LME three-month copper was at $1,401/ton; three-month aluminum was at $1,302/ton; three-month zinc was at $791.50/ton and three-month tin was at $3,800/ton.
-By Wong Chia Peck, Dow Jones Newswires; 612-8235-2957; chia-peck.wong@dowjones.com -0- 15/10/01 10-40G

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

INDIA: Tata Power Q2 net seen down 8.5 pct yoy.

10/15/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Tata Power Company, India's largest private utility, is expected to report profit for the past quarter fell 8.5 percent on year, squeezed by higher interest costs and slower sales, analysts say.
The company, which is negotiating to buy U.S. energy giant Enron Corp's stake in its troubled Indian unit, reports results for the July-September second quarter on Tuesday.
"I expect profit to be hit by higher interest costs on new projects such as transmission and telecoms, and sales growth to be affected by the absence of supplies to BSES Ltd this year," said Pranav Securities analyst Rohita Sharma.
She said the sale of power to BSES Ltd , a rival producer and leading distributor of power to Bombay, was a major factor in boosting sales in the year-earlier quarter.
"I see operating margins falling to 19.05 percent from 19.85 percent," Sharma added.
A Reuters poll of 14 brokerages, released last week, forecast net profit would drop to a median 1.27 billion rupees ($26.4 million) from a year earlier, on a 8.45 percent rise in sales to 10.11 billion rupees.
Tata Power generates thermal and hydroelectric power and distributes electricity across the western Indian state of Maharashtra, including its capital Bombay.
As part of its new initiatives, the company commissioned a broadband optic fibre cable network in Bombay in late August.
Jaideep Goswami, head of research at UTI Securities, said profit would be flat, helped by extraordinary income from the sale of its stake in Tata Liebert, a maker of air-conditioning equipment and UPS, or uninterrupted power supply, for computers.
Tata Power sold the stake for 765 million rupees in September.
"Other income will be a crucial factor with power sales struggling as a result of the slowdown in the economy," he said, adding it could benefit from some businesses like captive units.
Tata Power runs captive power units for India's largest private steel producer Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) and the country's second largest cement maker Associated Cement Companies .
An independent power project, in Belgaum, in southern India, went on stream in March.
SHARES WATCH ENRON
Goswami said the possible buyout of Enron's 65 percent stake in Dabhol Power Company could be the major driver for the stock.
"At this point it's by no means certain the deal will happen, but if it does, a lot would depend on how it is structured and the cost of the project," he said.
"It's definitely a big booster for sentiment as Enron's unit supplies to areas contiguous to Tata Power's," he said. "But there are concerns about how its cash flows will be impacted."
Shares in Tata Power were little changed at 97.50 rupees in afternoon trade while the Bombay benchmark index was up 0.7 percent.
Tata Power managing director Adi Engineer told Reuters earlier this month that he had held preliminary talks with Enron to buy the American firm's stake in the $2.9 billion Dabhol unit.
"Everyone knows some solution has to be found for Dabhol...we will go ahead with this only if it makes sense from the consumers' angle and the stakeholders' angle," he said.
Dabhol was forced to shut its 740 MW plant on the west coast of India, after its sole customer, a state-owned loss-ridden Indian utility, stopped buying power.
The utility, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, earlier defaulted on payments.
The shutdown has stalled an expansion programme, which was almost complete and would have taken the capacity to 2,184 MW. ($1 = 48 Indian rupees).

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

India: FDI: Suffering from sectoral infirmities

10/15/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Fin. Times Info Ltd-Asia Africa Intel Wire. Business Line (The Hindu) Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd. All Rights Res'd

THE exit of Enron and AES from the Indian power scene has generated worry. For, more than affecting power generation, this might have a lasting impact on the prospects of foreign direct investment in India. This is because the US is the biggest investor in India, and power generation was seen as one of the most attractive areas. But, then, this did not happen suddenly, and the portents were visible from ever since Cogentrix pulled out.
But despite such fears, FDI increased substantially in 2000. On an approval basis, it increased 27.5 per cent in 2000 (from $6,750 million in 1999 to $8,610 million in 2000). American investments rose 14.6 per cent (from $851.2 million in 1999 to $975.6 million in 2000).
What then is the fallacy? One reason why the flows were not affected is that, overall, the FDI trend in India is not affected by any sector, no matter how important it is. Presently, the policy constraints to foreign investment are confined to select sectors, and sectoral policies are emerging the determinants of the FDI flow trend. The policies in some sectors such as power, telecommunications and oil may not be conducive, but in others, particularly manufacturing, they are comparable to any other countrys.
Even after a decade of liberalisation, independent power producers are finding it difficult to set up operations, with the State electricity boards in financial straits. Thus, of the 50,000 MW projects approved in the private sector, only 3,000 MW were added during 1991-99. Non-transparent policies in basic, cellular and wireless local loop services are preventing foreign investors from coming into the telecom and oil refining sector sin a big way. Nothing is as yet clear about the dismantling of Administrative Price Mechanism in the petroleum sector that is scheduled for April 1, 2002.
However, this is not true for other sectors. In automotive or in electrical/electronic industries, no MNC has so far pulled out. Instead, more players are coming in. As a result, the actual flow of foreign investments has been in automobile and electrical/electric equipment sectors though FDI was approved largely in power and telecommunications.
For instance, in 2000 nearly 30 per cent of the actual total flow of FDI was in the transport sector, mainly automobiles and electrical equipment industries against only 15 per cent flow in power, oil refinery and telecommunication. In contrast, 36 per cent of FDI was approved in transport and electrical industries against 41 per cent approved in power, oil refinery and telecommunication during 2000. The automotive sector attracted a $1.2-billion in FDI in the 1990s and grew at 20 per cent from 1991-99; the result of the flow of foreign investment and its impact on the industry.
Further, contradicting the fear hyped over the foreign investment prospect due to the Enron exit, a recent study by the American Chamber of Commerce reflected the US investors positive perception of Indias vast potential. According to the study, the country has the potential to attract FDI of $100 million over the next five years, if certain improvements are made in the regulatory measures and to the sectoral policies that are acting as barriers to foreign investors.
A study by the RBI unveiled a glorified result of the business performance of foreign-invested firms in India. The study, covering 334 firms, revealed that their average return on equity was 12.5-13 per cent during 1998-99 and 1999-2000, which, in terms of global standards, is lucrative. The interesting part of the study is that the rate of return on equity in case of US-invested firms was as high as 12 per cent. Japanese and British firms, however, recorded higher returns on equity 22 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively.
Further, these high rates of return on equity were reaped up mostly from domestic sales, and the firms had to exert less to export, and area where competition is intensifying by the day. The study revealed that the ratio of export intensity of sales was 4-6 per cent during 1998-99 and 1999-2000. That is, these firms are garnering higher returns by selling more than 95 per cent of their production in the domestic market. In terms of industry, the RBI study revealed that not only the return on equity, but also the growth rate of returns were high in automobile and electrical industries. Thus, the attraction of these sectors and the consequent large actual flows of FDI. The return on equity in the auto industry was 14.6 per cent in 1999-2000 the second highest after pharmaceutical and the growth rate in return was 27 per cent over the previous years.
The return for the electrical equipment industry was 10.5 per cent in 1999-2000 and growth rate in return as high as 40 per cent over the previous year. Therefore, the barriers often highlighted for the slow pace of FDI are not strictly related to the countrys overall policy. The FDI gets bogged down because of sectoral policy constraints, each different from the other.
The American Chambers study admits that such macro-level factors as inflexible labour laws and poor infrastructure play a relatively less important role in encouraging foreign investment than the sectoral policy constraints.
It is difficult to offer an ideal investment policy. But, certainly, the country has inherent strengths such as skilled manpower, huge domestic market and a stable democratic government that are conducive to attracting foreign investments. The RBI study confirms this. It only remains to tap this potential.
S. Majumder

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

International: Indian Enron looks for way out of Greenfield Shipping
SHIRISH NADKARNI IN MUMBAI

10/15/2001
Lloyd's List International
5
Copyright (C) 2001 LLoyds List; Source: World Reporter (TM)

AMERICAN energy major Enron is looking at a price of around Dollars 30m to exit from Greenfield Shipping Company, in which its affiliate Atlantic Commercial is a 20% equity partner.
The desire to exit is part of Enron's move to pull out of all its projects in India.
The other two partners in the three-member consortium are Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL), which has 60% equity, and Indian national carrier Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), with a 20% stake.
Greenfield Shipping had commissioned the construction of a 137,000 cu m capacity LNG tanker at Mitsubishi Shipyard in Japan.
The vessel, christened LNG Lakshmi, will be ready for delivery on November 15 this year.
It will be used for ferrying LNG from the Middle East to Enron's 2,184 mw mega-power plant at Dabhol, near Ratnagiri in southern Maharashtra.
Although no official statement has come from Enron, a source at ANZ Investment Bank, which leads the lending consortium of banks, revealed that Enron would seek the return of Dollars 11m as its share of the paid-up equity of Dollars 55m, plus Dollars 19m for swapping the company's share of the loan component.
The highly publicised imbroglio between Enron and Maharashtra State Electricity Board over the tariff to be charged for power induced Enron to seek an exit from the project.
This has induced the lending consortium to be extra cautious after having disbursed Dollars 110m of the aggregate loan component of Dollars 165m. It has asked the promoters to bring in this amount.
The intransigence of the lenders has left MOL and SCI with the difficult task of not only paying Enron off, but also bringing in the Dollars 55m debt amount, if they are to take delivery of the vessel on the scheduled date next month.
The SCI board has had extensive discussions on the subject, but failed to come to a consensus on putting in the extra funds. And during discussions held in London recently, MOL had clearly told the lenders it was not in favour of putting in extra funds to salvage the LNG shipping deal.
MOL feels the economics do not justify the extra expenditure. The consortium is now facing a charter hire rate of Dollars 60,000-Dollars 65,000 per day, compared with the rate of Dollars 98,600 initially negotiated with the Dabhol Power Company.
If one took a daily charter hire rate of Dollars 60,000, Greenfield would earn around Dollars 22m per annum, of which Dollars 4-Dollars 5m would be spent on operating expenses of the tanker.
That would leave Dollars 17-Dollars 18m, yielding an internal rate of return (IRR) of just 7%-8% for MOL on its 60% equity stake. This would be unacceptable for the Japanese line.
For SCI, the IRR would be even lower - 4%-4.5%, far below the Indian government norm of 12% for projects involving state funding.

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


Please see the following articles:

Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Lawmakers debate efforts to save Edison:
Competing bills range from a straight bailout to purchase of transmission
lines
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: PG&E sues state over seizure of long-term power contracts
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Energy Digest: Advocate attacks utility rescue plan
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Hour of decision: Who will pay for costly power of past,
future?   (Editorial)
SD Union, Tues, 7/17: Utility sues state seeking millions in seized power
contracts
LA Times, Wed, 7/18: PG&E Sues State Over Contracts
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Consumer prices up as energy costs moderate
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Contra Costa may upgrade 9 buildings
$1.7 million earmarked for conservation
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Lawmakers devise rival bailout plans for Edison
Push to come up with alternative to bankruptcy before recess
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: News briefs on the California power crisis
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: State's largest utility sues state seeking millions in
power contracts seized by governor
Mercury News, Wed, 7/18: Surplus state power sold at loss
Mercury News, Wed, 7/18:  Light bulb moment (Commentary)
LA Times, Wed, 7/18: California Trading, Wholesale Power Boost Duke's
Earnings 27%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers debate efforts to save Edison: Competing bills range from a
straight bailout to purchase of transmission lines.
By Jim Sanders
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Published July 18, 2001)
Divided legislators began wrestling Tuesday with competing proposals to keep
one of California's largest private utilities, Southern California Edison,
from going bankrupt.
Pressure is rising as Edison continues to struggle with more than $3.5
billion in debt and a tentative plan by Gov. Gray Davis to buy the utility's
transmission lines for $2.76 billion has attracted little support.
The question now is whether legislators will accept a modified version of the
governor's deal, will approve an entirely different rescue plan, or will
simply let Edison join Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in bankruptcy court.
"We're encouraged that at least there's activity and people are grappling
with the issues," said John Fielder, an Edison senior vice president.
The Assembly's energy committee heard testimony on two of the competing
proposals Tuesday. The Senate's energy committee will take up the third plan
today.
The issue conceivably could be decided this week, since legislators are
scheduled to begin their summer recess Friday.
Of the three proposals under consideration, one would authorize state
purchase of Edison's transmission lines, one would provide an option to buy,
and one would simply tally Edison's debts and charge ratepayers to pay them
off.
Some legislators favor doing nothing at all and letting a bankruptcy judge
decide Edison's fate.
Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Davis, said the Democratic governor supports
anything that "comes close" to the tentative deal, hammered out in April, to
buy Edison's transmission lines.
Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek, and Assembly Speaker Robert
Hertzberg, D-Sherman Oaks, have proposed a rescue plan that would buy the
lines at a lower price -- $2.4 billion -- and would modify the governor's
plan substantially.
Key elements of the bill would allow the state to buy Edison's hydroelectric
assets if the transmission-line sale falls through, allow businesses to
contract with private suppliers for electricity in 2003, and commit the state
to paying only 70 cents of every dollar owed by Edison to power generators.
The deal also would provide California with ownership or conservation
easements to more than 20,000 acres of land, and would require Edison to
increase its supply of alternative energy -- such as wind or solar. The
proposal is not expected to spark new rate hikes, Keeley said.
The Senate plan, like the Keeley-Hertzberg proposal, would require large and
medium businesses to pay down much of Edison's debts.
The Senate plan dedicates up to $2.5 billion in large-user rates for debts
involving banks and renewable energy sources known as "qualifying
facilities."
The plan, written by Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo Alto, seeks to leave Edison with
$1 billion in debt from generators and marketers for the utility to work out
on its own.
The Senate plan would give the state a five-year option to buy Edison
transmission lines for book value -- about $1.2 billion.
Rather than provide conservation easements, the plan calls for Edison's
environmentally sensitive acreage to be acquired by the state or a trust.
Remaining parts of the proposal are similar to the governor's deal.
A third proposal, pushed by several lawmakers, seeks to eliminate debt for
Edison and PG&E. It would not involve transmission lines, conservation
easements or other such elements.
Advocates say Edison's debt stemmed largely from failed state regulatory
policies, so the state should simply charge consumers a monthly fee to pay it
off.
"This is a straight bailout -- no hidden balls, no extras," said Assemblyman
Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles.
It is not yet known whether that monthly fee could fit within the existing
rate structure. For home'owners, the amount is estimated at $4 in the PG&E
service area and $2 within Edison's boundaries.
Consumer groups are wary of the Edison rescue proposals, fearing the state
will ultimately promise too much and get too little.
"When a supermarket and dairy farmer both are forced to pay a 10-year bailout
tax, the consumer pays more for milk," said Doug Heller of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

The Bee's Jim Sanders can be reached at (916) 326-5538 or jsanders@sacbee.com
<mailto:jsanders@sacbee.com>.
Kevin Yamamura of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to this report.

PG&E sues state over seizure of long-term power contracts
By Dale Kasler
Bee Staff Writer
(Published July 18, 2001)
Reopening an old wound in California's energy crisis, Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. has sued the state over a group of low-cost energy contracts
seized almost six months ago by Gov. Gray Davis.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, stems from the
collapse of the California Power Exchange and the state's entry into the
power-buying business in January.
PG&E and Southern California Edison had entered into a series of long-term
purchase contracts through the exchange, a now-defunct market for buying and
selling electricity. But as both utilities collapsed financially and the
Power Exchange was clinging to life, the exchange seized the contracts and
was about to auction them off for nonpayment of bills.
That's when Davis stepped in. Using his emergency powers, the governor
grabbed control of the contracts, saying he didn't want them resold at
inflated prices.
At the time, the exchange said the contracts were worth about $1 billion,
with PG&E's share set at $348 million.
But it's likely their value has fallen along with the spot market price of
electricity. Back when the governor seized them, PG&E's contracts were for
$60 to $130 a megawatt-hour. That was a bargain at the time, and made the
contracts very valuable. Now that spot prices have plunged, those contracts
are no longer such a great deal.
PG&E's lawsuit didn't put a value on the contracts. Nevertheless, "the state
has benefited from the contracts," said PG&E spokesman Ron Low. "We should be
compensated."
The state had planned to pay for the contracts, at a price to be determined
by a state government claims board, said Davis' spokesman Steve Maviglio. But
he said the state also expected to be taken to court over the issue.
"We always thought we'd be fighting it out in a neutral forum," Maviglio
said. "This comes as no surprise."

The Bee's Dale Kasler can be reached at (916) 321-1066 or dkasler@sacbee.com
<mailto:dkasler@sacbee.com>.

Energy Digest: Advocate attacks utility rescue plan

(Published July 18, 2001)
The state's consumer advocate criticized Gov. Gray Davis' proposed rescue
plan for San Diego Gas & Electric on Tuesday, calling it too generous to the
utility's shareholders.
The Public Utilities Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates called the
proposed deal with SDG&E and its parent company, Sempra Energy, "clearly
excessive."
The advocate said the state goes too far in the core element of the rescue
plan -- the $1 billion state purchase of SDG&E's transmission lines. The
advocate said the money would be better spent building or buying new
generating plants.
The plan must be approved by the Legislature and PUC. A similar plan, to buy
Southern California Edison's transmission lines, has run into numerous
roadblocks in the Legislature.
--Dale Kasler

Hour of decision: Who will pay for costly power of past, future?

(Published July 18, 2001)

In the next few days, state lawmakers and regulators must make some
unsettling choices about how to share the financial burdens of California's
electricity debacle.
Looking backward, they will decide how -- or whether -- to erase $3.5 billion
in debts run up last year by Southern California Edison, when it bought
pricey power but couldn't pass the costs on to consumers. Looking ahead, they
will choose who, if anybody, will get out of paying for expensive power
purchased by the state since the utilities ran out of cash last January.
In both cases, the principle guiding the decision ought to be the same: No
one is blameless in getting California into this mess, and no group can
escape the pain of getting out of it.
Democratic lawmakers in the Assembly are searching in vain for ways to hide
the real costs from voters. Their idea is to have the large users of power
(mostly big businesses) pay off Edison's past debts. In return, businesses
would get some freedom to shop for cheaper power deals in the future.
The problem is that there won't be much opportunity to shop in the coming
years. That's because Gov. Gray Davis went out at the very peak of the market
and bought up most of the state's future electricity supply before it went on
sale. The strategy of locking most of California's power demand into
long-term contracts seemed ill-advised at the time, even more so now.
Now that the governor has done all this shopping, the Public Utilities
Commission must assure that electric customers will pay for all that
electricity -- $43 billion worth of power over the next decade or so. In
addition, the PUC must commit customers to repaying the state for the power
it has already purchased this year -- many billions on top of that. The state
borrowed from itself to buy all this power, and is banking on a bond sale to
pay off this debt. Unless a portion of the rate customers pay is dedicated to
repaying those bonds, they can't be sold.
This web of regulation, contracts and finance is so complex, so huge, it's
hard to see how the energy leaders in a few days will find a graceful, fair
solution. But for a political compromise to work, all the interests involved
must take some pain.
Southern California Edison must swallow some of its debt. Power generators
and the state must renegotiate some of their long-term contracts so that the
generators give back some of the bounty they reaped by market manipulation.
And no consumer, big or small, should be allowed to avoid paying the true
costs of the power they use. In this reckoning, there's no easy way out for
anyone -- and especially not for the elected officials who must deliver the
bad news.

Utility sues state seeking millions in seized power contracts

\
objattph
By David Kravets ASSOCIATED PRESS  July 17, 2001  SAN FRANCISCO )
California's largest utility sued the state Tuesday seeking reimbursement of
millions of dollars in energy contracts the governor seized Jan. 31.  San
Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said it "has received no
compensation for the damage to its property," according to a suit filed in
San Francisco Superior Court.  The suit came as PG&E, which filed for
bankruptcy protection in April, struggles to repay $14.4 billion in debt to
thousands of creditors.  Invoking constitutionally vested powers, Gov. Gray
Davis seized the energy contracts to keep the California Power Exchange from
liquidating them. The now-defunct exchange, which was the state's middleman
for the buying and selling of power, wanted the contracts for itself to
recoup hundreds of millions in unpaid power buys that PG&E owed it.  The
governor's office acknowledged that California owes PG&E for the contracts,
an amount that Davis wants a judge to determine. At the time they were
seized, the state estimated their value at $160 million, while the power
exchange priced them at $347 million.  "We seized the contracts to have
reasonable priced power and expected that price to be set in a neutral
forum," said Steve Maviglio, the governor's spokesman.  It's not easy to
determine their value. Using the contracts, the state buys electricity at a
set price, and can avoid the sky-high prices it has to pay for power bought
at the last minute. Therefore, the contracts' value changes with the volatile
price of electricity.  "We believe the state has benefited from the value of
our contracts, and as a result we should be compensated," PG&E spokesman Ron
Low said.  Low declined to place a value on the contracts.  The contracts in
question, which the state is now using to buy electricity because the
utility's bad credit rating restricts it from buying its own, promise power
at rates below those being charged today by power generating companies.
Because of the shaky financial pictures of PG&E, Southern California Edison
Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the state in January began buying much
of the electricity to supply the ratepayers of those utilities.  The power is
sold to ratepayers through the utilities, which reimburse the state through
consumers' bills. But, because of energy pricing rules that prompted the
utilities' unstable financial footing, current rates are not enough to repay
the state. To recoup its losses, the state is expected to sell $8 billion or
more in bonds to be repaid through increased consumer power rates.  Under
California's 1996 deregulation plan, the state's utilities sold many of their
power plants and were forced to buy electricity on the market through the
newly created power exchange.  As demand mushroomed and supplies became
scarce, the utilities began paying substantially more for electricity than
deregulation rules allowed them to collect from consumers.  The case is PG&E
v. California, 322921.

PG&E Sues State Over Contracts
From Bloomberg News

July 18 2001

SAN FRANCISCO -- PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. utility sued
California on Tuesday, saying it wants to be paid for the wholesale
electricity contracts the state seized in January.

Gov. Gray Davis took away Pacific Gas' 12-month forward contracts to ensure a
sufficient and continuous supply of electricity for the state. At the time,
California estimated the contracts were worth $150 million.

Pacific Gas claims the contracts had "significant value" because they allowed
the utility to receive power for less than current market rates. "Although
PG&E has demanded just compensation from the [state], PG&E has received no
compensation for the damage to its property," the utility said in court
papers filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court.

The company, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in April, is seeking
damages and attorney fees. The state claimed in January that the contracts
would have delivered enough electricity to power 100,000 to 500,000 homes for
6 cents to 13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Officials in the governor's office did not immediately return calls seeking
comment.
Copyright 2001, Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com>

Consumer prices up as energy costs moderate
LEIGH STROPE, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/finan
cial0837EDT0023.DTL>
(07-18) 05:37 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Consumer inflation edged up last month as electricity prices continued to
surge, while the cost of gasoline and other energy products retreated.
The Labor Department reported Wednesday that the Consumer Price Index, the
government's most closely watched inflation measure, climbed by a seasonally
adjusted 0.2 percent in June. The index was up 3.8 percent for the year.
The new reading on consumer prices matched analysts' expectations.
The "core" rate of inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food prices,
rose 0.3 percent in June compared with just 0.1 percent in May.
,2001 Associated Press

Contra Costa may upgrade 9 buildings
$1.7 million earmarked for conservation
Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com>
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/18/
MNC199898.DTL>
Contra Costa will spend as much as $1.7 million to conserve energy at the
county's nine worst "energy hog" buildings under a proposal approved
yesterday by the Board of Supervisors.
The measure is part of a larger effort the board in March agreed to undertake
to reduce the county's energy use by up to 10 percent.
A private company will install upgraded heating, ventilation and air
conditioning control systems at the nine buildings, resulting in savings of
just under $200,000 a year.
"What we've done is pick our energy hogs," said Bart Gilbert, the county's
general services director. "To start the process of making our buildings more
energy efficient."
County officials had no difficulty in identifying the hogs, which tended to
be large buildings that serve a variety of uses and are open as much as 24-
hours a day, seven days a week, said Gilbert.
Eight of the buildings are in Martinez, the county seat, and one is in
Antioch. They include the Bray Courts building in downtown Martinez,
sheriff's offices and morgue, and the Employment and Human Services building
in Antioch.
One energy waster is the 120,000-square-foot Summit Center, an office
building on Arnold Drive in Martinez that the county acquired last year.
The building's cooling system activates at a particular setting -- 76
degrees. So it shuts down completely when the temperature reaches below that
setting and won't turn on until it reaches about 79 degrees.
But new digital technology controls allow the system to gradually reduce or
increase power without having to shut down, which saves energy.
"When you turn the system on everything doesn't kick in, everything doesn't
come on full speed," said Gilbert. "That's a tremendous savings."
The county will contract with Syserco Inc. of Fremont to install the new
control systems from July through June 30, 2002.
County officials believe that the plan will reduce demand by 700,000 kilowatt
hours and pay for itself in about five years by reducing energy costs.
The county has applied for a low-interest loan from the state's Energy
Department that would cover about half the plan's costs. It is one of several
Bay Area communities seeking such loans during the energy crisis.
In the past two months, state officials have received $50 million worth of
new loan applications from city and county governments.
Before the energy crisis, the department would average between $5 and 10
million in loan applications, said Virginia Lew, project manager for the
department's Energy Partnership Program.
San Francisco is set to receive $5 million in loans for replacing inefficient
lighting at San Francisco General Hospital and city traffic signals.
Solano County will receive $1.1 million for lighting and efficiency projects
similar to those in Contra Costa, while Santa Rosa was given $1.5 million for
water and wastewater treatment facility upgrades.
Oakland officials are awaiting approval of the city's application for about
$400,000 for a combination of lighting and ventilation efficiency projects.
e-mail Jason B. Johnson at jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 17

Lawmakers devise rival bailout plans for Edison
Push to come up with alternative to bankruptcy before recess
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau <mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/18/
MN76320.DTL>
Sacramento -- Lawmakers are struggling this week to agree on a plan to keep
Southern California Edison from declaring bankruptcy as they rush to complete
business before Friday's scheduled summer recess.
After months of talking about a solution and dismissing one agreed to by
Edison and Gov. Gray Davis, lawmakers now have several competing proposals to
consider.
A plan introduced last week by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, D-Sherman
Oaks (Los Angeles County), was debated for several hours yesterday, along
with a GOP-backed alternative by Assemblyman Roderick Wright, D-Los Angeles.
The two plans, which are scheduled for votes today in the Assembly Energy
Costs and Availability Committee, take sharply different approaches:
-- Hertzberg's plan would pay $2.4 billion for Edison's transmission lines to
help cover the utility's estimated $3.5 billion debt. The utility would be
allowed to pay off its remaining debt by issuing bonds.
The utility would repay the bonds using ratepayer money. For the first two
years, all customers would pay for the debt, but after that the largest users
would pay off the rest.
-- Wright calls his plan a "straight bailout." It would allow the utility to
issue bonds to cover all of its debt and impose a $2 a month rate increase
for all users until the debt is paid.
The Senate also introduced its own plan. A bill by Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo
Alto, would give the state a five-year option to buy the transmission lines
and would have the state back only $2.5 billion of the utility's debt.
Since Davis announced a deal with Edison earlier this year, lawmakers,
business groups and consumer advocates have all expressed reservations with
one aspect or another of it. Opposition has usually focused on the state
purchase of Edison's transmission lines.
The flurry of activity this week is an effort by lawmakers to take some kind
of vote before they adjourn. The Edison agreement has an Aug. 15 deadline for
approval by the Legislature.
Brian Bennett, a spokesman for Edison, said creditors view that date as
extremely important.
"We're as close to bankruptcy as our creditors want us to be," he said. "Is
it a drop dead date? I don't know, but it is clearly an important date."
Consumer groups have denounced Wright's plan, and at least one calls
Hertzberg's proposal just another bailout and said it would cost Californians
$6.7 billion over the next 10 years.
"We cannot be seduced by big businesses paying a bailout tax," said Doug
Heller, a consumer advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights. "At the end of the day, we know businesses will pass these costs on
to the consumer."
Included in the 76-page Hertzberg bill are provisions that would allow large
companies to buy their power directly from a provider instead of going
through the utility after 2003.
But a coalition of large business groups also said they are strongly opposed
to the plan because it does not allow for immediate direct access.
"Ultimately, we think our companies buying power for themselves is the best
solution," said Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and
Technology Association. "If businesses think there's a light at the end of
the tunnel where they see lower rates coming, they might tough it out and
stay."
Wright argues that the beauty of his proposal is that it could easily apply
to the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. service area if the company wanted to use
it as a way out of bankruptcy court. He estimates that PG&E customers would
pay about $4 a month to help the company pay off its debt.
"This is a straight bailout," Wright said. "This is not a hidden bill. There
are extras."
Wright said he believes his constituents would rather pay an extra $2 than be
unemployed because their business left the state due to high energy costs.
Business groups said the idea makes sense.
"What good would it do to have your electricity bill reduced by $10 or $15
but not have a job?" said Bill Hauck, president of the California Business
Roundtable.
Whatever plan is eventually authorized would be used to convince the PG&E
bankruptcy judge to follow a similar model for that company, giving the state
those transmission lines as well.
The purchase of the transmission lines has been at the center of Davis' plan.
He argues that the purchase will give the state the ability to upgrade the
system, allowing a better flow of power between Northern and Southern
California and a decreased chance of blackouts.
But opponents argue that the state is getting one-third of a complicated
system that will cost billions to upgrade and operate.
"It's like buying a car with three wheels -- it is not going to get out of
the lot," consumer advocate Heller said.
E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 14

News briefs on the California power crisis

Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/state
0913EDT0146.DTL>
(07-18) 06:13 PDT (AP) -- diuriegr1 ?By The Associated Press?SAN DIEGO (AP) -- County supervisors want to eliminate a $100 fee for ?installing solar power systems to spur interest in the alternative energy ?source. ?Supervisor Ron Roberts proposed waiving the fee at the board's Tuesday ?meeting. A new ordinance may be ready for the supervisors' approval in two ?months. ?The fee is charged to homeowners who live in the unincorporated areas of the ?county. Solar power systems for hot water heaters can cost about $4,000 and ?home units can cost about $26,000. ?The county has been issuing more permits for solar units this year and ?expects to issue 250 permits by December. Two years ago, the county issued ?only 12. ?TEMECULA, Calif. (AP) -- An Indian burial ground sits in the way of a ?proposed power-line route and tribal members have asked U.S. Sen. Barbara ?Boxer to help preserve the site. ?Boxer, D-Calif., last week introduced an amendment to the Interior ?Appropriations bill that would place more than 700 acres of land owned by the ?Pechanga tribe in a federal trust. If approved, the legislation would allow ?the tribe to bypass the procedure review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ?San Diego Gas & Electric wants to run a 500,000-volt power line through the ?area. The $271 million route would run through southwestern Riverside County ?and link the utility's grid with one operated by Southern California Edison. ?SDG&E officials said the proposed federal legislation wouldn't derail the ?company's project. ?"I don't think it jeopardizes the project," said SDG&E spokeswoman Jacqueline ?Howells. "There are variations of our line that don't require that land, and ?there are alternatives further west." ?The state's Public Utilities Commission must still approve the project. ?The tribe recently purchased the site, which has one of the state's oldest ?oak trees. It is also home to several village sites and areas used for ?cremation. Tribal chairman Mark Macarro said the amendment wasn't ?specifically meant to block the power line project but rather to preserve the ?land from development. ?,2001 Associated Press ???????State's largest utility sues state seeking millions in power contracts seized ?by governor ?DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer?Wednesday, July 18, 2001 ?,2001 Associated Press ?URL: ?<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/natio?nal0848EDT0542.DTL>?(07-18) 05:48 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- ?California's largest utility has sued the state seeking reimbursement of ?millions of dollars in energy contracts seized by the governor. ?San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric Co. "has received no compensation ?for the damage to its property," the company said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday ?in San Francisco Superior Court. ?PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection in April and is struggling to repay ?$14.4 billion to thousands of creditors. ?Gov. Gray Davis seized the energy contracts on Jan. 31 to keep the California ?Power Exchange from liquidating them. The now-defunct exchange, which had ?been the state's middleman for buying and selling power, wanted the contracts ?to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars that PG&E owed it. ?The governor's office acknowledged that California owes PG&E for the ?contracts, an amount that Davis wants a judge to determine. At the time they ?were seized, the state estimated their value at $160 million, while the power ?exchange priced them at $347 million. ?"We seized the contracts to have reasonable priced power and expected that ?price to be set in a neutral forum," said Steve Maviglio, the governor's ?spokesman. ?Under the contracts, the state buys electricity at a set price rather than ?paying higher prices for power bought at the last minute. Therefore, the ?contracts' value changes with the volatile price of electricity. ?"We believe the state has benefited from the value of our contracts, and as a ?result we should be compensated," PG&E spokesman Ron Low said. ?Low declined to place a value on the contracts. ?,2001 Associated Press ?????Surplus state power sold at loss ?Posted at 11:50 p.m. PDT Tuesday, July 17, 2001 ?BY JOHN WOOLFOLK ??Mercury News ???State officials who bought power contracts averaging $138 per megawatt-hour ?for this month are selling some of the power back for as little as $1 per ?megawatt-hour, traders say. ?After scrambling this spring for every megawatt it could buy to stave off ?summer blackouts, cool weather and decreased demand have left the state ?holding more power than it needs and selling the surplus for whatever it can ?get. ?State officials won't say how much they are selling the power for, but ?acknowledged unloading surplus electricity. ?``We're seeing certain times of the day where we may not need power that we ?previously thought we needed, and we're selling it on the open market,'' said ?Oscar Hidalgo, spokesman for the state Department of Water Resources. ``We're ?probably moving a little more power than we anticipated, but I don't think ?anybody anticipated a July like we're experiencing.'' ?Utilities routinely sell surplus contract power when demand is lower than ?expected. But the state's recent sell-off could fuel criticism that ?California bought too much power at too high a price, fearing rolling ?blackouts and soaring prices this summer. ?``There's a painful lesson to be learned when you overbuy when supplies are ?tight,'' said Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading ?Forum. ``Anybody can lose money in this business, and the state of California ?is getting a taste of that.'' ?The state in the past week has sold anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of its ?available power, Hidalgo said. On Tuesday, the state had up to 40,000 ?megawatts available, while demand hovered around 32,000 megawatts, according ?to the power grid operator. ?Must be sold ?Because electricity cannot be stored, power purchased in contracts for a ?later date would be wasted if not used or sold. ?``It's better than losing it altogether,'' Hidalgo said. ``The way the ?electricity business is set up, you either use it or move it. You can't put ?it in a bottle and put it on a shelf.'' ?State officials would not say how much they've made in sales to offset ?purchase costs, citing concerns about jeopardizing their bargaining position. ?According to California Energy Markets, a trade weekly, the state was ?unloading power last Thursday at $25 per megawatt-hour. Ackerman said the ?state has been selling power for as little as $1 to $5 per megawatt-hour. ?Power was selling on the spot market for $20 to $40 per megawatt-hour ?Tuesday. ?The state, which assumed the role of power buyer for California's biggest ?utilities in January, expected to sell surplus power from time to time, ?although not quite this much, Hidalgo said. Even with demand down, the state ?still is buying more power than it sells, he said. ?With temperatures throughout the West unseasonably low in recent weeks, other ?utilities also are selling their surplus power at a loss. ?``That's an accepted operating risk we always assume,'' said Scott Simms, ?spokesman for Portland General Electric, adding that recent federal price ?caps are lower than what the Oregon utility paid. ``Sometimes you gain, ?sometimes you lose. Hopefully, if you planned well, you end up winning.'' ?Whether the state planned well or overbought is hard to say. The contracts ?could prove invaluable if another heat wave threatens blackouts. Ackerman ?likened power contracts to insurance -- a prudent move to guard against ?shortages and price spikes, even if it turns out you don't need it. ?At the very least, the current situation underscores the importance of ?weather in the volatile electricity market. Traders pore over forecasts and ?even buy weather insurance, Ackerman said. ?Demand and prices have been so low that some energy companies are shutting ?down the small power plants called ``peakers.'' ?Hidalgo said the state has no regrets. ?``What we were doing was making sure we had an available supply with these ?contracts,'' Hidalgo said. ``We were facing scarcity in the market early on. ?There wasn't enough supply to fulfill the need. What the contracts have done ?is obligated the producers to give us power.'' ?Blackout threat fades ?The state's daily power costs have fallen from more than $100 million in May ?to less than $26 million in July, Hidalgo said, and there hasn't been a ?blackout in two months. While some of the surplus power is sold on the ?market, it is also being traded to Northwestern hydropower utilities to cover ?past debts, he said. ?``This is not a bad position for us to be in,'' Hidalgo said, adding that the ?situation could always take a turn for the worse. ``We can't lose sight of ?the fact that we're still in an emergency situation. If this was routine, ?this crisis would be over. We're not out of the woods.'' ???Contact John Woolfolk at jwoolfolk@sjmercury.com ?<mailto:jwoolfolk@sjmercury.com> or (408) 278-3410. ????????Light bulb moment ?Published Wednesday, July 18, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News ?NOW it all makes sense. Dick Cheney hasn't been pushing to drill for more oil ?and gas because of his pals in the energy business. It's because of his ?electric bill. ?The veep mansion, it turns out, consumes electricity the way a 1965 ?Oldsmobile burned gas. The bill for this year -- $186,000 -- shouldn't have ?to come out of Cheney's budget, the White House says. It should be paid by ?the Navy, which owns the property. ?No way, we say -- unless the house lights have some national defense value. ?Perhaps blinding the pilots of incoming fighter jets? ?The Bush team says California should just face up to market prices. So why ?not Cheney? ?But there is an alternative, as we've discovered out here. Conservation. It ?works. Really. ?Cheney's got a 33-room house. Do they all have to be lit up all the time? ?????Business; Financial Desk ?California Trading, Wholesale Power Boost Duke's Earnings 27%?THOMAS S. MULLIGAN??07/18/2001 ?Los Angeles Times ?Home Edition ?Page C-2 ?Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company ?Pushed by the explosive growth of its trading and wholesale-power businesses, ?Duke Energy Corp. on Tuesday reported a 27% increase in second-quarter ?profit, narrowly topping Wall Street estimates. ?Duke's net income was $419 million, or 53 cents per share, in the quarter ?ended June 30, up from $329 million, or 44 cents, in the year-ago quarter. ?The consensus estimate of industry analysts was 52 cents per share. ?Revenue for the quarter leaped 43% to $15.6 billion. ?Shares rose 38 cents to close at $42.03 on the New York Stock Exchange. ?Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke, like other out-of-state independent power ?producers, is under fire from Gov. Gray Davis for allegedly overcharging for ?electricity from its California generating plants. ?Duke does not break out its California results, but its profits from soaring ?spot-market prices in California during the quarter probably amounted to no ?more than a penny or two per share, according to analyst Jeff Gildersleeves ?of Argus Research in New York. ?California accounts for about 10% of Duke's U.S. wholesale-power business, ?and about 90% of its California power is sold through long-term contracts ?rather than on the spot market, the company has said. ?Those long-term contracts are a source of worry for investors, Gildersleeves ?said. Neither Duke nor the state has disclosed whether the contract prices ?can be adjusted downward if spot-market prices fall, he said. If the prices ?are not firm, it could represent a risk to future profits, he added, ?especially if spot prices continue to fall. ?Duke's North American Wholesale Energy business unit posted second-quarter ?operating earnings of $251 million, up 128% from $110 million a year earlier. ?Analyst Timothy M. Winter of A.G. Edwards in St. Louis said the overall ?quarter was "very good," considering that Duke's earnings from its ?regulated-utility business in North and South Carolina actually were flat ?because of mild weather, a slowing economy and increased costs associated ?with some nuclear generating facilities being out of operation. ???PHOTO: Duke, which owns a plant in Morro Bay, beat analyst estimates.; ; ?PHOTOGRAPHER: CAROLYN COLE / Los Angeles Times ?


Take a look at my worksheet and let me know what you think.  Look at column H
in the Daily Activity tab, this shows my actual daily and monthly
injections.  Also, on 9/16/200, we did a storage transfer to NIPSCO for
500,000 dth.

Our total capacity is 6,050,607 dth.  We have all the tariff rules in the
Strg Rules tab.


Here it is.  To explain, I left the sheet you saw previously as Sheet 1.
Sheet 2 is the new employee and business expense budget.  It shows
expenditures through 7/09/01 in the first column, our 2001 budget in the
second column, and a proposed 2002 budget in the third column.  Some of the
expenditures are kind of kooky -- because of miscoding or other reasons.  For
example, payments to IEP appear under "Employee Pers --Other" and "Outside
Serv - Prof".  There are many examples of kooky things -- so don't worry
about it.

We ended up getting charged for things this year that we didn't put in our
budget, such as AT&T calling cards and Edith's time -- so I've tried to
include all the items -- even if I put them in another category (for example,
I don't use the category "EIS Allocation" in our budget). I included those
wacky categories that we don't use in our budget at the bottom of column 1
just to get the correct total for the year to date.

Sheet 3 is outside expenses such as contributions, retainers and
memberships.  Column 1 shows our 2001 budget and column 3 shows our projected
2002 budget. I added some dollars to the retainers to cover some minimal
expenses that we get charged.  Other than that, it's pretty much what we
discussed last week.

Have fun, Paul!  Call with any questions.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854


FYI....
---------------------- Forwarded by Dawn C Kenne/HOU/ECT on 12/13/2000 09:50
AM ---------------------------

Dawn C Kenne
12/12/2000 10:00 AM
To: Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Swaim/HOU/ECT@ECT, Torrey
Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tara Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jennifer deBoisblanc Denny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kam Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C
Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Counterparties w/ Master Agreements with ECC

I have received an updated list of the counterparties that have Master
Agreements with ECC.  There are now about 40 counterparties that fall under
this category.  What seems to be happening is that these counterparties are
hitting on US gas products on EOL and are not bridging into Tagg correctly.
Currently, they are bridging as one leg between ENA and the counterparty.
The problem arises during settlement because ENA cannot settle with these
counterparties, only ECC can.  An example of what Risk is doing to the
products after bridging is Tagg#Q79131 / EOL #555401.

RISK:  We need risk to verify that anytime, without exception, all companies
with Master Agreements with ECC that hit a US product must be booked as two
legs:  leg one booked between ECC and the counterparty with risk assignment
of FT-US/CAND-ERMS; leg two flipping the risk out of FT-US/CAND-ERMS to the
appropriate risk book.  Also, risk needs to verify that this is only for
Financial Swaps and not Physical deals.

IT:  It is my understanding that a few counterparties are set up to be booked
correctly (with two legs).  The list is now up to 40 counterparties and will
most likely be updated on a consistent basis.  Is this something that Tagg
Maintenance can handle?  Guidelines need to be set up for Risk/Global to
instruct IT when new Master Agreements are created with counterparties so
logic can be adjusted accordingly.

Does a meeting need to be set up to elaborate on these issues?  Are there any
further issues that need to be addressed concerning ECC Master Agreements?
(i.e. What about when a counterparty with ECC Master Agreement hits a
Canadian product out of the Houston office?)
Please respond with your thoughts on this subject.

Thank you,
Dawn
3-9353


----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 09/06/2000 08:58 AM -----

	Shari Stack
	09/01/2000 02:45 PM

		 To: Stephanie Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank L Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Bradley Diebner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rhonda L
Denton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melissa Ann Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: AMEREN/EOL

I would like to clear up a confusing situation with Ameren which is currently
taking place:

On 8/29, Ameren Service Company ("ASC") they asked us to take them off EOL,
apparently because they now want to trade in EOL under the name "Ameren
Energy Inc. as agent".

On 8/29, Legal said OK to taking ASC off EOL and said further that AEI's
approval to trade on EOL was "on-hold" until Legal checked out the agency
aspect. Despite this - AEI appears to have been trading on EOL since 8/16 and
the confirmations we have been receiving back have been marked up by them.
They are trying to change the name on the confirmations to AEI acting as
agent for various entities.  I instructed Stephanie Sever yesterday to make
sure that AEI either acting for itself OR acting as agent does not have
access to EOL. This needs to stay the case until Legal directs otherwise.

Just so everyone is aware, Leslie Hansen spoke with Ameren several weeks ago
and told them that they would need to sign a special Consent Form as well as
a modified ETA before AEI could act as an agent on EOL. The forms were
emailed to them on 8/22 and to my knowledge, they have not been returned to
us.  I have left messages for the Ameren's attorney to call me but she has
not done so yet.  In any case, until they return the requested documents,
they cannot trade on EOL.

With regard to Ameren Service Company, today they appear to want to be back
on EOL. That is fine so long as it is clear that they are doing so under the
documentation that they signed originally.

If anyone has questions, please call me on ext. 39477

Thank you,

Shari


please remove my name from this list...thank  you...Dan Kessler?


Tammy,

I will have final for you by 10:30am.  Bob is working on his supoort people right now and we will be meeting to allocate/place
assistants at 10:00am.  I will send shortly thereafter.

Scott

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Shepperd, Tammy R.
Sent:	Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:17 PM
To:	Neal, Scott
Cc:	Rangel, Ina
Subject:	almost final
Importance:	High

Scott,
Attached is the file with Lavo's changes.  Note he's added a couple of interest rate desks and put gas weather and another fundies person in - Bob Superty was looking for 3 logistics support people that should be on the floor,  Tammy Jaquet, Richard Pinion, and Natalie Baker.  Please assign them and the assistants a desk.

We are out of time on turning this churn in.  I must have it by noon.  I will be meeting with the move team tomorrow afternoon to set move dates.  I'm being asked about  the trading simulation for next week and since your churns aren't set I can't provide an answer.

Ina, please pull in whomever you need to work on the churn,  be sure and get with Superty's asst to help you with those people etc.

Regards,
Tammy

 << File: 6th floorplan 01 30.xls >>


Are you there.  I never heard back from you.

Mike Panozzo
Manager
Ernst & Young LLP
Assurance and Advisory Business Services
512-473-3402
|------------------------+------------------------+------------------------|
|                        |   Stacey.W.White@enron.|                        |
|                        |   com                  |           To:          |
|                        |                        |   Mike.Panozzo@ey.com  |
|                        |   01/16/2002 10:58 AM  |           cc:          |
|                        |                        |           Subject:     |
|                        |                        |   RE: Hello            |
|------------------------+------------------------+------------------------|

Hope all is well.  My new e-mail is stacey.w.white@enron.com  The one you
have will be decommissioned shortly.  I still have a job and will more than
likely go to the 'new co.' - the piece that UBS has bid for.  Currently, we
are extremely busy trying to close out old business at the same time as
setting up details of the new business.

Russell and I are both well, probably working too hard.  What is new with
you?

Stacey

If you get a chance give me a call - would love to talk to you.
713-853-1870 (w) 281-382-5215 (cell).  I tried the number listed on this
e-mail for you, but it just rang and rang.

   -----Original Message-----
  From:   Mike.Panozzo@ey.com@ENRON
  Sent:   Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:33 AM
  To:     swhite@ect.enron.com
  Subject:  Hello

  Weldon,

  Are you there?  I hadn't talked to you in a while but I wanted to make
  sure
  everything was alright with you.  Let me know.

  Mike Panozzo
  Manager
  Ernst & Young LLP
  Assurance and Advisory Business Services
  512-473-3402

  ______________________________________________________________________
  The information contained in this message may be privileged and
  confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this
  message
  is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
  delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
  notified
  that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
  strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
  please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it
  from your computer.  Thank you.  Ernst & Young LLP

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

______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it
from your computer.  Thank you.  Ernst & Young LLP


Start Date: 1/29/02; HourAhead hour: 22;  HourAhead schedule download failed. Manual intervention required.


COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
                        NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
                                OCTOBER 18, 2001

Notice ID: 3194
5 - NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

Individuals from the following teams will be on duty (from 8:00 a.m. until
10:00 p.m.) in Customer Services on Saturday, October 20, 2001 and Sunday,
October 21, 2001:

NOMINATIONS & CONFIRMATIONS

Team 6                        304-357-3702
Team 7                        304-357-2827

Individuals from Team 1 (Evening Shift) will be on duty (from 2:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.) October 22 through October 26, 2001:

NOMINATIONS & CONFIRMATIONS

Team 1                        304-357-3708

Please note that the Columbia Navigator system is unavailable every Sunday from
11:00 p.m. until Monday at 6:00 a.m. for routine system maintenance.

If you have any questions, please contact your Account Representative.


| notifications                                                            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Poole, Keith dropped from Orange Roughy's rosters.
If you have a cell phone or pager, you can get this information even sooner! Go to your league's web site and click "Options, Notifications" on the main toolbar to have notifications sent to your pager or phone, via text messaging.

Win a VIP Vegas Vacation! OR Win $600 CASH!
http://www.sportsline.com/links/6/1/223/sffn1106v.cgi
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|        Copyright 2001 Commissioner.COM Inc and SportsLine.com Inc.       |
|   Your site is always at http://football.fantasy.sportsline.com/getbad   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

FB10SP


Info re the Bingham deal team
----- Forwarded by Barton Clark/HOU/ECT on 09/12/2000 09:56 AM -----

	"Politan, Nicholas H." <PolitaNH@bingham.com>
	09/07/2000 11:22 AM

		 To: "Barton Clark (E-mail)" <Barton.Clark@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: FW: BCS Bio.DOC

Bruce's bio.

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:  Silvers, Bruce C.
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:34 AM
> To: Politan, Nicholas H.
> Cc: Oland, Mark
> Subject: BCS Bio.DOC
>
> Nick, here's my bio.
>
>  <<BCS Bio.DOC>>

 - BCS Bio.DOC


That deal should have already been moved. It was on Stacey Richardson's Master Cumulative list as having been submitted with the "Auto-termination" project she was working on. If it is still showing in the "Live" books, it should also be moved to the "Bankruptcy" side.

Thank you!!
Cyndie

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Love, Phillip M.
Sent:	Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:52 AM
To:	Balfour-Flanagan, Cyndie; Diamond, Russell; Giron, Darron C.; Gossett, Jeffrey C.; Hall, Bob M; Hodge, Jeffrey T.; Palmer, B. Scott; Richardson, Stacey; Theriot, Kim S.
Subject:	RE: Additional deals to move to Bankruptcy Books - Phy Gas

can you tell me why EH6453.2 is not on the list?  We are moving EH6453.5, in the comments it says it is an unwind of leg 2.  Counterparty is Boston Gas.  Thanks.
PL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Balfour-Flanagan, Cyndie
Sent:	Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:31 PM
To:	Diamond, Russell; Giron, Darron C.; Gossett, Jeffrey C.; Hall, Bob M; Hodge, Jeffrey T.; Love, Phillip M.; Palmer, B. Scott; Richardson, Stacey; Theriot, Kim S.
Subject:	Additional deals to move to Bankruptcy Books - Phy Gas

Attached are some additional phy gas deals that need to be moved over to the bankruptcy books.

Thank you!
Cyndie

 << File: Deal legs to Add to Tagg list (still in books).xls >>


Linda - I haven't heard of these guys.  Do you know them?
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 05/15/2001
06:47 PM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  Sherri Sera                           05/15/2001 04:19 PM

To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: HELP!!!

Steve and Mark, a good friend of mine works for Mr. Grimes at Stewart &
Stevenson.  They have been offered this opportunity by the China Assoc. for
Social and Economic Development for a commitment of $74,000.  Since Mr. Lay
has been a past recipient (according to their attached letter), they are
wondering if this is legit.  Can you provide any insight?  Thanks for your
help.  SRS
---------------------- Forwarded by Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron on 05/15/2001
04:12 PM ---------------------------

Doyleene Harris <d.harris@ssss.com> on 05/15/2001 03:32:30 PM
To: "'sherri.sera@enron.com'" <sherri.sera@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: HELP!!!

Hi Sherri,

We would be most appreciative if you can help us out on this one!

Our President and CEO, Mike Grimes, received the letter (copy attached/please
open) from the China Association for Social and Economic Development.? In
this letter, Mr. Wu mentions that Dr. Kenneth Lay was a past recipient.

Well, you just called - so I won't complete this email!

Love you -

Doyleene

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:58 PM
To: Doyleene Harris
Subject:

?

 <<~MAP0000.jpg>>
 - ~MAP0000.jpg


----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 10/30/2000 07:24 AM -----

	Sarah Palmer@ECT
	10/27/2000 04:21 PM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary
Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: ThinkBank Update

Apparently I spoke too soon.  Fourteen ideas were deposited into the
ThinkBank today -- including entries from Frankfurt, Toronto, London and
Pleasanton, California.  All levels of employees have participated from
assistant to senior director.

----- Forwarded by Sarah Palmer/HOU/ECT on 10/27/2000 02:50 PM -----

	Sarah Palmer
	10/27/2000 02:30 PM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: The ThinkBank

Well, it seems that eThink has another hit.  Twelve people have already put
well-conceived business ideas into the ThinkBank and we have received
numerous congratulatory calls.  I won't have site hits until next week, but
the active participation has been the highest of all our current applications
on their respective launch day.

Have a great weekend,
Sarah.


John,

We can approach this problem this way.  Basically you are asking how
the total variance (66%)2*143 are distributed among 113 days and the last?30 days.   Assuming volatility for the first period is simga1 and that in the ?last 30 ?days is sigma2, then??(66%)2*143=sigma12*113+sigma22*30

Futhermore, we can use Nov-00 implied volatility as a proxy to sigma1, then
we can
calculate sigma2 which is the volatility for Dec-00 contract in the last 30
days.

sigam2=sqrt((66%)2*143-sigma12*113)/30.

Make sense ?

Zimin

John Disturnal
07/09/2000 04:10 PM
To: Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Vol rollup

Zimin, I am trying to understand what the near winter NG implied vols will
look like as they approach expiration.  For example, is it possible to infer
what the implied volatility of the Dec00 NG contract will look like with 30
days to expiry given we know current vol (66%) and term to maturity ( 143
days)?


As you may already know, the CPUC filed a motion at FERC asking for a
protective order and to compel production of the information they subpoened
from us in the CPUC's OII case.  Given the timing, we should discuss this on
our conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

They request that we be required:
to answer their motion on Thursday,
to provide the information within 5 working days of a FERC ordering
production, and
to provide of P&L information and spread sheets detailing our deals,
specifically delivery point, delivery date, counterparty, volume and price.

We may not have a problem providing this information for use by FERC in its
proceeding subject to a confidentiality agreement but I think we would oppose
their requests for:
the information to be provided for "government eyes only" -  this would
prohibit EPMI from defending itself vis-a-vis other market participants.
a FERC confidentiality order that would could allow FERC to "share" this
information with the CPUC (for purposes of the PUC's OII proceeding) pursuant
to 16 U.S.C. 824h(c).  16 USC 824g(c) requires the Commission to make
information available to state commissions as may be of assistance in state
regulation of public utilities.  We should argue that 16 USC 824h(c) does not
apply here given that we are not a public utility nor does the PUC regulate
how much market power wholesale marketers exercise or the level of market
power mitigation (these are the bases the PUC provides for explaining why it
should have this information.)
the above contractual information to allow them to analyze the
competitiveness of the forward market to evaluate the wisdom of the
Commission's  decision to allow the UDC's "unfettered access" to the forwards
market.  This argument is unpersuasive given that the CPUC can get
information about the competitiveness of the forward markets from the Wall
Street Journal's listing of NYMEX prices.


Yes, plus the ability to grow or tokeep the it pnr and other revenue.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
02/28/2001 03:59 PM ---------------------------

Gary Monk
02/03/2001 05:24 AM
To: Jim Marzonie/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, David L
Glessner/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John M
Rose/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dennis
Alexander/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Nigel
Carling/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dominic
Izzo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Terence
McGuinness/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ram
Subramanian/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, R P
Bhatla/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jaiprakash
Desai/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Pavan
Dave/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Michael
Norris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Andrea
Miller/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jim
Sutherland/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
Cullen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Joe
Lakes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Don
Carter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard
Surrey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Neil
Carter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, David
Armstrong/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Pam
Stein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Betty
Unruh/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Barbara
Hooks/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Joe Reynolds/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Gary Monk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, dcsturme@ben.bechtel.com,
Phil.burkhardt@gecapital.com, Charles
Temple/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James
Kelly/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Thomas Jr
Janes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard.Allison@gecapital.com,
Kyle.Rothwell@gecapital.com, Veronica
Quintana/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gerald Adams/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Eric
Lancaster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: Dabhol LNG Monthly Progress Report #26 - January 2001

Please find attached MPR #26 (incl. photos) which is in Adobe Acrobat 4.0
file format and covers project activities up to end January 2001.

Regards ,

Gary Monk


Linda-- see if Barrett Reasoner knows of a video conference  in Houston.
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 03/13/2000
03:45 PM ---------------------------
STACI HOLTZMAN @
ENRON
03/10/2000 09:17 AM

To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Grynberg - March 17 hearing

Wondering if we should book a video conference here at Enron?? (or have we
already?)
---------------------- Forwarded by Staci Holtzman/FGT/Enron on 03/10/2000
09:18 AM ---------------------------

Dawne Davis <DDAVIS@HOLLANDHART.COM> on 03/09/2000 04:37:52 PM
To: bdavis@enron.com, bmcafee@enron.com, bzikes@enron.com, ccheek@enron.com,
mlawles@enron.com
cc: jplace@enron.com, sscrogg@enron.com, staci_holtzman@enron.com,
tlehan@enron.com

Subject: Grynberg - March 17 hearing

In the past couple of days, I have been deluged with
last-minute requests to videoconference into the March 17
hearing on the motions to dismiss.  We are well past the
deadlines Sprint asked us to comply with (February 25 for
private sites and March 1 for public sites).  At this stage,
adding new sites to such a large, nationwide
videoconference is extraordinarily burdensome, requiring
Sprint to move the entire conference to a different bridging
system, change the dial-in numbers, etc.  Also of importance
is the fact that the bridging system has space limitations.

Please e-mail me with all videoconference requests no later
than 12 p.m. Mountain tomorrow (Friday, March 10).  After the
noon cutoff, we will no longer be able to entertain additional
videoconference requests.  In the meantime, I will do my
best to accommodate the late requests we've received.

I will be sending out a detailed memo tomorrow afternoon
that lists all the sites that have been booked, along with
those who've made reservations.  Each of you planning to
videoconference will need to check carefully to be sure your
reservation is reflected in my memo.  In addition, many of
the sites have extremely limited seating, so please do not
plan to show up at a public site without a reservation.

Thanks to all of you for your consideration.

Dawne Davis
Legal Assistant
Holland & Hart
P.O. Box 1347
Cheyenne, WY  82003
307-778-4240
307-778-8175 - fax
ddavis@hollandhart.com

NOTICE:  This message is PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL.  It is sent under the terms and conditions of
a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) and is directed only to
recipients who the sender believes have agreed to be
bound by the JDA.  If you do not agree to be bound by the
JDA, or if you believe that this e-mail has been sent to you in
error, please reply to notify the sender that you received the
message in error, and please delete and disregard this
e-mail.  Thank you.


HTTP/1.1 200
Server: Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:46:06 GMT
Content-type: text/x-oasis-csv
Connection: close

REQUEST_STATUS=200
ERROR_MESSAGE=
TIME_STAMP=20010411214606PD
VERSION=1.4
TEMPLATE=transstatus
OUTPUT_FORMAT=DATA
PRIMARY_PROVIDER_CODE=SPP
PRIMARY_PROVIDER_DUNS=959415852
RETURN_TZ=PD
DATA_ROWS=1
COLUMN_HEADERS=CONTINUATION_FLAG,ASSIGNMENT_REF,SELLER_CODE,SELLER_DUNS,CUSTOM
ER_CODE,CUSTOMER_DUNS,AFFILIATE_FLAG,PATH_NAME,POINT_OF_RECEIPT,POINT_OF_DELIV
ERY,SOURCE,SINK,CAPACITY_REQUESTED,CAPACITY_GRANTED,SERVICE_INCREMENT,TS_CLASS
,TS_TYPE,TS_PERIOD,TS_WINDOW,TS_SUBCLASS,NERC_CURTAILMENT_PRIORITY,OTHER_CURTA
ILMENT_PRIORITY,START_TIME,STOP_TIME,CEILING_PRICE,OFFER_PRICE,BID_PRICE,PRICE
_UNITS,PRECONFIRMED,ANC_SVC_LINK,ANC_SVC_REQ,POSTING_REF,SALE_REF,REQUEST_REF,
DEAL_REF,IMPACTED,COMPETING_REQUEST_FLAG,REQ
UEST_TYPE,RELATED_REF,NEGOTIATED_PRICE_FLAG,STATUS,STATUS_NOTIFICATION,STATUS_
COMMENTS,TIME_QUEUED,RESPONSE_TIME_LIMIT,TIME_OF_LAST_UPDATE,PRIMARY_PROVIDER_
COMMENTS,SELLER_REF,SELLER_COMMENTS,CUSTOMER_COMMENTS,SELLER_NAME,SELLER_PHONE
,SELLER_FAX,SELLER_EMAIL,CUSTOMER_NAME,CUSTOMER_PHONE,CUSTOMER_FAX,CUSTOMER_EM
AIL,REASSIGNED_REF,REASSIGNED_CAPACITY,REASSIGNED_START_TIME,REASSIGNED_STOP_T
IME
N,SPP
01007383,SPP,959415852,EPMI,848921276,N,CONTROL/HILLTOP,SVR55,HIL345,"CISO","P
ACE",12,12,HOURLY,NON-FIRM,POINT_TO_POINT,OFF_PEAK,FIXED,W/O ANCILLARY
SRVCS,1,,20010411220000PD,20010412060000PD,3.9000,3.9000,3.9000,MW-HR,Y,SC:(SP
P:RQ);,SC:M;,,,,,0,N,ORIGINAL,,,QUEUED,MAILTO:mark.guzman@enron.com;,,20010411
194524PD,20010411201500PD,20010411194524PD,,,,,Carolyn
Bonari,(775)834-4180,(775)834-4296,sppc.oasis@sppc.com,Don
Norman,,(503)464-3740,lester.rawson@enron.com,,,,


-----Original Message-----
From: 	"Richard Toubia" <richard.toubia@truequote.com <mailto:richard.toubia@truequote.com>>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Richard+20Toubia+22+20+3Crichard+2Etoubia+40truequote+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] <mailto:[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Richard+20Toubia+22+20+3Crichard+2Etoubia+40truequote+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]>
Sent:	Monday, July 16, 2001 6:43 AM
To:	Allen, Phillip K.
Subject:	RE: Party

Would have loved to have you.  We had lots of beer and great food.  Let's go
for lunch or drinks, it is on Truequote, so bring couple of people if you
want, buyt keep it small so we can catch up.

Take care

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen, Phillip K. [mailto:Phillip.K.Allen@ENRON.com] <mailto:[mailto:Phillip.K.Allen@ENRON.com]>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:23 AM
To: Toubia, Richard
Subject: RE: Party

Richard,

I hope your party was a success.  Sorry I could not attend.  Stay in
touch.

Phillip

		 -----Original Message-----
		From: 	"Richard Toubia"
<richard.toubia@truequote.com <mailto:richard.toubia@truequote.com>>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Richard+20Toubia+22+20+3Crichard+2Etoubia+40truequ
ote+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com <mailto:ote+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com>]
		Sent:	Wednesday, July 11, 2001 11:48 AM
		To:	pallen@enron.com <mailto:pallen@enron.com>
		Subject:	Party

		Phillip:

		Here is info about the party I am having.  It's has been
a long time I
		haven't seen you, so try to come (I know you usually do
not).  Try to bring
		Hunty and some other old timers.  Don't worry about the
fact that it is to
		celebrate the "Launching of True Quote and EOL link", it
was supposed to
		take place on June 9th, but we got flooded out!  I am
inviting bunch of
		friends and few colleagues and some of the EOL people I
work with.

		My phone at work is 713 622 5243

		Richard
		>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
		You are cordially invited to a party at my house to
celebrate True Quote's
		true launch and the completed integration with
EnronOnline.  But these are
		just excuses!.
		We all had too many Mylanta moments and we need to drink
it up.

		Time:  Saturday JULY 14, 2001 at 8:00 PM
		Place:  415 W 22 Street in the Heights (on 22nd Street
between Shepherd and
		Yale).
		Phone: (713) 862-8268
		Dress Code: As long as you don't get arrested for Public
Indecency
		Parking: on 22nd Street and in a parking lot at corner
of 22nd and Ashland
		Light food and drinks.

		Map is enclosed for directions.

		Hope you can join us

		 - Picture << File: Picture >>


The plans are up in the air. The first weekend that everyone can make it


Jennifer--could you please send an electronic version of the matrix to Mr. Dasovich.  thanks.

Jeff--you'll note when you review the chart that we don't have anything on it regarding gas.  COuld you please provide Jennifer or me with into if you know it?  thanks.


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<title>SmartReminders.com</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="155,1,288,22" href="http://smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=main">
<area shape="rect" coords="288,-2,431,19" href="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=MySmartReminders">
<area shape="rect" coords="431,1,522,22" href="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=MyProfile">
<area shape="rect" coords="522,1,628,22" href="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=refer_a_friend">
</map>

PLEASE
VISIT OUR SPONSORS:

3'x5' Outdoor Flag $9.95. SAVE $25.00! When you buy a flag,we will donate 10% of total Flag Sales to the American Red Cross designated to the relief efforts in New York.

CLICK HERE.

        Dear Mike Grigsby,

NFL ODDS

Saturday

FAVORITE           OPEN     TODAY   O/U         UNDERDOG

at New England       3        3     (37)        Miami

at San Francisco     3        3     (40 1/2 )   Philadelphia

at Oakland           6 1/2    5     (46)        Tennessee

Sunday

at Tampa Bay         3        3     (38)        New Orleans

St. Louis           12 1/2   12     (47)        at Carolina

at Kansas City       3        3     (40 1/2 )   San Diego

at N.Y. Giants       4        3 1/2 (35)        Seattle

at Atlanta           4        4     (40 1/2 )   Buffalo

Chicago              2 1/2    2     (33)        at Washington

at Baltimore        10       11     (33 1/2 )   Cincinnati

at Green Bay         8 1/2    8     (38)        Cleveland

at Pittsburgh        9       10     (36 1/2 )   Detroit

at Arizona           3 1/2    3 1/2 (37 1/2 )   Dallas

at Minnesota         3 1/2  OFF     (OFF)       Jacksonville

at Indianapolis      2        1     (47)        N.Y. Jets

            <form name="form1" method="post" action="http://www.smartreminders.com/webtracking/go.cfm">

                <select name="goURL">
                  <option value="http://www.smartreminders.com/" selected>---COOL
                  NEW REMINDERS---</option>
                  <option value="http://smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&TopicID=190">Great Quotes of the Day</option>
                  <option value="http://smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&TopicID=178">Travel Digest</option>
                  <option value="http://smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&topicID=198">Pet Tips</option>
                </select>
                <input type="image" border="0" name="imageField" src="http://a1252.g.akamai.net/7/1252/1122/03877f1bd3a9c7/www.smartreminders.com/images/akamai/go.gif" width="30" height="36">

            </form>

    			<form name="form1" method="post" action="http://www.smartreminders.com/webtracking/go.cfm">

                <select name="goURL">
                  <option value="http://www.smartreminders.com/" selected>---FAVORITE
                  REMINDERS---</option>
                  <option value="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&TopicID=128">Entertainment News</option>
                  <option value="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&TopicID=59">Children's Product Recalls</option>
                  <option value="http://www.smartreminders.com/index.cfm?method=demoemail&TopicID=105">U.S. Market Indicies</option>
                </select>
                <input type="image" border="0" name="imageField2" src="http://a1252.g.akamai.net/7/1252/1122/03877f1bd3a9c7/www.smartreminders.com/images/akamai/go.gif" width="30" height="36">

            </form>

Get helpful ideas and insights from other small business owners and entrepreneurs. Sign up for Advice for Small Business.

            CLICK HERE.

To
  unsubscribe from this Reminder topic, click
  here.

  To unsubscribe
  from SmartReminders altogether, click
  here.


Diana:

This is something Alan Aronowitz would handle.  He is currently in Tokyo.

Jeff Hodge
----- Forwarded by Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT on 07/25/2000 04:12 PM -----

	Tana Jones
	07/25/2000 10:25 AM

		 To: Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Metals for Japan

Jeff,

Would you handle this or would Alan, or both of you?
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 07/25/2000 10:25 AM -----

	Diana Seifert
	07/25/2000 10:02 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Metals for Japan

Hi Tana,

Our legal dept. informed me that Houston would deal with inquiries reg. Japan
(pls see e-mail below).
Could you give me a quick update please.
Thank you.

Best regards

Diana Seifert
EOL PCG

---------------------- Forwarded by Diana Seifert/LON/ECT on 25/07/2000 15:59
---------------------------

Diana Seifert
25/07/2000 09:42
To: Edmund Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Metals for Japan

Hi Edmund,

I was told that you are still working on the due dilligence for selling
metals to Japan.
MG would like to know how long it will take until we can trade metals with
our Japanese friends as we will (hopefully) introduce a
Phy. Al contract, CIF Japanese port basis. soon.
One of their guys will go to Japan soon to 'promote' it.

Any idea ?
Thanks.

Rgds

Diana