Contents:

1) Note from Don Evans   www.bushcheneytransition.com
2) Comments from US Supreme Court Justice Scalia
3) Comments from Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles T. Wells

______________________________________________

Greetings Friends,

The election results in Florida have been certified in accordance with
Florida state law and the rulings of the Florida Supreme Court, and Governor
Bush and Secretary Cheney have won that state's 25 electoral votes.  It is
now time to get on with the business of organizing a new administration.

In order to begin that task, we have filed articles of incorporation for the
Bush/Cheney Presidential Transition Foundation, a non-profit corporation.  As
past transition foundations have done, we are applying for 501(c)(4) status
from the Internal Revenue Service.  Now we are asking for your help as our
team moves forward with plans for an orderly transition process in the short
period between now and inauguration day, January 20, 2001.

While the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended in 1988,
specifically authorizes public funds for transitions, it also makes
provisions for raising contributions from private sources to help defray
transition-related expenses.  This has been done previously, most recently in
1992.  We are now soliciting contributions from our most active supporters.
Would you please visit our new transition website at
www.bushcheneytransition.com and make a contribution on our secure server.

We have made the decision to accept contributions only from individuals.  No
corporate or political action committee contributions will be accepted.
Contributions may not exceed $5,000 per person or $10,000 per couple, and all
contributors, in compliance with Governor Bush's position of full-disclosure
of financial contributions, will be posted on the transition website on a
real-time basis.  These contributions will not count against an individual's
annual political contribution federal giving limit of $25,000.

The American voters have spoken, and we are moving forward to establish a
government that will unify our country and make the common principles we
share as Americans our first priority.

If you have questions, please contact the Transition Foundation's finance
office at 512-344-3722.  All other transition inquiries should be directed to
our office in McLean, VA at (703) 918-2900. Your support of the Bush/Cheney
Presidential Transition Foundation is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

Donald L. Evans
Board of Directors
www.bushcheneytransition.com
Bush/Cheney Presidential Transition Foundation, Inc.
Paid for by Bush/Cheney Presidential Transition Foundation, Inc.

______________________________________________

2)

Comments from US Supreme Court Justice Scalia

"One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely
whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a
reasonable interpretation of Florida law, 'legally cast vote[s].'  The
counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten
irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon
what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.  Count first, and rule
upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that
have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

"Another issue in this case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the
constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters'
intent- dimpled chad, hanging chads, etc.- vary from county to county, as the
Florida Supreme court opinion, as interpreted by the Circuit Court, permits.
If petitioner [Bush] is correct that counting in this fashion is unlawful,
permitting the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent an
accurate recount from being conducted on a proper basis later, since it is
generally agreed that each manual recount produces a degradation of the
ballots, which renders a subsequent recount inaccurate."

Click here to review the Order of the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore,
Saturday, 12-9-2000
http://mail.echampions2000.com/GoNow/a14064a27877a56615396a2

______________________________________________

3)

Comments from Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles T. Wells

DISSENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES J. WELLS
"I...believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand scrutiny which
will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution."
Excerpt:
"I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not
question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the
majority. However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to
reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe
that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will
certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution."

"My succinct conclusion is that the majority's decision...has no foundation
in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at anytime until
the issuance of this opinion. The majority returns the case to the circuit
court for this partial recount of  under-votes on the basis of unknown or, at
best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from others, the
credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally unknown.
That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems that the majority
creates."

"This case has reached the point where finality must take precedence over
continued judicial process. I agree with a quote from John Allen Paulos, a
professor of mathematics at Temple University, when he wrote that, "[t]he
margin of error in this election is far greater than the margin of victory,
no matter who wins." Further judicial process will not change this
self-evident fact and will only result in confusion and disorder. Justice
Terrell and this Court wisely counseled against such a course of action
sixty-four years ago. I would heed that sound advice and affirm Judge Sauls."

Click here to review the Florida Supreme Court Opinion in Gore v. Harris,
Friday, December 8, 2000
http://mail.echampions2000.com/GoNow/a14064a27877a56615396a0

______________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from the eChampion mailing list, follow this link:

http://mail.echampions2000.com/GoNow/a14064a27877a56615396a1

To become an eChampion follow this link:

http://mail.echampions2000.com/GoNow/a14064a27877a56615396a3

Paid for by Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition Foundation, Inc.


Here is a chart cross-referencing Gas Daily price points with points of TW,
for purposes of imbalance valuation.  If you have questions call Jeff or me.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 08/11/2000
10:01 AM ---------------------------

Jeffery Fawcett
08/11/2000 09:59 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: New TW price points

Susan,
As requested in yesterday's meeting, Lindy and I came up with the attached
matrix of prices for purposes of valuing TW imbalances.  Let me know if you
have any questions.


Start Date: 4/16/01; HourAhead hour: 15;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041615.txt


I have one question about a receipt you have from Teala's Mexican Restaurant
for dinner on Tuesday, Oct. 10. The total is $36. Did you have dinner by
yourself, or with someone else? If so, who? Let me know when you get a chance
so we can send this off and get you some money.


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Hanagriff, Richard
Sent:	Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:42 PM
To:	Schoolcraft, Darrell
Subject:	tw imbalances


Hi Sara, here is a spreadsheet of the power financial trades we have done for
the last two weeks.

Thanks,
Melissa
3-1886


CP ID  From     To
94963  Gulf Coast Fibers, Inc.   Gulf Coast Fibres, Inc.


ill try, and no i dont

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wollam [mailto:erwollam@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:07 PM
To: Parks, Joe
Subject: Re: YO

any chance for tonight. its going to cost 45 to rent one from aztec...hey do
you know anyone over there who can score me a better price??

>From: "Parks, Joe" <Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net>
>To: "Erik Wollam (E-mail)" <erwollam@hotmail.com>
>Subject: YO
>Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 14:04:26 -0500
>
>Was unable to make contact about the trailer. soryy about the delay, just a
>little busy dodging bullets
>
>
>************************************************************************
>This e-mail is the property of Bridgeline Holdings, L.P. and/or its
>relevant affiliate(s) 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 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
>Bridgeline Holdings, L.P. (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.
>************************************************************************
>

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


I look forward to the updated supply demand analysis.

John

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tripp, Garrett [mailto:IMCEAEX-_O=ENRON_OU=NA_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=NOTESADDR_CN=2D615890-65373F13-86256660-73818D@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, February 19, 2001 10:10 AM
To:	Lavorato, John
Cc:	Davis, Mark Dana
Subject:	FW: Updated Information

John,

Per your request this fall for updated Ontario Supply and Demand information, this email is confirmation that OPG has agreed to release updated transitional 2000 market data.   Once this data is posted to the IMO website, I will forward you a complete & updated Ontario Supply and Demand report (as my last report was not complete due to OPGs previous refusal to update the data they provide to the IMO).

Garrett

FYI
----- Forwarded by Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT on 02/19/2001 10:44 AM -----

	SINGER J Mr -STRTGC+INV P <joel.singer@ontariopowergeneration.com> 02/19/2001 10:40 AM 	   To: "'aleck.dadson@enron.com'" <aleck.dadson@enron.com>  cc:   Subject: FW: Updated Information

-----Original Message-----
From:	SINGER J Mr -STRTGC+INV P
Sent:	Monday, February 19, 2001 10:37 AM
To:	'alec.dadson@enron.com'
Cc:	BARRETT Andrew -LAW+CRP DEV; SLINGER Lynn -LAW+CRP DEV; BOLAND,
Bruce; SIMAO, Helena
Subject:	Updated Information

Alec:

Sorry for the delay in responding to your request for updates to the
information that OPG provided through the IMO's Transitional Information
Team process. After considering the merits of your request, and in the
interests of fostering continued good relations, we have decided to update
the Transitional Team information with relevant year 2000 data.

In order to be fair to all market participants, we propose giving the
updated information to the IMO and asking them to update their Website. We
have approached the IMO in this regard and the preliminary indications are
that they are willing to do this.

As you recall the Transition Information Team process resulted in the
release of approximately 43 different types of reports (I have attached a
list of these reports below). Generally, the reports fall into four
categories: (1) reports produced by the IMO released with our consent or the
consent of other parties as appropriate (i.e. Hydro One), (2)
information/reports produced by OPG, (3) information/ reports produced by
others, (4) one-off information items that would not be updated. In terms of
the specific information to be released,  I have highlighted in gray on the
attached chart the reports that we are planning on releasing and the reports
that we will work with the IMO to get released.

We are currently working with people inside the company and the IMO to
gather the information needed for the proposed information release. I will
advise you shortly on how this is progressing. Please call if you wish to
discuss.

Joel Singer
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
 <<RELEASABLE REPORTS 2000.doc>>

 - RELEASABLE REPORTS 2000.doc << File: RELEASABLE REPORTS 2000.doc >>


PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ENRON STOCK FUND IN THE ENRON CORP. SAVINGS AND ESOP PLANS

On Friday, January 11, trading of Enron stock was suspended on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).  All Savings and ESOP Plan transactions, including 401(k) payroll contributions,  involving this fund were placed in a pending status until trading resumed.

As announced by Enron's Office of the Chair on Wednesday, January 16, Enron stock would now be traded Over The Counter (OTC).  Upon receiving this information, work began immediately to develop a process that allows for OTC trades in the plans.

On Thursday, January 17, Enron initiated a process to facilitate OTC trades of Enron stock inside the 401(k) and ESOP and all pending transactions were processed using Thursday's closing price.

Now that trading has resumed, we urge you to review your investment elections to ensure that they are consistent with your investment goals.

As things change, we will continue to update you.

Enron Benefits Department


very interesting!


fyi

Elizabeth Sager
713-853-6349

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hall, Steve C.
Sent:	Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:53 PM
To:	Sager, Elizabeth
Cc:	Yoder, Christian; Walton, Steve; Semperger, Cara
Subject:	Proposed Delivery Point Language

Here is my proposal for a definition of Delivery Point to address the risk that RTO-West will change the existing delivery points to a zonal system:

Delivery Point:  Mid-C or, if the Delivery Point of Mid-C ceases to exist or is modified by RTO-West or similar entity, the zone, physical location, or bus that reasonably resembles Mid-C in terms of liquidity, homogeneity, and physical location.

Any suggestions?

Steve


As follow-up documentation for the Intraday sale on 9/6/00, the following
states
the pricing for the redeliveries:

8500 MMBTU from Fuels Cotton Valley priced per Paragraph 1a of the Contract
Price (per MMBTU) section in the Transaction Agreement.
10955 MMBTU at ETGS Carthage Hub Tailgate priced per Paragraph 1c of the
Contract Price (per MMBTU) section in the Transaction Agreement
10545 MMBTU at CIPCO/Mobile Beaumont  which is priced differently than
Paragraph
1b of the Contract Price (per MMBTU) section in the Transaction Agreement.
The
price for 10545 MMBTU for 9/6/00 will be HSC Daily plus $.04/MMBTU.

Please confirm the above by replying to this E-Mail message.
---------------------- Forwarded by Marta K Henderson/Houston/PEFS/PEC on
09/06/2000 01:07 PM ---------------------------

Marta K Henderson
09/06/2000 09:58 AM

To:   Darrel F. Bane/EastTexas/PEFS/PEC@PEC, John A. Bretz/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC,
Chad
      W. Cass/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC, Michael R. Cherry/EastTexas/PEFS/PEC@PEC, Bruce
      McMills/FtWorth/PEFS/PEC@PEC, William E. Speckels/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC, Donna
      C. Spencer/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC, Julia A. Urbanek/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC, Dora J.
      Levy/GCS/CEC/PEC@PEC, briley@enron.com, dfarmer@enron.com,
      carlos.j.rodriguez@enron.com, Sharon Beemer/FtWorth/PEFS/PEC@PEC, Connie
      Wester/EastTexas/PEFS/PEC@PEC
cc:

Subject:  Intraday Eastrans Nominations change for 9/6/00 and Nomination for
      9/7/00

Deliveries continue to be 30,000 MMBtu/dy

The redeliveries will be:

8500 from Fuels Cotton Valley
10955 to HPL's Cartwheel Agreement at Carthage
10545 at Mobil Beaumont

Effective for 9/7/00, deliveries to Eastrans continue to be 30,000 MMBtu/dy

The redeliveries will be:

8500 from Fuels Cotton Valley
21500 to HPL's Cartwheel Agreement at Carthage


Jeff, can you set this up, you can coordinate with my admin, Sharon.

Jeremy
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES on 09/22/2001 05:29 PM ---------------------------
From:	Jeff Dasovich/ENRON@enronXgate on 09/22/2001 10:15 AM
To:	Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject:	RE: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA

Sounds good. Just let me know if you'd like to set up the call, or if you'd like me to do it.

Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Blachman, Jeremy
Sent: Sat 9/22/2001 5:00 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc:
Subject: Re: Intention to Challenge the California's PUC's Decision to Suspend DA

We must go after this. I need some specific direction with exactly what you would like us to have our clients do. I see this as breaking our market down into the following as each are effected a bit differently:

- a specific alignment with the contracts we signed in August

- those clients we are marketing to, and can't sign a new contract due to the suspension

- existing clients whom we are risk with if there are ANY restrictions on extensions

Suggest that we set-up a call on Mon or Tues. Would like myself, Angela Schwarz, Lamar Frazier, David Cox, Gayle Muench and Michael Mann in attendance


Deal 386264 has a start date of 9/1/00.

D

Mary Poorman@ENRON
10/30/2000 04:02 PM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Pat Clynes/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Sale to Rhone Poule meter 988078

I have a sale at the above referenced meter which begins on the 5th of
October.  Gas flowed for the first four days without a deal.  Please input a
deal to cover.

Thank you,

Mary


David, you may be getting to the nub here.  Ultimately, this is a lot more
art than science.  It will be difficult to come up with a mathematic decision
rule to manage this process.  I am looking to the opinions of yourself, Ray,
Dick and Jeff, given the facts in each case, does this appear to be a good
trade given the market, the specifics of the company, the carrying costs of
the asset and perhaps our desire to increase capital flow to higher return
assets (ROCE >25%).

This is clearly not a fire sale and I trust the opinion or consensus that
comes from this group.  As a result, I need to have a positve consensus from
this group in each case.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 09/29/2000
09:55 AM ---------------------------

David Gorte
09/29/2000 09:48 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Donahue/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard
Lydecker/Corp/Enron@Enron, Raymond Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Basic

Dave,

Your comments on the Basic DASH are well-taken.  We will clarify what RAC
views as the current valuation of Basic as well as RAC's recommendation with
respect to this divestiture and modify the DASH as quickly as possible.

Your comments prompted a question with regard to ENA's divestiture strategy.
Is it correct to assume that if we use a typical market liquidity premium of
30% (i.e., future divestiture proceeds are 70% of the expected terminal value
at the divestiture date to account for potential changes in future market
conditions) in a sale deferral scenario and this deferral results in a higher
NPV at the RAC capital price than the proposed sale proceeds, ENA would elect
to retain the asset?  Or should a higher than "market" capital price be
assigned by RAC to these assets earmarked for divestiture?

Regards,

Dave


Kay,
As things continue to move ahead on the other doc's (with Greg), I would like
to priority to go to getting the first draft of the transfer price agreement
as soon as possible.  Per your note below, I think Monday could be feasible
with the expectation to get a draft to Peoples before the end of next week.
In addition, the below agreement will no doubt be edited in the next week.

Thanx,

Laura

	From:  Kay Mann                           09/08/2000 07:45 AM

To: Laura Luce/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Manlove monetization

Laura,

Here's the revised version:

Here's a compared version so you will know what I did:

I'll work on the transfer price agreement today or this weekend so we will
have something to discuss.

I'm planning on being in Chicago on Thursday if you would like to discuss any
of these matters.

Kay


Done.

D

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Megan Parker @ ENRON                           03/26/2001 11:14 AM

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Duke Energy Field 7/00

We are finally closing another month.  Please change the demand fee on deal
157278 for July 2000 from $33,239.39 to $22,159.22.

Thanks,
Megan


You De Man!

"Veselack, Joni" <joni.veselack@neg.pge.com> on 09/27/2000 02:07:48 PM
To: "'Chris.Germany@enron.com'" <Chris.Germany@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: How is

I'm trying to release capacity... what a scary thought. It's fun to try
other things!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris.Germany@enron.com [mailto:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:26 PM
To: joni.veselack@neg.pge.com
Subject: RE: How is

There's always a profit in gen-tile and calm.  I'm Judy's boy.  I know
nothing about Vickie.

"Veselack, Joni" <joni.veselack@neg.pge.com> on 09/27/2000 10:43:48 AM

To:   "'Chris.Germany@enron.com'" <Chris.Germany@enron.com>
cc:
Subject:  RE: How is

I thought Miss Vicki was your new partner???

Our bid week is very gentle and calm... how refreshing!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris.Germany@enron.com [mailto:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:53 AM
To: joni.veselack@neg.pge.com
Subject: Re: How is

I got no new partner, I;m a solo act.  Bid Week?  Crazy as usual.

PG&E Generating, PG&E Energy Trading or any other company referenced herein
that uses the PG&E name or logo are not the same company as Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, the regulated California utility.
Neither PG&E Gen, PG&E Energy Trading nor these other referenced companies
are regulated by
the California Public Utilities Commission.  Customers of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company do not
have to buy products from these companies in order to continue to receive
quality regulated services from the utility.

PG&E National Energy Group and any other
company referenced herein that uses the PG&E name or
logo are not the same company as Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, the regulated California utility.  Neither
PG&E National Energy Group nor these other
referenced companies are regulated by the California Public
Utilities Commission.  Customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Company
do not have to buy products from these companies in order
to continue to receive quality regulated services from the utility.


I'm looking for the following demand charges

$93835.00
(12.314.60)

Do you see those anywhere?  They are on deal 554846.


Theresa attached are renegotiation letters as discussed.

 Please note I did not find an address for Coleman in our files.  Also, I have not prepared letters for Howell Petroleum and North Central Oil Corporation.

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


Good.  Does that mean I'll see you there?

"Keffer, John" <JKeffer@KSLAW.com> on 03/29/2001 10:47:52 AM
To: "C. Kay Mann (E-mail)" <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Appointments

Just to confirm, we both have appointments on Tuesday at 4:05.

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.


If you don't know about the NNG quality posting that's probably a good sign that it hasn't been posted yet.  I'm hoping to have a conversation with Mary Kay tomorrow before its posted. Thanks.  Get back to your kid stuff now!


Yours!
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 01/29/2001
01:54 PM ---------------------------

Janet R Dietrich
01/29/2001 09:17 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Options Trader

Dave, East power trading does not have any options capability now. We don't
price options very well and we have little capability to manage them
effectively. This will be a huge hindrance to deals this year. I would really
appreciate your focus on this.
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT on 01/29/2001
09:10 AM ---------------------------

Janet R Dietrich
01/29/2001 09:10 AM
To: John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron
cc:
Subject: Options Trader

Hey John. Have you worked out the green card issues with the TXU options
trader? What's the status and timeline for getting him here? Also, Bruce
Sukaly will be talking with you about Steve Wang's option's background. I
think you should talk with Steve and decide whether he can fill some of our
voids from an option pricing/management standpoint.

Thanks.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 02/12/2001
03:12 PM ---------------------------

From:  Cassandra Schultz @ ENRON
               02/06/2001 01:14 PM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Trading Limit and Policy Changes

Vince -

Here's a summary of what's going to the BOD, along with updated policy.  Feel
free to call me if you have any questions.

Regards,
Cassandra.


I anticipate that Enron may have some legal issues in New York similar to the
issues Enron has faced in California.  Can you recommend a top notch trial
lawyer (similar to yourself) at any firms in New York?

Thanks


Men's SEC Basketball Tournament tickets are now available @
http://autigertickets.com  or call 1-800-282-1957.

$200 each - Lower Level


Ben: I drafted an answer to the SPCC question.

Gus


Kenny, as you may know, there were 9 environmental applications submitted
to various local, state, and regional agencies requesting approval to
initiate this project and most of the requests apply to crossing the bypass
channel.   As of today, we have received one approval, and that from the
State Fire Marshall, Office of Pipeline Safety granting us a waiver so that
we can lay the pipe above ground as opposed to below ground.  I have calls
into  the other agencies  for which applications and requests were
submitted but have had no reply.  I would caution that we might get into
trouble for initiating a construction project without consent and approval
from a particular agency, as agencies many times look at an entire project
even though their jurisdiction may only apply in one specific area of a
project.  This is particularily the case in air permitting where an
applicant can not even construct a road or bring in construction materials
until the air permit is issued.  Because this is my first project in
California, Id like to be sure of this and make follow up calls to all
agencies for which applications and requests were submitted and verify that
we can initiate the construction, as long as we dont impact a specific  or
strategic portion (ie  the bypass channel)  for sometime down the road when
we are well into the project.   Ill call you tomorrow and let you
know.......

Kenny_Maltby@eott.com on 03/08/2001 02:13:39 PM

To:   Matt_Hughes%ENRON@EOTT.COM, Bob_Jacobs@eott.com,
      edward.attanasio@eott.com, susan.Ralph@eott.com,
      Molly.Sample@eott.com, larry.campbell@enron.com,
      rich.jolly@enron.com, john.shafer@enron.com, louis.soldana@enron.com,
      Scott_Jones@eott.com
cc:

Subject:  Rogas Pipelines

We are going to start the Rogas project Monday 03/12/2001. The first 2500
ft leaving Rogas is across a carrot field that has been harvested and is
not in any habitat. The farmer is due to start working the field the 24th
so we need to get the pipe laid. The contractor is going to start with a
reduced crew and expects to be finished crossing the initial 2500 ft by the
end of the week. The following things must be accomplished early next week
so we can continue construction.

Checks received so we can purchase compensation credits from Kern Water
Bank and Area.

Be added to the KWB's Master Permit. That will happen when they receive
there check.

Insurance certificates in the hands of the Kern County Water Agency and
West Kern Water.

If the contractor has to stop we may be faced with additional mobilization
and demobilization charges.


(See attached file: irfta.pdf)

Carr Futures
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606  USA
Tel:  312-368-6149
Fax:  312-368-2281
soblander@carrfut.com
http://www.carrfut.com
 - irfta.pdf


"Gantner, Craig" <craig.gantner@nrgenergy.com> writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

If I read Mr. Palazzo's message correctly, the ISO is acting as a paid
consultant doing contract work for NYPA?

Now I am starting to share some of Roy's discomfort.

Not only does this call into question the objectivity of such contracted
studies, it also offers some insight into the inability for non-paying
participants to get their technical issues addressed by the ISO.
Craig Gantner
NRG Power Marketing

-----Original Message-----
From: Palazzo, William [mailto:William.Palazzo@nypa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:17 AM
To: 'market_relations@nyiso.com'; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements

"Palazzo, William" <William.Palazzo@nypa.gov> writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

In response to Roy's comments.  NYPA is paying for all the work conducted by
the ISO staff.  NYPA defined the study objective and all the ISO staff did
was conduct the MARS studies and document the results in the write-up we
provided to the tech exchange.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy J. Shanker [mailto:royjshanker@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:35 PM
To: market_relations@nyiso.com; nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
Subject: RE: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements

"Roy J. Shanker" <royjshanker@worldnet.att.net> writes to the
NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

As a separate item to the concerns I had about the technical content, I was
a little confused on what was done here administratively. The last paragraph
says something about NYPA sharing the study. I didn't think they had
anything at all to say about it in the first place if it is an ISO work
product. If they do, could you explain why this is the case? If the ISO did
this, why wasn't this all posted on the OASIS at the same time NYPA got
this? The date on this shows a March 26 release.  Ignore these comments if
this was done, but I wasn't aware of this.

I am more than a little uncomfortable with a single market participant
having a month's lead time on ISO studies that can have significant
commercial impact. Think about the implications of this in the context of
people negotiating long term bi lateral ICAP agreements over the last month.
Depending on your take on the type of market changes that this type of
analysis might support, there could be enormous changes to the economics of
seasonal versus annual agreements, choice of equipment etc. This simply
isn't fair. Even if posted, this type of work by the ISO that can have large
potential commercial impacts should go out on all of the distributions at
the same time as release to anyone and OASIS posting.

Roy J. Shanker
9009 Burning Tree Road
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-365-3654
301-365-3657 FAX
royjshanker@worldnet.att.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net
[mailto:owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.thebiz.net]On Behalf Of Palazzo,
William
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:42 PM
To: 'nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net'
Subject: NYPA study-Winter Locational ICAP requirements

At NYPA's request ISO staff conducted a limited analysis of
the winter locational ICAP requirements for Long Island and New York City
areas.  While such ICAP requirements have historically been set as a single
number for the entire year, it is NYPA's belief that this holdover from the
old way of doing business must be re-examined.  It is NYPA's belief that
most if not all of the contribution to loss of load risk occurs in the
summer months.  As such, some reduction in winter ICAP requirements should
be possible with no impact on the Loss of Load criterion of one day in ten
years.

NYPA requested that the ISO start with the database that
resulted in the locational requirements of 80% and 98% for New York City and
Long Island, respectively.   At NYPA's request the ISO modeled winter
ratings on the transmission interfaces into NYC and LI and determined how
much the 80% and 98% could be reduced in the winter before any impact on the
statewide Loss Of Load  occurred.  The report indicates that winter
requirements of 75% and 92% of the summer peak load resulted for NYC and LI,
respectively.

While this in no way reflects an exhaustive analysis of winter
locational requirements, the results from this study suggest that some
reduction in the winter         requirement may be warranted and a
consideration of seasonal requirements should be incorporated in future ICAP
requirement studies.   NYPA believes that       having an ICAP requirement
for summer and winter seasons based on the LSE's peak load for the
respective season would send the proper ICAP price signal.

NYPA is sharing the study results in the attached report in
an effort to begin a dialog which we hope will lead to a broader examination
of locational requirements when the issue is revisited again next year.  We
would appreciate hearing the views of other market participants.

<<NYPA_LR_wint.PDF>>  <<TRAN_SYS_001129.PDF>>


This should be the final (or at least almost final) version.  The amounts are
correct.


I'm not sure why this came to me, but I thought I would share it anyway.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 07/24/2000 01:52
PM ---------------------------

"Carmen Halsell" <CHalsell@winston.com> on 07/20/2000 06:22:06 PM
To: <robtaylor@andrews-kurth.com>, <kay.mann@enron.com>,
<lisa.bills@enron.com>, <rengeld@enron.com>, <frederik_aldin@westlb.com>
cc:

Subject: Sections 7.2(f) and 8.4 of GenPower and Mitsubishi ADAs

Pursuant to the request of Fred Aldin, attached are marked copies of
both the GenPower ADA and the Mitsubishi ADA showing the changes to
Sections 7.2(f) and 8.4.

 - Mitsubishi ADA2.doc
 - GenPower ADA2.doc
 - Mitsubishi ADA1.doc
 - GenPower ADA1.doc


Teco Tap       103.125 / HPL Gas Daily

LS HPL LSK IC       30.000 / Enron


We also need a box that says "Include only Dart Deals"

Please also  make absolutely sure that this is included in the PSW build route, as we use it nearly exclusively now.Vish knows about our problems with that.

Cara

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Chang, Fran
Sent:	Monday, November 26, 2001 1:27 PM
To:	Semperger, Cara
Subject:	DART product

Cara:

Please see the attached email below for what IT is planning to modify Build Routing report to accomodate and differentiate DART products.  From what we've discussed, you would like to have the default as with the "exclude DART deals" checked, right?  Also, did you also say you want IT to create another function for this report to run DART deals only (so the report will only show DART products) so real time schedulers can run it to see what he/she needs to pick up?

-Fran

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kraltchev, Nikolay
Sent:	Monday, November 26, 2001 12:52 PM
To:	Chang, Fran
Subject:	DART product

Fran,

We worked on excluding the DART deals from the BuildRoute report.
The report will look like that:
 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
If you have the "Exclude DART deals" box unchecked then you will get a file like this:
 << File: BRtestP1_3Deals_Nov26.xls >>
Deal 500056.1 is a DART deal.

If you have "Exclude DART deals" box checked then you will get a file like this:
 << File: BRtestP2_3Deals_Nov26.xls >>

Please let me know if that's what you need to see.
I can send you similar files that show more then 3 deals.

Thanks!
Nikolay

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Chang, Fran
Sent:	Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:30 AM
To:	Crooks, William
Subject:	RE: Important! DART product

Bill:

Since the Enpower status meeting is cancelled today, just wanna follow up with you on the progress of the DART project.  I would appreciate it if you could let me know so I can update the traders on this.

Regards,
Fran
503.464.7973

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Crooks, William
Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 11:45 AM
To:	Chang, Fran
Subject:	RE: Important! DART product

Fran:

	The change would not take long provided if we could easily identify DART deals.  At this point we will have to research identifying DART deals.  We don't know the answer yet.  There is a higher priority project (secondary legal entities) which we hope to complete next week.  We'll schedule this change after that.

Regards,
Bill x53492

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Chang, Fran
Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 1:29 PM
To:	Crooks, William
Cc:	Smith, Will; Moorer, Torrey
Subject:	FW: Important! DART product

Bill:

EOL IT group (Torrey Moorer) has created a new DART product for us in testing stage.  We will need the Build Route Reports to be revised accordingly (please see the attached emails).  Would you have someone in your group work on this and let us know the timeline so we can follow up.  Please call me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Fran Chang
West Power Risk Management
503.464.7973 (phone)
503.464.3740 (fax)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Semperger, Cara
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:19 PM
To:	Crandall, Sean
Subject:	RE: Important! DART product

I think that if the Enpower guys can modify the Build Route Reports to have a check box that says Exclude DART deals, and have it default to the checked position.

That should take care of it.

 (Both versions of build route, Will Smith will know what I am talking about).

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Crandall, Sean
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:07 PM
To:	Semperger, Cara
Subject:	FW: Important! DART product
Importance:	High

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Chang, Fran
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:53 AM
To:	Crandall, Sean
Subject:	Important! DART product
Importance:	High

Sean:

Torrey Moorer in EOL IT group has created the Mid-C DART product on EOL.  In the future when a trade is done on EOL, it will be bridged into Enpower Deal Entry. However, although the "DART flag" will be on in deal entry, I believe for now it's informational only, and it's not doing anything to alert the schedulers.  I would like to know the rationale for creating this DART product and how you would like the schedulers in Day Ahead group (Cara's group) and Real Time (Bill's group) to see in their applications.  If I can get this info from you, I'll work with Enpower IT to put all necessary DART processes in place.

Thanks,

Fran Chang
West Power Risk Management
503.464.7973 (phone)
503.464.3740 (fax)


You have received this email because you are listed as an alternate data approver. Please click http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000081538&Page=Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000081538
Approver            : phillip.m.love@enron.com
Request Create Date : 1/24/02 10:18:41 AM
Requested For       : susan.d.trevino@enron.com
Resource Name       : \\enehou\houston\common\ERMS\1intra - [Read/Write]
Resource Type       : Directory


---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 10/08/2000 10:57
AM ---------------------------

"Germany, Mary/COR" <mgermany@CH2M.com> on 10/06/2000 06:07:39 PM
To: "'chris.germany@enron.com'" <chris.germany@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: FW: a few cute cartoons.

Duff likes the freezing one.

 - igloo.gif
 - freezing.jpg
 - everythi.jpg
 - Coke.jpg
 - STRAYBAR.jpg
 - Nintendo.jpg


MEMORANDUM

TO: Regulatory Affairs Committee
       Power Marketers Working Group

FROM: Joe Hartsoe, Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair
            Bob Reilley, Power Marketers Working Group Chair
            Julie Simon, Vice President of Policy
            Mark Bennett, Senior Manager of Policy
            Erin Perrigo, Manager of Policy

DATE: March 30, 2001

RE: National Energy Policy Issues

We received the attached document from Scott Miller on the OMTR staff at
FERC.  Scott is concerned that the current discussion of a national energy
strategy does not include a meaningful focus on critical electric issues.
Both at FERC and with lawmakers, Scott is encouraging people to stress the
issues identified in this paper in an effort to focus decision-makers on the
needs of the electric industry in the current debate.  If you have any
questions, please contact Julie Simon at EPSA, 202-628-8200 or
jsimon@epsa.org.

 - Immediate Policy Need.doc


My arguments remain the same regarding gas coverage. I believe that gas coverage responsibilities belong to west gas.  This coverage should be transitioned over to a marketing rep in west gas, and I would like that to be you.

Comments.

BT
---------------------- Forwarded by Barry Tycholiz/NA/Enron on 04/12/2001 10:53 AM ---------------------------

	  From:  Eric Moon @ ECT                           04/12/2001 09:05 AM

To:	Barry Tycholiz/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	L-P Natural Gas

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Moon/HOU/ECT on 04/12/2001 09:05 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.  From:  Todd Perry                           04/11/2001 07:54 PM

To:	Eric Moon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Breese/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	John Malowney/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:	L-P Natural Gas

Mark and Eric,

John Malowney here in the Portland office is trying to assist Louisiana-Pacific in financially hedging their overall gas exposure.  The attached e-mail and spreadsheet outline the basics.  Essentially, he would like to group their plants into 5 or 6 general pricing regions for parsimony.  At this point, we are looking for assistance roughly grouping these plants together.  Obvioulsy, If L-P is interested in this type of hedge, we will be contacting you for further assistance in obtaining quotes.  L-P has made it clear that they wish to deal with only one point-man at Enron and John has that role.  He is currently out of the office, so you should get back to me with any questions or needed clarifications.

Thanks for your assistance.  Please contact me by phone (503.464.8122) or e-mail.

Todd A. Perry

---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Perry/PDX/ECT on 04/11/2001 05:53 PM ---------------------------

John Malowney
04/03/2001 03:23 PM
To:	Todd Perry/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:	L-P Natural Gas

Todd, if you're not the man that's fine but I'm hoping you are....

Attached is L-P's total natural gas volumes.  The plan is to financially hedge them at the various hubs in the $4.50 to $5.00/MMBTU range over a one year period.  They feel a longer time period would warrant a lower price/MMBTU.  I've listed the various states and or provinces but I have no idea as to the corresponding hubs.  I have already provided L-P with an ISDA which they are in the process of reviewing.   L-P would like to meet here in Portland to discuss our proposed plan on Tuesday April 24th.  Let me know when you want to discuss a game plan.  JOHN


Greetings:

Well, hope your holiday was great, because I'm back with more questions.  To
change my direct deposit account, can I do that on line, or do I need to do
it by other means?  Thanks, as always, and I hope you have a great 2001.

Best,
Jeff


How did it go at the doctor? What did they say?
Love You.


Tired of the 40 X 40 X 40 Plan? You know:

Work 40 hours per week for someone else for 40 years, then receive a 40%
reduction in pay!

Is working for a "boss" too demeaning and unrewarding?

Are you sick of depending on a job with too little pay and too many hours
with no personal reward and even less future?

If you're determined to retire in the next 2 - 5 years with enough income to
have REAL Financial Independence and Freedom, and are not afraid to work for
it, I can help you.

I am looking for people with a Good Work Ethic and extraordinary Desire to
Earn at Least $10,000 per Month Working From Home!

NO SPECIAL SKILLS OR EXPERIENCE REQUIRED. We will give you all the training
and personal support you will need to ensure your success!

This LEGITIMATE HOME-BASED INCOME OPPORTUNITY can put you back in Control of
your Time, Your Finances, and Your Life!

If you've tried other opportunities in the past that have failed to live up
to their promises, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE YOU'VE SEEN!

THIS IS NOT A GET-RICH-QUICK SCHEME!

YOUR FINANCIAL PAST DOES NOT HAVE TO BE YOUR FINANCIAL FUTURE!

CALL ONLY IF YOU ARE SERIOUS!

1-800-533-9350 (Free, 24 hour, 1 minute recorded message)

DON'T GO TO SLEEP WITHOUT LISTENING TO THIS!

"All our dreams can come true - if we have the courage to pursue them" - Walt
Disney

To be removed from future mailings, send an email to:  t4tmx6@yahoo.com and
type "Remove" in the subject line.


Here are my (very minor) suggestions.  I understand that the plan is to have
the letter come from Ken Lay.  Given the current tone and structure of the
letter, might be more appropriate to come from Chris, as originally drafted,
but I've modified so that it comes from Ken Lay.

Best,
Jeff


Do you do expense reports and have not taken the training?

Expense Management System (XMS) - Cost: $135
         June 4th  8:30am-11:30am EB564
June 19th 1:00pm-4:00pm    EB564

The Expense Management System (XMS) is a tool used to electronically submit
your expense report for approval and payment through the Enron Intranet. It
is user friendly, accurate and less labor intensive for you and the
accounting staff.  This system will help you report your travel and
entertainment expenses.

You will learn how to:
E Create New Expense Reports
E Enter Cash Expense Receipts
E Adding Company Card Entries
E Enter Personal Car Mileage
E Foreign Currency Translation
E Reimbursement Method
E Designating your Approving Manager
E Designating your Administrative Assistant
E Submitting Your Expense Report
E Reviewing your Expense Report
E And Much More...

Please login and enroll through the InvestInMe website,
http://www.corptraining.com/index.cfm?company=enron.  If you have any
questions, please call 713 853-1816.


fyi- I don't feel we have tight coordination on info xfer to these guys. I have scheduled a meeting to discuss. rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Urs.Widmer@ubs.com [mailto:Urs.Widmer@ubs.com]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:57 PM
To: Buy, Rick
Cc: James.Brennan@ubsw.com; Michael.Ferrara@ubs.com;
William.Glass@ubs.com; Richard.Graf@ubs.com; Benita.Hudson@ubs.com;
Gary.Riddell@ubs.com; Russell.Sherrill@ubsw.com; Urs.Widmer@ubs.com
Subject: Contact List

Mr. Buy,

Please find attached the list of UBS Warburg Credit Risk Control
contacts as described by Bill Glass during today's phone conversation.
We are looking forward to working with you and your staff.

Kind regards,
Urs Widmer
UBS Warburg


Yes we won, but no we shouldn't change our response. The Judge sent us a
letter with his rulings, but has not signed an official order. In fact ,last
week the judge heard the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and stated that his
letter was not an order. In light of this, I would leave the description the
same. Your thoughts?

	Rex Rogers@ENRON
	11/03/2000 05:35 PM

		 To: Gary Peng/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Litigation and Other Contingencies Disclosure

Richard:  I'm sure I must be wrong about this, but it was my understanding
(second-hand hearsay, at best) that the trial court ruled in our favor
against class certification after remand from the Supreme Court.  If I am
indeed incorrect, sorry for wasting your time with this message--just
disregard.  Thanks, Rex.

	Gary Peng
	11/03/2000 05:17 PM

		 To: Rex Rogers/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Litigation and Other Contingencies Disclosure

---------------------- Forwarded by Gary Peng/GPGFIN/Enron on 11/03/2000
05:17 PM ---------------------------
From: Richard B Sanders@ECT on 10/23/2000 06:52 AM
To: Gary Peng/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON
cc: Charles Cheek/Corp/Enron@Enron, Frank Smith/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jan
Johnson/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Rex Rogers/Corp/Enron@Enron, Robert
Eickenroht/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Litigation and Other Contingencies Disclosure

I have no changes to the Intratex case description.

	Gary Peng@ENRON
	10/19/2000 06:13 PM

		 To: Charles Cheek/Corp/Enron@Enron, Robert Eickenroht/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank Smith/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Rex Rogers/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jan Johnson/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: Litigation and Other Contingencies Disclosure

Find below the Litigation and Other Contingencies footnote from the the June
30, 2000 Form 10-Q.  Please update the section of the disclosure for which
you are responsible for inclusion in the third quarter 2000 Form 10Q .  Also,
please let me know if there are any new items that should be considered.

Please respond no later than Monday October 30.

Gary
3-6841

3.  Litigation and Other Contingencies

 Enron is a party to various claims and litigation, the significant items of
which are discussed below.  Although no assurances can be given, Enron
believes, based on its experience to date and after considering appropriate
reserves that have been established, that the ultimate resolution of such
items, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
impact on Enron,s financial position or its results of operations.

 Litigation.  In 1995, several parties (the Plaintiffs) filed suit in Harris
County District Court in Houston, Texas, against Intratex Gas Company
(Intratex), Houston Pipe Line Company and Panhandle Gas Company
(collectively, the Enron Defendants), each of which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Enron.  The Plaintiffs were either sellers or royalty owners
under numerous gas purchase contracts with Intratex, many of which have
terminated.  Early in 1996, the case was severed by the Court into two
matters to be tried (or otherwise resolved) separately.  In the first matter,
the Plaintiffs alleged that the Enron Defendants committed fraud and
negligent misrepresentation in connection with the &Panhandle program,8 a
special marketing program established in the early 1980s.  This case was
tried in October 1996 and resulted in a verdict for the Enron Defendants.  In
the second matter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Enron Defendants violated
state regulatory requirements and certain gas purchase contracts by failing
to take the Plaintiffs, gas ratably with other producers, gas at certain
times between 1978 and 1988.  The trial court certified a class action with
respect to ratability claims.  On March 9, 2000, the Texas Supreme Court
ruled that the trial court,s class certification was improper and remanded
the case to the trial court.  The Enron Defendants deny the Plaintiffs,
claims and have asserted various affirmative defenses, including the statute
of limitations.  The Enron Defendants believe that they have strong legal and
factual defenses, and intend to vigorously contest the claims.  Although no
assurances can be given, Enron believes that the ultimate resolution of these
matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations.

 On November 21, 1996, an explosion occurred in or around the Humberto Vidal
Building in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The explosion resulted in fatalities,
bodily injuries and damage to the building and surrounding property.  San
Juan Gas Company, Inc. (San Juan Gas), an Enron affiliate, operated a
propane/air distribution system in the vicinity, but did not provide service
to the building. Enron, San Juan Gas, four affiliates and their insurance
carriers were named as defendants, along with several third parties,
including The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, Puerto Rico Telephone
Company, Heath Consultants Incorporated, Humberto Vidal, Inc. and their
insurance carriers, in numerous lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and the Superior Court of Puerto Rico.  These suits
seek damages for wrongful death, personal injury, business interruption and
property damage allegedly caused by the explosion.  After nearly four years
without determining the cause of the explosion, all parties have agreed not
to litigate further that issue, but to move these suits toward settlements or
trials to determine whether each plaintiff was injured as a result of the
explosion and, if so, the lawful damages attributable to such injury. The
defendants have agreed on a fund for settlements or final awards. Numerous
suits have been settled and 20 cases have been set for trial in the federal
court beginning in February 2001. Although no assurances can be given, Enron
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

 Trojan Investment Recovery.  In early 1993, Portland General Electric
Company (PGE) ceased commercial operation of the Trojan nuclear power
generating facility (Trojan).  In April 1996 a circuit court judge in Marion
County, Oregon, found that the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) could
not authorize PGE to collect a return on its undepreciated investment in
Trojan, contradicting a November 1994 ruling from the same court.  The ruling
was the result of an appeal of PGE,s March 1995 general rate order which
granted PGE recovery of, and a return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.  The 1994 ruling was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and was
stayed pending the appeal of the OPUC,s March 1995 order.  Both PGE and the
OPUC separately appealed the April 1996 ruling, which appeals were combined
with the appeal of the November 1994 ruling at the Oregon Court of Appeals.
On June 24, 1998, the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon ruled that the
OPUC does not have the authority to allow PGE to recover a rate of return on
its undepreciated investment in Trojan.  The court upheld the OPUC,s
authorization of PGE,s recovery of its undepreciated investment in Trojan.

 PGE and the OPUC each filed petitions for review with the Oregon Supreme
Court.  On August 26, 1998, the Utility Reform Project filed a petition for
review with the Oregon Supreme Court seeking review of that portion of the
Oregon Court of Appeals decision relating to PGE,s recovery of its
undepreciated investment in Trojan.  On April 29, 1999, the Oregon Supreme
Court accepted the petitions for review.  On June 16, 1999, Oregon House Bill
3220 authorizing the OPUC to allow recovery of a return on the undepreciated
investment in property retired from service was signed.  One of the effects
of the bill is to affirm retroactively the OPUC,s authority to allow PGE,s
recovery of a return on its undepreciated investment in Trojan.

 Relying on the new legislation, on July 2, 1999, PGE requested the Oregon
Supreme Court to vacate the June 24, 1998, adverse ruling of the Oregon Court
of Appeals, affirm the validity of the OPUC,s order allowing PGE to recover a
return on its undepreciated investment in Trojan and to reverse its decision
accepting the Utility Reform Project,s petition for review.  The Utility
Reform Project and the Citizens Utility Board, another party to the
proceeding, opposed such request and submitted to the Oregon Secretary of
State sufficient signatures in support of placing a referendum to negate the
new legislation on the November 2000 ballot.  The Oregon Supreme Court has
indicated it will defer hearing the matter until after the November 2000
elections.  Enron cannot predict the outcome of these actions.  Additionally,
due to uncertainties in the regulatory process, management cannot predict,
with certainty, what ultimate rate-making action the OPUC will take regarding
PGE,s recovery of a rate of return on its Trojan investment.  Although no
assurances can be given, Enron believes that the ultimate resolution of these
matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations.

 Environmental Matters.  Enron is subject to extensive federal, state and
local environmental laws and regulations.  These laws and regulations require
expenditures in connection with the construction of new facilities, the
operation of existing facilities and for remediation at various operating
sites.  The implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments is expected to
result in increased operating expenses.  These increased operating expenses
are not expected to have a material impact on Enron,s financial position or
results of operations.

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has informed Enron that it is a
potentially responsible party at the Decorah Former Manufactured Gas Plant
Site (the Decorah Site) in Decorah, Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
also commonly known as Superfund).  The manufactured gas plant in Decorah
ceased operations in 1951.  A predecessor company of Enron purchased the
Decorah Site in 1963.  Enron,s predecessor did not operate the gas plant and
sold the Decorah Site in 1965.  The EPA alleges that hazardous substances
were released to the environment during the period in which Enron,s
predecessor owned the site, and that Enron,s predecessor assumed the
liabilities of the company that operated the plant.  Enron contests these
allegations.  To date, the EPA has identified no other potentially
responsible parties with respect to this site.  Under the terms of
administrative orders, Enron replaced affected topsoil and removed impacted
subsurface soils in certain areas of the tract where the plant was formerly
located.  Enron completed the final removal actions at the site in November
1998 and concluded all remaining site activities in the spring of 1999.
Enron submitted a final report on the work conducted at the site to the EPA.
Enron does not expect to incur any additional expenditures in connection with
this site.

 Enron,s natural gas pipeline companies conduct soil and groundwater
remediation on a number of their facilities.  Enron does not expect to incur
material expenditures in connection with soil and groundwater remediation.


Paul:  Jason sent the following issues to me but Nos. 1,2 and 4 impact
credit.  Please call me to discuss.  Sara
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 08/02/2000 08:08 AM -----

	"JASON PETERS" <PETEJ@andrews-kurth.com>
	08/01/2000 08:16 PM

		 To: <sara.shackleton@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Arizona Public Service Company

Sara,

The following items are outstanding issues with respect to the
above-referenced ISDA:

1. Arizona Public Service Company plans on executing the ISDA as Arizona
Public Service Company, on behalf of its Bulk Power Marketing Resource
Operations Division ("BPMROD").  It is APSC's intent in the future to create
a new entity for this division, such new entity to enter into all trading
transactions.  As a result, it is ASPC's desire to  modify the definition of
"Specified Transaction" to only include transactions between Party A and
BPMROD.

2. Procedures for Entering into Transactions - ASPC would like 5 days to
dispute or accept confirmations.  Apparently, all of their agreements provide
for 5 days, therefore any shorter time period could cause problems for them.
I had previously offered 3 days.

3. Part 5 (f) Recording - ASPC wants to consent to recordings on "trading
lines only".  They do not want to consent to officers (non-traders) being
recorded if the communication does not occur on a trading line.

4. Part 5 (g)(B) - Setoff -  ASPC wants to delete "or any of its Affiliates"
from this section.  ASPC thinks this issue is related to their issue in #1
above.  I don't see why.  What do you think?  I assume that we are not
willing to strike "or any of its Affiliates".

The only other issue is a credit issue which I am handling with Paul Radous.
So, we're close.  Let me know what you think.

Jason


Please change the deals in your books.

Thanks
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT on 05/02/2001 07:19 AM ---------------------------
From:	Scott Mills@EES on 05/01/2001 08:53 PM
To:	Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Russ Kavanaugh/HOU/EES@EES
Subject:	Change to ENA/EES Deals

Can the following deals be rebooked using the current intercompany methodology:

	Buyer = Enron Energy Services
	Seller = Enron North America (or RMT if these are all financial)

Then what is now the counterparties on the deal will become the books.

These are the only deals that are left that are booked the old way.  I was  hoping to make things consistent.  Two of the deals (EH1958.1, EH4242.5) will roll off the end of May -the others have months to go.

Thanks for the help

SRM (x33548)


Hari,

Thanks. Please, keep me posted about your progress.
Any published papers?

We shall send you the printout.

Vince

Hari Natrajan <hnatraj@IIMB.ERNET.IN> on 03/06/2001 08:47:34 PM
To: "'Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com '" <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE:

Dear Mr. Kaminski,

Thank you very much for your prompt response. I look forward to receiving a
copy of your article.

I would also appreciate it if you could let me know whether Enron provides
research grants to individuals who are working in the area of Energy Risk
Management.  Towards my research, I am trying to develop a model to estimate
electricity spot price.

In any case, I will be getting in touch with you again a year or so down the
line when I am nearing completion of my dissertation because Enron is my
dream job.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Natarajan
Fellowship Student
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore 560076
India
Tel: 91-80-6993056
Fax: 91-80-6584050
E-mail: hnatraj@iimb.ernet.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
To: hnatraj@IIMB.ERNET.IN
Cc: Shirley.Crenshaw@enron.com; Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
Sent: 3/6/01 8:34 PM
Subject: Re:

Hari,

I shall send you a reprint of the  article. I had to
cancel my presentation at San Antonio.

Vince

Shirley,

Please, send a copy of the article to Hari.

Hari Natrajan <hnatraj@IIMB.ERNET.IN> on 02/28/2001 06:45:29 AM

To:   "'vince.j.kaminski@enron.com'" <vince.j.kaminski@enron.com>
cc:
Subject:

Dear Mr. Kaminski,

I am a doctoral student at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
India.  My area of interest is the Energy Sector, especially Electricity
Derivatives. I am interested in obtaining a copy of the following items:

1) Your presentation "Current Challenges in Modeling Power Price
Volatility"
at the session on Price Volatility & Probabilistic Methods in the Energy
Markets.  (http://www.informs.org/Conf/SanAntonio2000//TALKS/MD29.html)

2) Your chapter "The Challenge of Pricing and Risk Managing Electricity
Derivatives" in the book 'The US Power Market', Risk Publications.

I would appreciate it if you could send me a soft/hard copy of the same.

Thank you,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Natarajan
Fellowship Student
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore 560076
India
Tel: 91-80-6993056
Fax: 91-80-6584050
E-mail: hnatraj@iimb.ernet.in


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Bailey, Arnie
Sent:	Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:11 PM
To:	Jolly, Rich; Osborn, Roger; Roensch, David; Smith, Rick; Roswell, Team; Roswell-Capitan, Team; Mountainair, Team; Laguna, Team; Flagstaff, Team; Flagstaff-Sta2, Team; Flagstaff-Sta3, Team; San-Juan, Team; Gallup, Team; Panhandle, Team; Panhandle-P2, Team; Artesia, Team; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Brown, Max; Chanley, Earl; Kunkel, Laura; Tarter, Steve; Gormley, John; Holguin, Danny; McCracken, Mike; Blountm@pii-usa.com
Subject:	Smart Pigging In Sections 7 & 8

We will be running a PII Smart Pig in the mainline in section 8 and 7 during the week of September 17th.  The proposed schedule is as follows:

Monday - 9-17-01 - Safety and tailgate meeting at 1:00/PM MDT at Station 8 (Corona).  Load smart pig in station 8 mainline launcher.  Set out AGM's
Tuesday - 9-18-01 - Run smart pig from station 8 to station 7 (section 8 mainline).  Relocate AGM's as needed.  Receive pig at station 7, clean it and put it in shop.  Retrieve all AGM's
Wednesday - 9-19-01 - PII will retrieve data and prepare the pig for the next run.  Load smart pig in station 7 mainline launcher.  Set out AGM's.
Thursday - 9-20-01 - Run smart pig from station 7 to station 6 (section 7 mainline).  Relocate AGM's as needed.  Receive pig at station 6, clean it and put it in shop.  Retrieve all AGM's.
Friday - 9-21-01 - PII will retrieve data and prepare the pig for shipping.  Travel home.

Cleaning pigs have been run in both sections as gas flow allowed.  A TD Williamson representative will be on site next week to witness cleaning runs to verify the pipe is clean enough to smart pig.  TD Williamson Caliper Pigs have been run in both sections and indicate there are no restrictions in the pipe that will affect the smart pig.

Suggested lodging:
Monday the 17th - Smokey Bear Motel - 505-354-2253.  Located in downtown Capitan.  Make your reservations now or you may have no room.
Tuesday through Thursday - Best Western Oak Tree Inn - 505-861-0980.  Located on West side of I-40 at the middle exit at Belen, NM.  30 miles South of Albuquerque.

You can contact me at 505-625-8005 (work), 505-626-1530 (cell) or 800-586-5735 (pager).

Thanks,  Arnie


Stefan,

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; it's been really hectic around here.

The GTC looks fine; it's the standard GTC for ENA financial products.

The product descriptions generally look fine as well.  One question I have, however, is to what extent the attached product descriptions differ (apart from being denominated in USD rather JPY) from the WTI swaps currently being traded by ENA?

Also, the memo that Joe sent to Jeff states that:

"the products are part of Enron Japan's overall effort to extend Enron's crude and products business to Japan.  It will be marketed to customers as one potential means to meet their risk management requirements."

Pursuant to our previous discussions and e-mails, I understand that Enron Japan will not be involved with these products.  If this is not the case, we need to discuss what the facts are specifically going to be so as to avoid any tax issues for ENA or Enron Japan arising from any of their activities relating to this product (e.g., such as marketing).  Please confirm what the facts are going to be (as they currently stand).

Best regards,
Susan

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Niesler, Stefan
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:45 PM
To:	Musch, Susan
Cc:	McBride, Jane
Subject:	FW: EOL - New Product - JPY denominated WTI Swap
Importance:	High

Susan,

Below are the documents Jane sent to Legal HOU for approval.
As you see we intent to be live by Thursday. We hope to have the documents in the system later today (Wed. your time). Could you take a look at the documents and let Jane/me know if you see any issues in signing off on the product? We might want to ask you for sign-off by tomorrow.

Thanks!

StN

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	McBride, Jane
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:01 PM
To:	Sayre, Frank
Cc:	Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Aronowitz, Alan; Minns, David; Timothy, Justin; Niesler, Stefan
Subject:	RE: EOL - New Product - JPY denominated WTI Swap
Importance:	High

Dear Frank,

Many thanks for helping out on this.  Should be pretty straight forward I think because it is not a "new" product so much as a slightly revised version of an existing product (US WTI).

There has also been a development which makes it even simpler.  At first the product was going to be WTI (which is usually in USD and barrels) in JPY and kiloliters but apparently EOL have said kiloliters wont actually work so the only twist is that this product will be in yen and not USD.

I have therefore amended the documents I sent yesterday (so I hope you haven't looked at them yet ...) to take the barrel / KL conversion language out (and to remove the glitch from the Business Day definition in the GTCs).

Accordingly, this email is exhaustive and you can ignore the one I sent yesterday (which was at the bottom of Alan's email to me).

I am attaching a number of documents.

(i)	The first is an internal memo re two new products Enron Japan wants to put on EOL.  The Enron CP will be ENA which is why I need your help before going to Mark.  The memo describes the product generally and how it will work (and sets out the background as to why EJ is pushing this initiative).  This is FYI only.

(ii) & (iii)	These are the (ii) draft product descriptions and (iii) GTCs and we need ENA legal sign off re same.  If you are happy with these then I will pass to Mark Taylor for final approval (assuming I still need his approval if you have approved - can you confirm this I wonder).  If you have any questions, please let me know.

Both documents have been prepared based on the product descriptions and the GTCs currently used for the USD WTI product.

Re the Product Descriptions - in addition to those changes to the US WTI product description which were needed to reflect the fact that these products are in yen (and not in USD), we have used upper case for Business Days (because it is defined in the GTCs and the definition is important because it will not refer to Japanese holidays) and I have incorporated a new definition "the relevant Scheduled Trading Date" so that in accordance with what I understand to be standard EOL procedure, the top half of the product description can be the same for both products (despite the fact that the currency exchange will be done 3 days after a different date in the case of the two definitions) and only the bottom half will need to change.  (I know this is not a great way to include definitions in an agreement but I am just trying to keep my changes consistent with the current WTI Product Description methodology.

I have made no changes to the current WTI GTCs.  I have assumed that when NY law applies to "foreign" products, we don't usually amend the arbitration clause despite the fact that the products are likely to be purchased by non-US counter parties.  I am less sure however about the events of default clause.  The language seems pretty short and generic so I suspect that we probably don't put CP jurisdiction specific events in but please confirm.

I understand you are all under pressure there so wonder when you expect you would be able to revert so that I can let the business people here know.  Apparently  GTCs can only be loaded once a week at Wed. noon (HOU time) so unless you can see your way through to doing this during your Tuesday (i.e. today your time) - provided I hear from you by Tuesday next week, this would be fine.

Re Exchange Rate, Sara Shackleton suggested recently that a central bank rate would be better then a Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi rate but the BTM exchange rates are market standard here so we would prefer to use these.  This may be because BTM is listed on the NYSE and so is seen as international.

 << File: JPY WTI Swap LD1.doc >>  << File: JPY WTI Fin Swap GTC.doc >>  << File: Product Memo 1.doc >>

Thanks Frank.

Jane McBride

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Aronowitz, Alan
Sent:	06 November 2001 01:58
To:	Sayre, Frank
Cc:	McBride, Jane; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Viverito, John; Robison, Michael A.
Subject:	FW: EOL - new Product - JPY / KL WTI Swap

Jane:

As just spoke with Frank and he will help you on this. But, I do want to warn you that everyone here, including Frank, is engaged in a number of high priority projects related to, among other things, entering into master netting agreements and the like to manage the credit issues affecting the Company. Accordingly, the timetable for a reply may not be in line with your expectations.

Jane, I noted that the draft of the GTCs had a glitch in the Business Day definition. You should resend to Frank.

Regards, Alan

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	McBride, Jane
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 8:05 AM
To:	Robison, Michael A.; Viverito, John
Cc:	Aronowitz, Alan; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Minns, David; Musch, Susan; Timothy, Justin; Niesler, Stefan
Subject:	EOL - new Product - JPY / KL WTI Swap

Dear Mike and John,

Not sure to which of you I should have addressed this email since you are both listed as doing liquid fuels.  If I am wrong and it is neither of you would be really grateful if you could pass this email to the right EGM lawyer ASAP (with a copy to me so I know with whom to follow up).

I am attaching a number of documents.

(i)	The first is an internal memo re two new products Enron Japan wants to put on EOL.  The Enron CP will be ENA which is why I need your help before going to Mark.  The memo describes the product generally and how it will work (and sets out the background as to why EJ is pushing this initiative).  This is FYI only.

(ii) & (iii)	These are the draft product descriptions and GTCs and we need ENA legal sign off re same.  If you are happy with these then I will pass to Mark Taylor for final approval.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  We are hoping to get this approved by Wednesday Tokyo time so if this needs to be passed on, I would be grateful if you could do this today (your time).

RE product Descriptions - in addition to those changes which were needed to reflect the fact that the products are in yen and KL (and not in USD and Barrels) , we have used upper case for Business Days (because it is defined in the GTCs and the definition is important because it will not refer to Japanese holidays) and I have incorporated a new definition "the relevant Scheduled Trading Date" so that in accordance with what I understand to be standard EOL procedure, the top half of the product description can be the same for both products (despite the fact that the currency exchange will be done 3 days after a different date in the case of the two definitions) and only the bottom half will need to change.

I have actually only made one small change to the GTCs, to provide for kiloliters in the rounding off clause.  I assume that given that NY law will apply, that we don't usually amend the arbitration clause in the case of products likely to be purchased by non-US counter parties.  I am less sure about the events of default clause.  The language seems pretty short and generic so I suspect that we probably don't put CP jurisdiction specific events in but please confirm.

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

Please leave me a message or send me an email if you want me to call you Monday evening your time.

 << File: Product Memo 1.doc >>  << File: JPY WTI Swap LD1.doc >>  << File: JPY WTI Fin Swap GTC.doc >>

Thanks very much for your help..

Jane McBride

Tel:  (+813) 5219 4553
Fax: (+813) 5219 4510


Jeff:
Just a few comments:

1. In the definition of termination Event, I think that the words "due to"
need to be put after the word "means" in the first line.

2. In Section 3.4(a), I noticed that the bracketed langugae "as it relates to
the Assigned Interest" has now been deleted.  Pursuant to my earlier comment
on this, what this maens to me is that with respect to the Fixed Payment
piece of this, we can never terminate the swap based on something that
happens to Pelican .  Is that the way it is supposed to work?  If so, plaese
explain why.

3. With respect to the lnagugae in Section 3.6(a), instead of saying in the
first sentence of such Section "the amount determined..." shouldn't it say
"the fair market value of Party A's remaining payment obligations under the
Transaction".  Section 2(x) of the confirm just refers to Disputed Matters
and it is not claer to me what is in dispute when an Event of Default or
Termination Event occurs and what amount Party A has to pay when these events
occur.  What is the priocedure for coming up with this amount?  Does each
party calculate it and then send it to the experts or do the experts just
determine it?

Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com


Hello,

Your password for the SIP page is case sensative.  It is:
Taylor
soccer

the address is
www.eea-inc.com/login.html

I put some numbers together in answer to your questions
yesterday.  Joel is looking them over.


This is a swap confirm.  Do you have an option?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bell, Jean
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 5:24 PM
To: Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject: Document in ole_2

Enron North America Corp.
P.O. Box 4428
Houston TX 77210-4428
(713) 853-3300
Fax (713) 646-4816

CONFIRMATION
(SWAP)

Date:                                        August 29, 2001
To:                                           Reliant Energy Services, Inc. ("Counterparty")
Attention:                                  Document Department
Fax No.:                                   (713) 207-9562
From:                                        Enron North America Corp. ("ENA")
Re:                                           Commodity Swap Y00041.1

            Reference is made to the Master Agreement dated as of October 15, 1993 (the "Agreement") between Reliant Energy Services, Inc. ("Counterparty") and Enron North America Corp. ("ENA"), pursuant to which this Confirmation is delivered and to which the Transaction contemplated herein is subject.

            This is a confirmation of the following Transaction entered between us on August 29, 2001:

General Terms:

Type of Transaction:                              Swap

Notional Quantity per
Determination Period:

5,000 MMBtu multiplied by the number of days in the relevant Determination Period

Commodity                                           Natural Gas

Effective Date:                                      September 01, 2001

Termination Date:                                  September 30, 2001

Determination Period(s):
The Period beginning with and including September 01, 2001 through and including September 30, 2001.

Payment Date(s):
The fifth (5th) Business Day following the date on which the Floating Price is determinable

Fixed Amount Details:

Fixed Price Payor:                                 ENA

Fixed Price:
The El Paso Natural Gas Co. - Permian Basin Index price for delivery during the applicable Determination Period in the "Prices of Spot Gas Delivered to Pipelines" section located in the first issue of Inside F.E.R.C.'s Gas Market Report published during the applicable Determination Period less US Dollars $0.08500 per MMBtu

Floating Amount Details:

Floating Price Payor:                             Counterparty

Floating Price:
The arithmetic average of the daily prices for all calendar days during the Determination Period, the price for each such calendar day being the "Flow date: Midpoint: Permian Basin Area: El Paso" as published under the heading "Daily Price Survey" in Gas Daily

For the purposes of the calculations of the Floating Price(s), all numbers shall be rounded as follows: Floating Price(s) relating to commodities quoted in (i) gallons shall be rounded to five places, (ii) MMBtu's shall be rounded to four places, (iii) barrels shall be rounded to three places and (iv) gigajoules shall be rounded to four places. If the number after the final number is five (5) or greater then the final number shall be increased by one (1), and if the number after the final number is less than five (5) then the final number shall remain unchanged.

            Terms used and not otherwise defined in this Confirmation shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement.

            If this Confirmation correctly sets forth the terms of the above-referenced Transaction, please so indicate by signing below and sending this Confirmation (or a copy hereof) to us.

            If this Confirmation contains any error, please notify ENA immediately.  Failure to notify ENA of a bona fide error in this Confirmation or failure to accept this Confirmation as provided in the Agreement after receipt by Counterparty shall result in this Confirmation being deemed binding as sent.

            We look forward to receiving your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,

Enron North America Corp.

By:
Name:   Robert Bowen
Title:     Agent and Attorney-in-Fact
Deal No. Y00041.1
Confirmed as of the date first above written:

Reliant Energy Services, Inc.

By:
Name:
Title:


Diversified Product Inspections Inc.  (OTCBB: DPRI)

Immediate & Strong BUY Recommendation

Huge Analyst and Newsletter Coverage for DPRI

DPRI will be profiled by some major analysts and
newsletters along with the release of significant
news regarding explosive sales for the Company.
There will be huge volume and a strong increase in
price for several days. The same groups that featured
CPTH will begin coverage on DPRI. CPTH exploded from
$ .55 to $3.05! We know for certain that the same
groups are going to feature DPRI and even better
returns are expected.

DPRI, a 10-year old fully-reporting company, is a
leading provider of independent product investigations,
air contamination, and fire investigations for the
Insurance Industry.  The demand for the Company's
services has exploded due to present US conditions,
with DPRI servicing over 50 major Insurance carriers.
This has led to significant Revenue for the Company.

We are very proud that we can share this information
with you so that you can make a profit out of it. It
is highly advisable to take a position in DPRI as soon
as possible, today before the market closes or tomorrow.

The stock could easily reach $4.00 in less than a month
on the strength of their upcoming contract announcements
and Strong Analyst Buy Recomendations.

When word gets out this stock will SOAR!


Please check with Mike Barnas,Kent Shoemaker (GE contact list) and Rose
Engeldorf and see if they are available at either 1100 Central tomorrow or
100 Central.  If that works for them, please reschedule the conference call,
send a confirming email to Mike, Steve Swift, Kent, Marty, Scott, Rose,
Sheila (and leave her a voice mail -she is on the road), etc.

Thanks!

Kay

PS.  I have a 330 flight today- Heather arranged.  I'll let you know the
details when I have them.  I'll travel to Chicago tomorrow, returning to
Houston tomorrow at a decent hour.


Spoke with Ben Glisan re our conversation on retail credit and concluded that
we should meet with some banks that specialize in this area. Can you prepare
a brief presentation that would serve as a discussion document for such a
meeting. The concept is that a deal flows into a website?? that is basically
a checklist and the transaction is sized and scoped. If it met deal criteria
and portfolio requirements, it would flow directly to an outside shop that
would fund, bill, track etc. Enron could possibly keep a small interest in
economics and of course a skim.

Lets review presentation, then discuss with Ben/Andy and Janet D.  and
proceed to banks. Ben is clearing idea with Delaney. We are shooting for a
Friday (23) meeting.

Thanks, Rick


Ken needs to be aware of this -- has he had any conversations w/ Bailey?
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 05/01/2001
05:22 PM ---------------------------

Susan J Mara
05/01/2001 03:25 PM
To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: OpED Editorial SacBee Lauding Williams CHairman's New Position
Favoring Caps

I got this from one of my Williams counterparts.

 Daniel Weintraub: An energy trader says it's time to limit profits

(Published May 1, 2001)
In a sea of angry finger-pointing, name-calling and ridicule, Keith Bailey
stands out as an island of calm, a lonely voice of reason who understands
that a company's long-term self-interest is about more than how much money it
can make today.
Most Californians probably have never heard of Bailey, a Kansas City native
and chief executive officer of Tulsa-based Williams Cos. -- a private energy
trader that has profited handsomely from the state's recent miseries. But
Golden Staters from Gov. Gray Davis on down ought to embrace this Oklahoma
resident. He might be the man who saves our future.
Bailey is proposing that federal electricity regulators place temporary caps
on the profits that he and his competitors may earn between now and fall
2002, when supply and demand will be closer to balance and sanity might
return to the West's energy market.
His rationale is this: To save California's private electricity market, new
power plants are desperately needed. But not enough of those plants will be
built if generators are not confident they will be paid for the product they
already are providing.
Californians, though, don't want to promise payment without knowing they will
be able to afford the bill. Short-term caps on profits, Bailey believes, are
the best way to ease the state's fears, get everybody paid and move on to a
system that works -- for suppliers and customers.
"One of the things we are hoping to do with our proposal is create something
that California can look at and say, 'So long as prices are determined on
this basis, we're prepared to pay,' " Bailey said in an interview. "This is a
mechanism that lets the state say, 'We're not signing a blank check. We don't
know what the price is going to be, but we do know how it will be
determined.' "
Bailey's proposal is different from the limited price caps approved last week
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- and far better for California.
The federal caps would come with all sorts of strings attached, would kick in
only during emergencies and would be focused on prices, not profits. Bailey
is proposing that all power sold from now through summer 2002 be priced at
the cost of producing it, plus a profit of 15 percent. That's more than a
regulated utility would make but less than most private companies seek, and
far less than electricity providers have been earning of late.
Cynics might note that Bailey is proposing caps only after his company has
squeezed all it can from California. The firm reported last week that profits
doubled in the first quarter of 2001 over a year ago, with pretax income from
its energy services nearly tripling, to $600 million. Much of the 4,000
megawatts of electricity that Williams controls in California is already
committed in long-term contracts -- so Bailey has relatively little to lose
if what remains can only be sold at controlled prices.
But here is at least one measure of Bailey's sincerity: His company still is
owed $252 million for electricity it has provided California. And he's not
insisting that the debt be paid before his proposed profit caps take effect,
or even as part of the deal.
"Clearly there is a past that has to be dealt with," he said. "Whether that
ultimately gets dealt with in bankruptcy court or negotiations with the
parties, it will sort itself out one way or another. Perhaps if we find
prices that work going forward, that could be used as a framework."
Bailey, an engineer by training, says no one should mistake his proposal for
a lack of confidence in free markets. He still firmly believes that a
deregulated energy market would be best for California and the rest of the
West in the long term. He just wants to make sure there is a long term.
Bailey is watching, and listening, to California. He hears talk of seizing
power plants, of turning to a public power system. He describes these ideas
as Draconian and says they would not solve the problem. But he also knows
there is a limit to what Californians -- and their elected leaders -- can
take.
"I recognize we live in a democracy, and lots of things could happen," he
said.
What he is proposing, in effect, is a safety valve. He wants to limit the
market in order to save it.
"This is an extraordinary situation," Bailey said. "We need to help create
some breathing room. ... We all have to work together, and this is the right
thing to do."
Bailey's proposal, made at a conference of energy producers and traders in
Oklahoma last week, was almost lost amid all the focus on the price caps
approved in Washington. But there is still time to give the idea the
attention it deserves. Properly nourished, it could be the breakthrough that
solves this crisis. Davis and others in California should seize the moment.
Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854


> Subject: OU/A&M Game
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:34:46 -0800
>
> College Station, TX (AP) - R.C. Slocum and the Texas A&M Aggies are
> demanding a recount of the game in which Oklahoma
> won 35 to 31. "The end zones were confusing," says Slocum. "I'm sure that
> some of the touchdowns that went in Oklahoma's end zone were meant to go
> into ours. We were scoring in those end zones also.  Oklahoma would never
> have scored thirty-five points. There's no way we lost this one. A&M
> demands
> a recount."
>
> Oklahoma officials are calling this "outrageous".  "They agreed to the
> size,
> shape and locations of the end zones prior to kick-off," replies OU coach
> Bob Stoops.  "If they had a problem with them, they should have said so
> before we started. You don't get to keep playing until you're happy with
> the
> outcome. Someone had to lose. We've scored over thirty-five points many
> times."
>
> A&M has sent lawyers, farmers, and those guys in the funny boots as well
> as
> Reville down to Kyle Field, where the scoreboard will be tested.
> "We
> are confident that when the points are re-totaled, we will be the winner
> of
> the game," says Slocum.
>
> OU also points out that in many games prior to this one, the same end
> zones
> were used. "They didn't have a problem with the end
> zones until they lost," says Stoops.
>
> Outside of Kyle Field, A&M student protesters have gathered bearing signs
> such as, "A&M wants a fair game!
> WHOOOOOOP!"  Students' thoughts echoed their signs. "All we want is a
fair
> total of the points before we declare a winner," says student Karen Hays,
> an
> Aggie from Marfa. "We need to proceed cautiously and not rush to judgment
> before we declare a winner."
>
> ABC, around 2:00pm central time, had mistakenly declared A&M the winner,
> despite the slim 3 point lead the Aggies held at
> that point. At about 2:30 pm, with the game still to close to call, ABC
> had
> to back off its prediction.
>
> College Football analyst Brent Musburger made the call. "We felt that
with
> a
> number of points still not added in by Jamaar Tombs
> and the Aggies, we were certain A&M would carry this game. We may have
> been
> premature in our prediction."


Tim, don't worry about me - it worked out fine.  Just a bad day on the P/L
side.  Thanks for leading some of these efforts it is often a thankless job.

Regards
Delainey


Do you have an answer to this question?  Should ENA continue to transact with
EI?  Sara

Lynn Aven@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/25/99 03:20 PM
To: Carolyn Barrett/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Sara Shackleton@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bruce
Harris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kent Castleman
Subject: Use of Enron Interntional For Brazilian Transactions

Carolyn:

During 1999, there have been several purchases of NDF's related to the
Elektro risk.  ENA, formerly ECT,  purchased the NDF's and then did a back to
back NDF with Enron International for the identical risk.  The gain or loss
associated with the NDF thus was reflected on EI's books.

Now that EI is no longer an operating entity, I understand that the same
transactions are still being handled on a back to back basis with EI from
ENA..  Do you foresee that this will be a long range approach to these sorts
of transactions or will each of the regions have to execute an ISDA agreement
with ENA in order to get the gain or loss on the appropriate regions's books?

From a tax perspective, the income is all US source income and therefore
leaving the income on EI's books while apportioning the gainor loss to the
various regions for financial reporting purposes if fine.

Thanks for sharing any insight you may have as to how accounting will handle
these transactions going forward.


Hey guys!
A friend at Mckinsey contacted me to see if Enron Analysts would be interested in mingling with other young professionals. There will be free food... should be cool. It's this Friday.

Hope everyone is having a great day :)
-Morela

***********************************************************************
Happy Hour/ Get Together
-Meet the other people in Downtown Houston who are also working for 'the Man'

The McKinsey - Houston Business Analyst class is sponsoring a 'get to know
each other' event  for young professionals working in the Downtown Houston
Area.  We are hoping to start a social group that can connect the young,
recently graduated professionals from different firms around Houston.  Hope
to see you there.

Young Houston Professionals Happy Hour/Get to know you
State Bar & Lounge - We'll be in the back, being loud
909 Texas Street
Under the Rice Hotel, down the street from Cabo

Friday, October 19th
6:00-9:00pm

If you have any questions at all please call Malcolm Wardlaw at (713)751-477
Leave a message if he's not there.  He's really starved for human contactthese days...
***********************************************************************


All:

Attached is a draft of our Answer in Opposition to the PX's February 26
Request for Clarification, on in the Alternative, Request for Rehearing, of
FERC's Feb. 14 Order Rejecting its proposal to relax its creditworthiness
requirements.  If you have any comments or revisions, please let me know as
soon as possible.  You may contact me by return email, or by phone at (202)
828-7623.

Kim

 - 139200.DOC
 - #139200 v2 - ANSWER TO PX CLARIFICATION REQUEST.wpd


Please find attached the Global Markets Monitor for the week ending 12
January 01

Maureen Raymond-Castaneda and
Gwyn Koepke


Do you have an updated status on this issue?  Thanks.
PL

Russ Severson
01/23/2001 09:28 AM
To: Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: George Grant/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: NGPL Nipsco

I have forwarded this message to Global Facilities, they set up locations,
after they set up the location, then we can map the curves.

Russ

Phillip M Love
01/23/2001 09:12 AM
To: Russ Severson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: NGPL Nipsco

Can you please set this new location up, Nipsco/NGPL, with curves the same as
the original point, NGPL/Nipsco.  I believe they are as follows: gas daily
should be GDP-CHI. GATE, the intramonth should be NGI/CHI. GATE, and the Mid
should be NGI/CHI./NIPSCO.

Please shout with any questions.  Thanks for your help.
PL

---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT on 01/23/2001
09:00 AM ---------------------------

	From:  George F Smith                           01/23/2001 08:08 AM

To: Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Cora Pendergrass/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Margie Straight/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason
Williams/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrice L Mims/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: NGPL Nipsco

Phillip, Please move the following two deals from their current location,
NGPL/Nipsco, to a new location Nipsco/NGPL.  We are setting up Nipsco as it's
own pipeline so as to better track positions. Please make the change
effective Feb. 1.

Thanks, George


I am recommending Linda Robertson (currently Assistant Secretary for the
Department of the Treasury) for the position Vice President and General
Manager of Federal Government Affairs.  Linda would head our Washington, D.C.
office, replacing Joe Hillings who will be retiring early next year.

 Linda has interviewed with Ken Lay, Tom White, Mike McConnell and Jeff
Shankman, who join me in this recommendation.

 Attached are biographical information on Linda and a National Journal
article identifying Linda among the "Washington 100".

 We have conducted extensive reference checks on Linda.  Included among those
was Secretary Summers who said:

"Nobody I know has the determination she has to get objectives met."
"Far more capacity to grasp the details than anyone I've seen."

 On Monday, I will seek Executive Committee approval to extend the offer to
Linda.


Most of the current interconnection agreements contain language requiring a
tax gross up and, possibly, purchase of the utility's preferred meter (with
the utility to own the meter.)

First, there may be possible structures to minimize the tax gross up for
contributions in aid of construction (CIAC).  Contact ENA tax counsel when
working on these deals.

Second, Enron pipelines have allowed the customer to purchase and own its own
metering equipment, as long as such equipment meets the pipeline
requirements.  This would have tax gross up implications because the utility
would own less equipment.  Let me know if a utility is requiring metering
equipment and we would rather use and own our own equipment.

Thanks.


Columbia River Basin and Lower Snake.....Updated:   Feb  26, 2002 at 8:48


Jeff and Peter:

Has this question been resolved?  Please let me hear from you.  We need to
make certain that these transactions are properly booked.  Thanks.  Sara

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001 08:58 AM -----

	Sara Shackleton
	01/10/2001 09:50 AM

		 To: Jeff Blumenthal/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: "ECT Europe Accounting" as ENA hedge counterparty

Jeff:  Do you have an answer yet?  Sara

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 01/10/2001 09:49 AM -----

	Sara Shackleton
	01/03/2001 01:08 PM

		 To: Jeff Blumenthal/HOU/ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: "ECT Europe Accounting" as ENA hedge counterparty

Jeff:

In connection with the instructions given by London to Shane Dallmann, note
that the instruction for ENA to transact the Euro hedges was given by Peter
Russell.  Please advise as to whether these should be RMT transactions and
which Enron affiliate should be involved.  Thanks.   Sara


Daren:
 Here is a list of some potential new volume (not on Vances list)

  Atmic-Hurta #1  10,000 MMbtu/d
  Royal Production-Wilson Unit #1  2-3,000 MMbtu/d

 Let me know if you need anything else,
  Susan Smith
  x 33321


thanks, Donna -- good work.

	From:  Donna Martens                           07/07/2000 09:54 AM

To: Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Earl Chanley/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lorraine
Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Gallup Noise Survey

FYI -Received a letter from FERC today granting an extension until August 1
to file the noise survey report.   I will foward a copy to you for your
records.  Questions, let me know.  Thanks.  Donna