Can you place these on my calendar please.  Thanks.

----- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 10/25/2000 01:02 PM -----

	Jeffrey T Hodge
	Sent by: Jenny Helton
	10/24/2000 04:28 PM

		 To: Roger Balog/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peggy Banczak/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberlee A
Bennick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandi M Braband/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathleen
Carnahan/NA/Enron@Enron, Shonnie Daniel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacy E
Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shawna Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Ogden/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ann Elizabeth White/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stuart Zisman/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Suzanne Adams/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kaye
Ellis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jenny Helton/HOU/ECT@ect, Taffy Milligan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pat
Radford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky Spencer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chaundra Woods/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: East Origination and Gas Trading Staff Meeting

Attached is a memo regarding the above-referenced meeting.


Janet,
 The amendment is effective as of June 1, 2001.  That is the date on which
the price changes and the date that the term is extended and the date the
meter number is added.  I have corrected the contract number on the first
line for the proper reference to the assigned contract.

	Janet H Wallis/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/17/2001 10:38 AM

		 To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: entex amendment attached for your review

Looks good....does it cover the  the pricing of $3.155 begins 6/01?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Hyvl, Dan
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 10:31 AM
To: Wallis, Janet H.
Subject: entex amendment attached for your review

 << File: 2001-01amd.doc >>


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Nemec, Gerald
Sent:	Monday, October 15, 2001 1:42 PM
To:	Whitt, Mark
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	Huber Docs.

Mark,  Attached are the latest.  I smoothed out some of your changes and added a section in the TA to address assignment of the gathering agreement.  Please review.


Thank you, Rod!  SRS

From: Rod Hayslett/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/20/2001 06:52 AM
To: Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: RE:

I will pledge $100 to him.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Sera, Sherri   On Behalf Of Skilling, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:18 PM
To: Baxter, Cliff; Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ENRON; Glisan, Ben; Kean, Steven;
Sherrick, Jeffrey; Philippe A Bibi/HOU/ECT@ENRON; Brown, Michael; Cline,
Wade; James A Hughes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON; Kitchen, Louise; Rebecca
McDonald/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON; Piper, Greg; Sherriff, John; Whalley, Greg;
Dietrich, Janet; Muller, Mark; Scrimshaw, Matthew; Cox, David; Hannon, Kevin;
Hayslett, Rod; Horton, Stan; McCarty, Danny
Subject:

I know how incredibly busy you all are, so I'm sure that making a pledge to
Jeff for the MS150 has simply slipped your mind.  Well the ride is this
weekend, time is running out and we need you!

Enron's goal is to raise $700,000, and Jeff's personal goal is to raise
$50,000.  As of today, we are a little better than half way there.  Won't you
consider helping him reach his goal?

Thanks for your consideration.  I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow...

Sherri :-)


Happy Valentine's Day to you too!  And I'm not antiromantic...I'm just not as
romantic as some people.  It could be worse.  I could be like my mom...she's
less romantic than me.

Tambien te quiero MUcho.

Gabriel Monroy
02/14/2001 06:14 AM
To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Happy Valentine's Day.

I do not need a day like this to be romantic with an antiromantic person, but
I just wanted to let you know that
TE QUIERO MUCHO.


Following please find the Daily EnronOnline Executive Summary.


I have not seen it so pls forward. FAX 713-646-2391

Janie Tholt will be heading to LA for meeting. You can meet her then.

By the way,  please include her on the distribution to West gas issues as well.

Many thanks!

Stephanie

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 1:48 PM
To:	Tycholiz, Barry; Miller, Stephanie
Subject:	SoCalGas Move Away from "Windowing"

Just wanted to make sure that you have seen the announcement about the move, the meeting (on the 18th) they're having to explain and the brief description.  If not, let me know and I'll fax it to you.  And unless you have any objections, I'm seriously considering attending the meeting, since this has been one of the biggest problems we've had in the gas industry in California.  Let me know.

Best,
Jeff


Scott, thank you for forwarding the report to me.  All the best.  Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	cgi@eq.gs.com@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-cgi+40eq+2Egs+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]  On Behalf Of scott@nypcdsn02.eq.gs.com; caven@gs.com
Sent:	Monday, April 02, 2001 6:02 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Subject:	Goldman, Sachs & Co. - Enron Corp.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. Investment Research - Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Goldman, Sachs & Co. Investment Research

 ENE:  This Overachiever is Underperceived Even as Prospects Improve: Buy

***************************************************************************
* Enron share price has fallen sharply (by 35%) from recent Jan high as   *
* investors have focused on issues we view as almost insignif. to future  *
* valuation and ignored the extremely strong and, we believe, improving   *
* fund. in key growth businesses.  We cont. to estimate future LT (over   *
* five years) EPS growth at 25% versus consensus 17% est. as ENE Wholesale*
* Services appears likely to sustain 20% plus LT growth even as Retail    *
* (EES) is emerging as a more powerful growth engine than perceived by    *
* investors and telecom has interesting prospects.  We strongly reit. our *
* Buy rating, forecast very strong NT EPS results and see the segments of *
* ENE that generate earnings as trading at only 20X 01 EPS.               *
***************************************************************************

  David Fleischer, CFA (New York) 1 212-902-6018  -  Investment Research
  David Maccarrone, CFA (New York) 1 212-902-0324  -  Investment Research
   Eric W. Mandelblatt (New York) 1 212-357-7547  -  Investment Research

=====================  NOTE  6:20 AM  March 29, 2001  =====================

                             Stk  Latest  52 Week  Mkt Cap   YTD Pr    Cur
                             Rtg  Close    Range    (mm)     Change   Yield
                             ---  ------  -------  -------   ------   -----
Enron Corp.                   RL  58.10    90-55   43374.6   -30%      0.9%

                  --------------Earnings Per Share---------------
ENE (US$)          Mar     Jun     Sep     Dec      FY       CY
      2002 FY
      2001 FY      0.46                             1.80
      2000 FY(A)   0.40    0.34    0.34    0.41     1.47

                   -Abs P/E on-   -Rel P/E on--   EV/NxtFY  LT EPS
                    Cur    Nxt     Cur    Nxt     EBITDA    Growth
                   -----  -----   -----  -----   --------   ------
ENE       FY       32.3X    NMX    1.6X    NMX        NA        25%

===========================================================================
*  Investors appear to have been racing to sell ENE shares because of its
   apparent high P/E multiple (ignoring the considerable value of segments
   including Enron Energy Services, telecom and non-energy wholesale
   services) and misconceptions about a number of issues including its
   stalled asset disposition program (the Portland General Electric sale
   could be significantly delayed), the market position of its Indian power
   plant and California energy issues.  We believe that the current period
   of perceived uncertainly is actually an excellent opportunity to buy
   into a company that we view as virtually unique in the economy.  We
   believe that the energy industry in the United States and world is
   undergoing a major transformation and that a very few companies led by
   Enron are positioned to create efficiencies and provide the products,
   services and flexibility required by customers.  We believe these
   opportunities will lead to growth in earnings of 25% over the long term
   even if telecommunications makes only slow progress and does not come
   close to reaching our expectations.

*  Enron is likely to report strong results in Q1 and 2001 from all core
   businesses.  Although mgmt indicated on its March 23rd conf. call that
   it was 'very comfortable' with  ests of $1.70 to $1.75, we continue to
   be very confident that the company will equal or exceed our $1.80
   estimate.  Wholesale Services is likely to have an 'outstanding quarter'
   according to CEO Jeff Skilling with a 25% to 35% increase in natural gas
   volumes and a doubling of financial volumes.  Retail appears on track to
   achieve its $30 billion of new contract signings and turn profitable in
   2001 on a fully allocated basis.  Telecom has progressed at a slower
   pace than expected by investors as bandwidth trading has turned out to
   be more complicated to implement than some believed and the content
   business (now without Blockbuster as a partner) appears to also be
   developing more slowly than implied by Enron in 2000.  This said, the
   business opportunities in both parts of telecom appear to be excellent.

===========================================================================

Important Disclosures (code definitions attached or available upon request)
ENE        : US$ 58.10; CF, CP, M
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
Copyright 2001 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.  All rights reserved.

This report is not to be construed as an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction
where such an offer or solicitation would be illegal.
We are not soliciting any action based upon this material.
This material is for the general information of clients of
Goldman Sachs.  It does not take into account the particular
investment objectives, financial situation or needs of
individual clients.  Before acting on any advice or
recommendation in this material, a client should
consider whether it is suitable for their particular
circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice.
Certain transactions, including those involving futures,
options, and high yield securities, give rise to substantial
risk and are not suitable for all investors.  The material is
based upon information that we consider reliable, but we
do not represent that it is accurate or complete, and it
should not be relied upon as such.  Opinions expressed
are our current opinions as of the date appearing on this
material only.  While we endeavor to update on a
reasonable basis the information discussed in this
material, there may be regulatory, compliance, or other reasons
that prevent us from doing so.  We and our affiliates, officers,
directors, and employees, including persons involved in
the preparation or issuance of this material may, from time to
time, have long or short positions in, and buy or sell, the
securities, or derivatives (including options) thereof, of
companies mentioned herein.   No part of this material
may be (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any
form by any means or (ii) redistributed without Goldman,
Sachs & Co.'s prior written consent.

This material has been issued by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and/or
one of its affiliates and has been approved by Goldman Sachs
International, which is regulated by The Securities and
Futures Authority, in connection with its distribution in the United
Kingdom and by Goldman Sachs Canada in connection with
its distribution in Canada.   This material is distributed in
Hong Kong by Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., in Korea by
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Seoul Branch, in Japan by
Goldman Sachs (Japan) Ltd., in Australia by Goldman Sachs
Australia Pty Limited (ACN 092 589 770), and in
Singapore through Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte.
This material is not for distribution in the United Kingdom to
private customers, as that term is defined under the rules of
The Securities and Futures Authority; and any investments,
including any convertible bonds or derivatives, mentioned
in this material will not be made available by us to any such
private customer.  Goldman Sachs International and its
non-U.S. affiliates may, to the extent permitted under
applicable law, have acted upon or used this research,
to the extent it relates to non-U.S. issuers, prior to or
immediately following its publication.  Foreign-currency-
denominated securities are subject to fluctuations in
exchange rates that could have an adverse effect on the
value or price of, or income derived from, the investment.
In addition, investors in securities such as ADRs, the
values of which are influenced by foreign currencies,
effectively assume currency risk.

Further information on any of the securities mentioned in this
material may be obtained upon request, and for this purpose
persons in Italy should contact Goldman Sachs S.I.M. S.p.A. in
Milan, or at its London branch office at 133 Fleet Street, and
persons in Hong Kong should contact Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C.
at 2 Queen's Road Central, and persons in Australia should
contact Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Limited.  Unless governing
law permits otherwise, you must contact a Goldman Sachs
entity in your home jurisdiction if you want to use our services
in effecting a transaction in the securities mentioned in this material.

***************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Message was sent from:
User           : cavenh
Remote Host    : 198.242.136.154
Web Browser    : Mozilla/4.51 [en]C-CCK-MCD CPT-2  (WinNT; I)
Date           : Mon Apr  2 18:02:10 US/Central 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


LA,

Can you look into the Transport piece?  We need similar numbers for Sep 2000.

D
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 11/06/2000
11:06 AM ---------------------------

Patrick Wade
11/06/2000 09:56 AM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: zone transport, spot purchases

Daren - I'll call you about this at 10
---------------------- Forwarded by Patrick Wade/HOU/ECT on 11/06/2000 09:56
AM ---------------------------

Patrick Wade
10/31/2000 08:09 AM
To: kbarnett@aep.com, dkpenrod@aep.com
cc: Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: zone transport, spot purchases

Doug - In addition to these files, we are finishing rounding up the employee
data that Stephen Thomas requested


Hey Guys.

I had a long talk with NCPA today and set up so that we again can do the
ZP26/NP15 Buy-Resale on a Realtime basis. We are not doing a profit split
this time, we are paying them $25/MW instead. This basically enables us to
shift 21MW across PATH15 and not be subject to Congestion as NCPA has
Grandfather Rights across the path. This is a sweet strategy when the
SP15/NP15 spread is there and PATH15 is congested. NCPA's capacity is 21MW,
but I would not recommend doing more than 20MW. There are others who know
about this opportunity but are not currently using it (WESCO especially). So
by doing only  20MW we do not remind them of NCPA.

The way this works is that we call NCPA and ask their capacity across PATH15.
And tell them you want to schedule the BR through whatever hour.

IN CAPS:
We sell to NCPA in ZP26.
We buy from NCPA in NP15.

We can buy SP15 to fill our ZP26 sale (we just shift the load from SP15 to
ZP26, so enter a EPMI CALPOOL).
PG&E is NCPA's SC, so if you are not passing Phase two give them a call.

NCPA's tel#: (916) 786-3520
PG&E tel# : (415) 973-1969

If you guys have any questions  just ask me.

Geir


The tariff sheets do not line up on the page so well, I did a cut and paste.  You should see the following sheets

No		Comment		File
28B		PAL Rates		CGAS_PAL_rates.doc
227-229		Rate schedule		CGAS_PAL_Tariff.doc

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Mark Ellenberg" <Mark.Ellenberg@cwt.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Friday, March 01, 2002 3:23 PM
To:	Germany, Chris
Cc:	McMichael Jr., Ed; Mann, Kay; Concannon, Ruth; Shemin Proctor (E-mail)
Subject:	RE: Enron/Columbia Gas

could you please send us the PAL tariff sheet for columbia?  thanks

Mark C. Ellenberg
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
1201 F Street, NW
Washington, DC  20004
202.862.2234

                    "Germany,
                    Chris"                 To:     Mark.Ellenberg@cwt.com
                    <Chris.Germany@        cc:     "McMichael Jr., Ed"
                    ENRON.com>             <Ed.McMichael@ENRON.com>, "Shemin Proctor
                    Office:                (E-mail)" <sproctor@akllp.com>, "Mann, Kay"
                                           <Kay.Mann@enron.com>, "Concannon, Ruth"
                    03/01/02 12:14         <Ruth.Concannon@ENRON.com>
                    PM                     Subject:     RE: Enron/Columbia Gas

I'm not aware of an AP rate schedule.  AS (tariff sheet #205) and IPP
(tariff sheet #215) are separate rate schedules in the tariff.  AS pools
are used to aggregate production meters on CGAS's system and are assigned a
specific geographical location on the pipeline.  AS pool meters can be used
as primary receipt points on firm transportation agreements whereas IPP
Pool meters are not.

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         McMichael Jr., Ed
> Sent:         Friday, March 01, 2002 10:49 AM
> To:           Germany, Chris
> Subject:           FW: Enron/Columbia Gas
>
> can you help?  Please review the attachment and let's discuss.
> Ed
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         "Mark Ellenberg" <Mark.Ellenberg@cwt.com>@ENRON
> Sent:         Friday, March 01, 2002 10:25 AM
> To:           sproctor@akllp.com; McMichael Jr., Ed
> Cc:           Mann, Kay; Edward Smith; melanie.gray@weil.com
> Subject:           Enron/Columbia Gas
>
> Shemin, can you answer Ed Smith's question concerning the pooling
tarriff?
>
> Ed McMichael, do you have knowledge concerning the EES pooling
agreements?
>
>
>
>
> Mark C. Ellenberg
> Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
> 1201 F Street, NW
> Washington, DC  20004
> 202.862.2234
> ----- Forwarded by Mark Ellenberg/DC/CWT on 03/01/02 11:21 AM -----
>
>                     Edward Smith
>                     Office:              To:     Mark
Ellenberg/DC/CWT@CWT
>                                          cc:
>                     03/01/02             Subject:     Enron/Columbia Gas
>                     11:13 AM
>
>
>
>
>
> Two quick questions:
>
> 1.   The Columbia Gas motion refers to two pooling agreements, the IPP
> Service Agreement and the AS Service     Agreement.  Ms. Shemin's e mail
> attaches a copy of a rate schedule entitled "IPP Rate Schedule
> Interruptible  Paper Pools."   Does this rate schedule also apply to the
AP
> Service Agreement, or is there another rate        schedule for that
> agreement?.
>
> 2.   Can Mr. McMichael swear the affidavit with respect to the pooling
> agreements, which are with EES, not ENA?
>
>
>
>
==============================================================================

> NOTE:  The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use
or disseminate the information.  Although this email and any attachments
are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
> that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is
virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham
> & Taft for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
>
>
>
==============================================================================

>
>
>
==============================================================================

> NOTE:  The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use
or disseminate the information.  Although this email and any attachments
are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
> that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is
virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham
> & Taft for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
>
>
>
==============================================================================

>

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

==============================================================================
NOTE:  The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information.  Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.

==============================================================================

==============================================================================
NOTE:  The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information.  Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.

==============================================================================


Did this get taken care of?
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT on
04/05/2000 10:13 AM ---------------------------

	From:  John M Singer @ ENRON                           04/04/2000 01:38 PM

To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Robert Allwein/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wade R Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Theresa
Franklin/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Citygate Production

Yes, CES Retail did take this gas for Jan, Feb & March.  The Canonsburg
office was responsible for the noms.
 Yes, the deal needs to be input into Sitata.  Maybe, Terry can input.  Wade
has copies of the monthly invoices from T & F Operating for all three months.

Deal details:
Volume = 10,000 MCF per month
Price for Jan, Feb & Mar = $3.465 / MCF
I would not worry about the Mcf issue here.  Just put the volumes and price
in and pay the bill.
John

Chris Germany@ECT
04/04/2000 01:08 PM
To: John M Singer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Robert Allwein/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wade R Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Theresa
Franklin/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Citygate Production

Hey John, did CES take this gas for Jan, Feb, and Mar?  Wade would like to
see this deal in the system.

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 04/04/2000 01:06
PM ---------------------------

Chris Germany
04/04/2000 12:02 PM
To: Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Breese/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve
Jackson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: John M Singer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dick
Jenkins/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Oliver/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joan
Veselack/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Robert Allwein/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joann
Collins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Wade R Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Citygate Production

T&F Operating has sent ENA a "breach of contract" letter and is requesting to
terminate the contract effective 4/1/2000.

Colleen, I will give you a copy of the letter that was faxed to John Singer.

CES did a buy/sale behind Penn Fuel on CGAS for 1 year starting Nov 1, 1999.
T&F is the supplier and Glenn Gary was the market.   The market went away
effective 4/1/2000 and ENA/EES has no other market behind this part of Penn
Fuel's system.  We checked with the Penn Fuel asset management deal and
according to Penn Fuel, they can't take it either.

T&F is looking for their payment for Jan, Feb, and Mar, and T&F will waive
any and all "cover" cost that ENA would otherwise be liable for subsequent to
April 1, 2000.

John Singer wants to make sure we address the hedges in the books - will this
need to be included in the CES true-up?  Also, John wants to know if he
should sign the letter?.  Colleen, I told John you would anwser that question.


I will be there at 8:40 on Monday -- not a word until then...


Here is today's status report:

FERC

 Megawatt Daily reports that requests for rehearing before FERC have
been filed even though the November 1, 2000 draft order is not yet final.
Cal PX said they could not implement the software necessary to run the soft
caps by January 1st.    The City San Diego requested rehearing on the issue
of whether FERC has the authority to order refunds.  The City of San Diego's
Friday filing said the SDG&E had $800M in its "balancing account" that it
would be seeking from ratepayers.  The City argued that because their were
not just and reasonable rates, the filed rate doctrine is not called into
question.

Charles Dick

 I spoke with Charles Dick about his personal availability.  He told
me that he understood we were asking for a personal commitment from him.  He
has one matter that is set for arbitration in June, 2001 that will take a
significant amount of this time.  He has other matters, but is willing to
personally commit the time necessary for this engagement.  He had the same
approach as in the interview- not selling himself, but being completely
responsive.

David Noonan

 David called to tell me he had left messages for Richard but they
had not connected yet.  In part, it was because David was in deposition.  We
discussed conflict issues at some length.  In the copper cases where he
represents SCE, they have a 1.5% and 3% share of the damages at issue.
Thus, he is not acting as longstanding SCE counsel.  He said that he did not
believe that he could get a written forward looking waiver, since the
general counsel does not see this representation as a current conflict.  He
agreed, however, that he would be able to confirm that in the event that
Enron and SCE become adverse, while he would not be able to represent either
entity in that litigation, if he is still representing them in the copper
litigation, SCE would not claim that his continued representation of Enron
in the non-adverse matters was a violation of the duty of loyalty.  David
was going to continue to try and connect with Richard.

Larry Ruff

 Larry has reviewed the preliminary data that we were proposing to
release to the PUC.  In particular, I asked him to take the view of a
regulator and use the data to show market power, withholding electricity,
etc.  He told me that the data was not all that helpful in any of those
regards.  First, he found the same anomalies later in the year with respect
to energy purchased and energy sold.  He also had some questions about the
identity of various counterparties used in the system.  He found that the
data did not include price by the hour -- instead only the 24 hour
aggregate.  To the extent that we want to understand what happened during
peak periods, we would need the detailed data.  We also discussed finding
out what sources of public market data were available to understand what was
happening in the market to compare the Enron data with.  Larry has completed
the initial quick look that we asked for.  He will be in Australia for the
next few months.  We have made arrangements for encrypted email etc. to be
available so that we may consult with him as needed.

Tariffs and FERC related Materials

 Jean asked for the reference to the legal requirement to submit a
balanced schedule etc.  Peter Meringolo from our office gathered this
material earlier and we include it below.  We also enclose Ron Carol's brief
that he sent us that challenges the penalty provisions of the ISO tariff.
That litigation has been ongoing for a number of years.

 The requirement for EPMI to submit a balanced schedule is found in
the ISO tariff at section 2.2.7.2:

  A Scheduling Coordinator shall submit to the ISO only
Balanced Schedules in the Day-Ahead Market and the Hour-Ahead Market.  A
Schedule shall be treated as a Balanced Schedule when aggregate Generation,
Inter-Scheduling Coordinator Energy Trades (whether purchases or sales), and
imports or exports to or from external Control Areas adjusted for
Transmission Losses as appropriate, equals aggregate forecast Demand with
respect to all entities for which the Scheduling Coordinator schedules in
each zone.  If a Scheduling Coordinator submits a Schedule that is not a
Balanced Schedule, the ISO shall reject that Schedule provided that
Scheduling Coordinators shall have an opportunity to validate their
schedules prior to the deadline for submission to the ISO by requesting such
validation prior to the applicable deadline.

 The ISO Market Monitoring & Information Protocol ("MMIP") sets forth
the standards for Anomalous Market Behavior.  See MMIP 2.1.1.

  Anomalous market behavior, which is defined as behavior that
departs significantly from the normal behavior in competitive markets that
do not require continuing regulation or as behavior leading to unusual or
unexplained market outcomes.  Evidence of such behavior may be derived from
a number of circumstances, including:

  withholding Generation capacity under circumstances in which
it would normally be offered in a competitive market;

  unexplained or unusual redeclarations of availability by
Generators;

  unusual trades or transactions;

  pricing and bidding patterns that are inconsistent with
prevailing supply and demand conditions, e.g., prices and bids that appear
consistently excessive for or otherwise inconsistent with such conditions;
and

  unusual activity or circumstances relating to imports form
or exports to other markets and exchanges.

 The MMIP also prohibits Gaming.  See MMIP 2.1.3.

  'Gaming,' or taking unfair advantage of the rules and
procedures set forth in the PX or ISO Tariffs, Protocols or Activity Rules,
or of transmission constraints in periods in which exist substantial
Congestion, to the detriment of the efficiency of, and of consumers in, the
ISO Markets.  'Gaming" may also include taking undue advantage of other
conditions that may affect the availability of transmission and generation
capacity, such as loop flow, facility outages, level of hydropower output or
seasonal limits on energy imports from out-of-state, or actions or behaviors
that may otherwise render the system and the ISO Markets vulnerable to price
manipulation to the detriment of their efficiency.

 The ISO MMIP allows the ISO to do any of the following, among other
things, as a result of an entity's Anomalous Market Behavior or Gaming:

* "impose such sanctions or penalties as it believes necessary and as
are permitted under the ISO Tariff."  See MMIP 7.3.

* refer "to such regulatory or antitrust agency as it sees fit to
recommend the imposition of sanctions and penalties."  See MMIP 7.3.

* publicize "in whatever medium it believes most appropriate" the
"activities or behavior of Market Participants in the ISO Markets [revealed
to] have the effect of, or potential for, undermining the efficiency,
workability or reliability of the ISO Markets to give or to serve such
Market Participants an unfair competitive advantage over other Market
Participants."  See MMIP 2.3.2.

Ron Carroll's FERC Brief on MMIP's

 <<FERCbrief.doc>>

Projects Under Way

 Collection of Basic Business & Professions Code 17200 cases
 Summary of 397(b) Cases (Change of Venue Because of Local Prejudice)
 Basic fact summary incorporating Steve Hall's material
 Summary of Contracts and Draft Contracts that might be relevant
 Resolving Data Issues
 Locate Voice Recognition Software if the process used by Robin's
firm does not work
 Follow-up on status of Tape Sampling.

Thanks
Gary

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com

 - FERCbrief.doc


Hi Michael and Mark -

Please revisit the Hong Kong test product (for CDD) as shown below.   Please
note that it is based on the Melbourne/Sydney format:

A US Weather (Cooling Degree Day) Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North
America Corp., under which the Seller is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to
the Buyer where the Floating Amount is above the Strike Amount, or where the
Buyer is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to the Seller where the Floating
Amount is below the Strike Amount.  The Strike Amount is the amount in
Cooling Degree Days submitted in the "price" field by Counterparty via the
website. The Notional Amount is the product of the quantity submitted by
Counterparty via the website and the Pay Unit. The Payment Amount is the
product of (i) the Notional Amount and (ii) the absolute value of the
difference between the Floating Amount and the Strike Amount.

The Calculation Period is from and including the Effective Date of 01 Dec
2001 to and including the Termination Date of 31 Dec 2000.

The Calculation Period shall commence at 12:01am on the Effective Date and
conclude at 12:00am on the Termination Date at the relevant Reference Weather
Station or Fallback Reference Weather Station.  The Reference Weather Station
is Hong Kong Observatory, WMO Station Number 45005.  The Fallback Reference
Weather Station is King's Park, WMO Station Number 45004.  Reporting Service,
Reporting Agency and Data Source all mean the Hong Kong Observatory 134A
Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong or its successor organization.

The price is quoted in US Dollars per unit of volume, which will be the
Contractual Currency.

CDD shall mean Cooling Degree Day.
The Reference Basis is 18 Degrees Celsius.
The Pay Unit is 50 USD.
The Maximum Payout Limit is 5000 USD, multiplied by the quantity submitted by
the Counterparty via the website.

Michael Nguyen
12/05/2000 04:43 PM
To: Kevin Meredith/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Robert B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Weather Products

Kevin,

The following product descriptions for Hong Kong are incorrect.  Could you
please contact Rob, as he has created products for me using Australian cities
as a template.

Thanks,
Michael

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Kevin Meredith @ ENRON                           12/04/2000 05:10 PM

To: Michael Nguyen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark A Taylor/EFS/EES@EES
cc: Robert B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Weather Products

The following products have been created in Test.  Please review and advise.

US Wthr CDD Swap HNG KNG 100/20K         Jun01           USD/CDD
A US Weather (Cooling Degree Day) Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North
America Corp., under which the Seller is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to
the Buyer where the Floating Amount is above the Strike Amount, or where the
Buyer is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to the Seller where the Floating
Amount is below the Strike Amount.  The Strike Amount is the amount in
Cooling Degree Days submitted in the "price" field by Counterparty via the
website. The Notional Amount is the product of the quantity submitted by
Counterparty via the website and the Pay Unit. The Payment Amount is the
product of (i) the Notional Amount and (ii) the absolute value of the
difference between the Floating Amount and the Strike Amount.
The Calculation Period is from and including the Effective Date of 01 Jun
2001 to and including the Termination Date of 30 Jun 2001.
The Calculation Period shall commence at 12:01am on the Effective Date and
conclude at 12:00am on the Termination Date at the relevant Reference Weather
Station or Fallback Reference Weather Station.  The Reference Weather Station
is Hong Kong Observatory, WMO Station Number 45005.  The Fallback Reference
Weather Station is King's Park, WMO Station Number 45004.  Reporting Service,
Reporting Agency and Data Source all mean the Hong Kong Observatory 134A
Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong or its successor organisation.  Reference
Time means 12.01 AM LST.
The price is quoted in US Dollars per unit of volume, which will be the
Contractual Currency.
CDD shall mean Cooling Degree Day.
The Reference Basis is 65 Degrees Fahrenheit and the Reference Degrees are in
Fahrenheit.
The Pay Unit shall be 100USD.
The Maximum Payout Limit shall be 20000USD, multiplied by the quantity
submitted by the Counterparty via EnronOnline.

US Wthr HDD Swap HNG KNG 100/20K         Jan01           USD/HDD
A US Weather (Heating Degree Day) Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North
America Corp., under which the Seller is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to
the Buyer where the Floating Amount is above the Strike Amount, or where the
Buyer is obliged to pay the Payment Amount to the Seller where the Floating
Amount is below the Strike Amount.  The Notional Amount is the product of the
quantity submitted by Counterparty via the website and the Pay Unit. The
Strike Amount is the amount in Heating Degree Days submitted in the "price"
field by Counterparty via the website. The Payment Amount is the product of
(i) the Notional Amount and (ii) the absolute value of the difference between
the Floating Amount and the Strike Amount.
The Calculation Period is from and including the Effective Date of 01 Jan
2001 to and including the Termination Date of 31 Jan 2001.
The Calculation Period shall commence at 12:01am on the Effective Date and
conclude at 12:00am on the Termination Date at the relevant Reference Weather
Station or Fallback Reference Weather Station.  The Reference Weather Station
is Hong Kong Observatory, WMO Station Number 45005.  The Fallback Reference
Weather Station is King's Park, WMO Station Number 45004.  Reporting Service,
Reporting Agency and Data Source all mean the Hong Kong Observatory 134A
Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong or its successor organisation.  Reference
Time means 12.01 AM LST.
The price is quoted in US Dollars per unit of volume, which will be the
Contractual Currency.
HDD shall mean Heating Degree Day.
The Reference Basis is 65 Degrees Fahrenheit and the Reference Degrees are in
Fahrenheit.
The Pay Unit shall be 100USD.
The Maximum Payout Limit shall be 20000USD, multiplied by the quantity
submitted by the Counterparty via EnronOnline.


Thanks Vince.  I'll get right on it.

John

At 08:10 AM 4/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>John,
>
>The phone number for Ken Lay is (713) 853-6773.
>My recommendation is to call Mark Palmer first and discuss the book
>with him. His recommendation will open the door. I shall mention this to
>him
>as well. Mark's phone number is   (713) 853-4738.
>
>Vince
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"John D. Martin" <J_Martin@baylor.edu> on 03/30/2001 12:12:50 PM
>
>To:   vkamins@enron.com
>cc:
>Subject:  Good morning/afternoon
>
>
>Vince,
>
>one of my colleagues here at Baylor is writing a book about "the business
>of heaven" in which he interviews prominent business leaders.  Bob Darden
>is his name and he's a former journalist and nice guy.  He would like to
>contact Ken Lay about being one of his interviews.  Do you think this is
>possible?  If so, could you give me an address/phone numbers that Bob might
>use to contact Ken's secretary about setting up an interview?
>
>If this is in any way "not ok" please just say so.
>
>See ya,
>
>John
>
>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:35:03 -0600
>>From: Robert Darden <rfd3@flash.net>
>>Subject: Yo!
>>X-Sender: "Robert Darden" <rfd3@pop.flash.net> (Unverified)
>>To: J_Martin@baylor.edu
>>Organization: The Door
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-FLASHNET  (Win95; I)
>>
>>Hi John -- I enjoyed our meeting yesterday. This looks VERY promising.
>>Meanwhile, as I mentioned at the table, I'm getting a little nervous
>>about the book that is due June 1.
>>One of the names on our "wish" list of interviewees for "The Business of
>>Heaven" is Ken Lay at Enron.
>>Would it be possible for you to give me a good address and phone number
>>for Mr. Lay's office?
>>And may I mention your name in the cover letter?
>>I would be forever indebted. I might even buy the next lunch.
>>Bob
>>P.S. Thanks for sharing your concerns about church yesterday, too. I'm
>>genuinely sorry things didn't work out better and feel more than a
>>little embarrassed that I didn't work harder to make you guys feel more
>>welcome and connected. On the other hand, please know that Mary and I
>>will always love you and consider you both friends. I know you'll be
>>happy at Lake Shore -- even as we miss you at 7th!
>>
>John D. Martin
>Carr P. Collins Chair in Finance
>Finance Department
>Baylor University
>PO Box 98004
>Waco, TX 76798
>254-710-4473 (Office)
>254-710-1092 (Fax)
>J_Martin@Baylor.edu
>web:    http://hsb.baylor.edu/html/martinj/home.html
>
>
>
>
John D. Martin
Carr P. Collins Chair in Finance
Finance Department
Baylor University
PO Box 98004
Waco, TX 76798
254-710-4473 (Office)
254-710-1092 (Fax)
J_Martin@Baylor.edu
web:    http://hsb.baylor.edu/html/martinj/home.html


I understand.  I will call you for lunch later.

thanks

"DiFiore Love, Estelle" <edifio@coair.com> on 02/21/2001 10:23:58 AM
To:	"'tracy.geaccone@enron.com'" <tracy.geaccone@enron.com>
cc:

Subject:	Sorry

Sorry about that quick good bye!

Anyway, if you don't make it tonight, let's try to get together for lunch
the week of March 5.

Take care!

Estelle DiFiore Love
Manager, National Sales Planning
Continental Airlines, Inc.
Phone (713)324-2643
Fax (713)324-4647


Effective 9/1/00 deliveries to Eastrans is 30,000 MMBTU/dy

The redeliveries will be:

8500 from Fuels Cotton Valley
21500 to PG&E


I'm assuming that these are the sorts of things we should hold off on?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Taylor, Stephanie E.
Sent:	Monday, November 12, 2001 1:35 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	CEM Renewal

Jeff,

Your subscription to California Energy Markets will expire December 21, 2001.  Please let me know if you are interested in renewing for the year 2002.  If you are interested in renewing please include the following information:

	Delivery Address (email for online or street for print copy)
	Office Location (City)
	Company Number
	Cost Center Number

Stephanie Taylor
eSource
713-345-7928
stephanie.e.taylor@enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT on 02/23/2001
07:58 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Claudia Guerra @ ENRON                           02/20/2001 10:50 AM

To: Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Technical Analysis Seminar

There will be a three-part seminar on technical analysis and everyone in our
group is invited to attend. The classes will be held on Tuesdays, 3:00 to
4:00 pm in conference room 30C1.

March 13th
The ideology and assumptions of technical analysis;
Brief history
Methods of Charting
Trendline Analysis

March 20th
Classic Pattern Analysis
Japanese Candlesticks analysis
Moving Averages

March 27th
Oscillators
Elliott Wave

Thank you


Dear Mr Hayslett

Keith Harris has passed me your note regarding a visit to Wessex Water.  I
need to ascertain a few things before I go ahead and make arrangements.
They are:

When will you be arriving (date and time)
How will you get to Bath?
Have you booked any accommodation?
How long will you be with us?
Have you booked any appointments to see Wessex Water and Azurix Services
staff?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Marilyn Smith

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Wessex Water IT Support Centre on:

44-1225-732088 or email support@wessexwater.co.uk

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************


Start Date: 2/2/02; HourAhead hour: 17;  HourAhead schedule download failed. Manual intervention required.


The Equistar deal 156337 is the sale and swing all in one.  I only have two
deals for this counterparty, one for the sale and one for the buyback.

	From:  Robert E Lloyd                           04/05/2000 02:23 PM

To: Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Pat Clynes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert E
Lloyd/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Buyback / Deficiency Deals Worksheet

 Please make the following changes and redistribute your  worksheet.   Thanks
!

 1). Please update Equistar "Swing"  Sitara ticket # as: 156337. Equistar
"Sale" should reflect
      " various" due  to the different deals associated with this
counterparty.

 2). Valero Marketing  & Supply "undertake" Sitara ticket #'s are as follows:

            Mtr. 981394....148396
          Mtr. 988018....148381
          Mtr. 981233....148388

 3). Valero Marketing & Supply "Swing" Sitara ticket #'s are as follows:

          Mtr. 981394......148391
         Mtr. 988018......148382
         Mtr. 981233......148386

 4). Valero "Sale" Sitara ticket #'s are as follows: Mtrs. 981394....148390;
981233...148384; 988018...148376


Notice No. 00-321
September 11, 2000

TO:
ALL NYMEX/COMEX DIVISION MEMBERS/MEMBER FIRMS
ALL NYMEX/COMEX DIVISION CLEARING MEMBERS
ALL NYMEX/COMEX DIVISION FLOOR TRADERS
ALL NYMEX/COMEX DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGERS

FROM: Neal L. Wolkoff, Executive Vice President

SUBJECT: Quarterly Review of the Constituents of the FTSE Eurotop 300c and
FTSE Eurotop 100c  Indexes

FTSE has announced the results of its quarterly review of the constituents of
the FTSE Eurotop 300c and the FTSE Eurotop 100c Indexes by the FTSE Equity
Indices Committee.  Changes in the index constituents take effect after the
close of business on Friday 15 September, 2000.  FTSE,s technical release
describing the details of these changes is found at:

http://newsite.ftse.com/newsinfo/news/A2053_ei.html

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Jay
Gottlieb at (212) 299-2607.

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=tana.jones@enron.com&refdo
c=(00-321)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


Ben is trying to set up a conference call with ABB for next Wednesday. Dale,
are you available?  Pete Thompson is on vacation next week, but I suspect he
would be glad to call in.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 12/22/2000 12:56
PM ---------------------------

Andrew Kelemen@ECT
12/22/2000 12:49 PM
To: Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Dale
Rasmussen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: ABB contract

We have set a line in the sand with AES for 1/5/01 - we need this contract
ASAP for AES to review.


Please call me.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 06/13/2001 04:49 PM ---------------------------
From:	Jody Underwood on 06/13/2001 04:44 PM
To:	Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:	MEMO


Attached is a revised Credit Watch listing for the week of 5/14/01.
If there are any personnel in your group that were not included in this distribution, please insure that they receive a copy of this report.
To add additional people to this distribution, or if this report has been sent to you in error, please contact Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002.
For other questions, please contact Jason R. Williams at x5-3923, Russell Diamond at x5-7095, or Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002.


Sounds good to me, Vince.

Thanks,
Molly

Vince J Kaminski
01/17/2001 09:52 AM
To: Molly Magee/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Fed Ex from Iris

Molly,

Yes, March 1 would work.

Vince

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Molly Magee                           01/16/2001 03:36 PM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Fed Ex from Iris

Just checking to be sure you're okay with a March 1 start date for Iris?

Molly
---------------------- Forwarded by Molly Magee/HOU/ECT on 01/16/2001 03:35
PM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "iris mack" <irismmack@hotmail.com>
01/16/2001 03:13 PM

To: molly.magee@enron.com, Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Fed Ex from Iris

Hi,

     Thanks for the Fed Ex with the offer letter, and other pertinent
information about Enron.

     I have signed the letter and returned it to you, along with a couple of
other forms.  You should receive these documents via Fed Ex on tomorrow
morning.

     Because I have to tie up a few loose ends here in California, I won't
be able to start until March 1st.  I hope that is okay.

     Thanks so much.

Regards,
Iris
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Per John Grass - CES sold Eagle Point gas on ANR (deal 136749) at ANR IF
+.01.  and bought Eagle Point gas on CGAS (deal 149838) at CGAS IF +.005.

The sale to Eagle Point is in Sitara.  I just added the purchase deal on
CGAS, it was not in Sitara.  Per John - Eagle Point is guaranteed to recover
the ANR variable cost plus $.02.

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 01/12/2000 03:23
PM ---------------------------

	From:  Joan Veselack @ ENRON                           01/11/2000 06:23 PM

To: chris.germany@enron.com
cc: Joann Collins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, vlamadr@enron.com, Robert
Allwein/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Friendly Reminder - Paulding Gas

Chris, still missing 2247/day buy ticket from Eaglepoint/Central Desk for
Paulding Gas - F1

Thank you!!!!!


Dan -- Please review the attached revision.  I think all of the changes
discussed have been incorporated.  The traders on the East Desk are fine with
the operational language.  If there are any further comments, let me know.
Thanks -- David


Melissa

Attached is the suggested template for physical power confirmations as
discussed.

 As you know the "Confirmation Letter" is defined in the GTCs as being in the
form attached as Exhibit A to the GTCs, any changes to the confirmation that
the counterparties can expect to receive should also be reflected on the
Website in Exhibit A.

Kind regards,

Marcus

	Melissa Ann Murphy@ECT
	04/30/2001 04:51 PM

		 To: Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: EOL GTC Confirms

Hello, I wanted to make sure I understand where the new language is to be
inserted in our EOL GTC confirmation letter.  Bob Bowen was telling me they
are putting the new paragraph at the beginning of the confirm letter.  The
only problem I see is that we have the trade date and the energy type (firm
energy, etc.) in the first paragraph as well.  We also already have language
in the last paragraph about returning the confirm to us within 2 days.

Please look at the following template and let me know where you would prefer
to see the language added.  We are planning on changing our templates
tomorrow morning.

Thanks,
Melissa
3-1886


Derryl:

Thanks for pulling me in to meet John Schroeder, Account Manager (whom I had
met earlier with Graham Gebbie) and Marco Arcelli, Sales Manager, Pipelines.
Look forward to keeping in touch on this if any buy side opportunities are
evenutally pursued.

Thanks again.

Sarah-Joy


Louise, please let me know if we corrected the ESA/Mexico slide as you would like to see it.


Thanks, Drew.  That's consistent with my thinking, but I wanted to hear it
straight from the expert.

	From:  Drew Fossum                           11/28/2000 08:59 AM

To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Randy Rice/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan
Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia
White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: Citizens request for proposal

I'm not aware of any legal or regulatory prohibition on our performing such a
service for Citizens.  We can't actually buy the assets without a FERC
certificate, but that's not what you are suggesting.   I can think of one
example on NN in which Northwestern Pub. Service owns a some branch lines and
we operate them.  Whether we do it as a separate legal entity or as TW is a
strategy call that will depend on whether we want to keep the revenue stream
out of the regulated pipeline entity.  Since TW doesn't have a rate case
until 2006, there is probably no reason to put the contract in a separate
entitiy until we get down the road a ways.

Jeffery Fawcett
11/27/2000 04:00 PM
To: Randy Rice/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew
Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Citizens request for proposal

Citizens Utilities is in the process of selling off all of its
non-telecommunications businesses throughout North America.  One of their
principal assets, Louisiana Gas Service (LGS) is one of those companies
recently sold by Citizens.  LGS provided gas control and operations services
to other non-LGS companies, including the Citizens Utilities LDC assets in
Arizona.  With the consummation of the sale of LGS, Citizens has told me
confidentially that they have no reasonable way of operating the
interconnect, metering and 1.5 mile lateral pipeline facilities that
interconnects TW and EPNG to the recently constructed Griffith Energy Power
Plant.   Therefore, Citizens is looking to possibly have a 3rd party provide
contract operations services under an operating agreement.  TW has been asked
in writing by Citizens to consider making a proposal to operate these
facilities.

Does TW have an interest in providing contract operations services for
Citizens?  In a related legal/regulatory question, does TW have the authority
to conduct contract services on behalf of others, or would we have to perform
these services as a separate legal entity?  If we do, does this present an
affiliate problem for us if we "share" operating employees?  If these
threshold questions can be accommodated, and TW is not only able to provide
contract operations services for Citizens, but has a commercial desire to do
so, what would we charge Citizens for this service?  Although it would appear
at first blush to be a relatively simple matter to operate these facilities,
remember that Citizens will be receiving gas (potentially) from both TW and
EPNG simultaneously, presenting not only a challenge to balance pressure
between the pipes, but to account for and reconcile deliveries and receipts
from both pipes as well as the plant site.

Although I'm the principal commercial representative for Citizens as regards
transportation matters, I'm certainly willing to step out of the middle of
this negotiation if Operations desires to handle it themselves.  I will be
happy to provide you a copy of the brief 1/2 page letter Citizens sent to me
on the 17th soliciting TW's interest.   Given the relatively short lead time
until LGS operations is sold, Citizens has requested expedited
consideration.  Please let me know how you want to proceed.  Call if you have
any questions.


Lynn,

In reviewing the Duke contract 27291, I did find that the rate was not correct for four months in the past year.  I also reviewed Duke contract 27349 since it also had the same type of alternate to California deal.  Two months on the second contract were not billed correctly.  If Marketing can input the correct rates into the system, I can regenerate the invoices and bill Duke immediately.  Please see the attached file for details.

Thanks,  Bert

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Blair, Lynn
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 2:11 PM
To:	Giambrone, Laura; Hernandez, Bert; McEvoy, Christine; Miller, Beverly; Miller, Chris L; Minter, Tracy; Mulligan, Amy; Ward, Linda
Cc:	Donoho, Lindy; Lohman, TK; Kowalke, Terry; Hanagriff, Richard
Subject:	FW: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points

	Team, I realize this rate change is done in Marketing.  But, you have a responsibility
	to review the invoice to ensure that the adjustment to the price has been made if
	there is alternate deliveries.  Let's be proactive to ensure we have accurate billing.
	If you have any questions, please let me know.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hanagriff, Richard
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 11:30 AM
To:	Blair, Lynn
Subject:	RE: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points

This adjustment will result in approximately $7800 in additional revenues.

One way to prevent this situation in the future would be for the rep and or myself to ensure that Duke's rate has been increased when they have alternate deliveries to the border.   If these alternate deliveries exist and the rate has not been increased then the rep needs to bring this situation to the attention of the marketer.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Brown, Elizabeth
Sent:	Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:58 PM
To:	Watson, Kimberly; Blair, Lynn; Dietz, Rick; Donoho, Lindy
Subject:	K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points

FYI - In working to load rates for the FERC California reporting requirements, it appears that for the last four months Duke Energy T & M contract #27291 has not been billed the incremental fee of $0.06/dth for alternate deliveries to the Cal Border (over and above the base discount negotiated for the contracted primary points).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Elizabeth
x3-6928


Asa & Joy,

I just wanted to take a minute and thank the two of you for your generosity
this past week.  My friends and I had a terrific time and everyone really
enjoyed your condo.  The weather was terrific and the fish put up a
formidable challenge.  We are very interested in renting the condo from you
guys during the season this year.  I requested that the cleaning charges this
time be put on my credit card.  Please let me know if  they charge you guys
anything.  Thanks again.  We look forward to seeing you guys soon.
Phillip


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/letter_from_america/newsid_216000/21699
4.stm


Per my voice mail
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 11/01/2000 03:11
PM ---------------------------

"Cope, Lori" <loricope@akllp.com> on 11/01/2000 03:00:50 PM
To: "Kay Mann (E-mail)" <Kay.Mann@Enron.com>
cc:

Subject: GE Contract

Enclosed please find clean and blacklined versions of the GE Contract.
The blackline of the Agreement identifies the changes from the draft I
sent you. Note that no blackline of the Exhibits was necessary because
it contained no references to WestLB.
Regards,
Paul

 <<HOU_554886_3.DOC>>  <<BL554888.DOC>>  <<HOU_554888_4.DOC>>
Paul J. Pipitone
Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.
4200 Chase Tower
600 Travis
Houston, Texas  77002
Phone: 713-220-4101
Fax:  713-238-7176
ppipitone@andrews-kurth.com

The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged
and confidential information intended only for the use of the
recipient(s) named above.  If the reader of this e-mail is not an
intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error and any
review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error,  please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the copy you
received.

Thank you.

 - HOU_554886_3.DOC
 - BL554888.DOC
 - HOU_554888_4.DOC


1. Only send your timesheet if you have taken time off/rotation information
has changed. Sorry, we are no longer tracking overtime since you are salary
based. To all A/A Pool members: it is important that you let us know of any
time you have taken off. To those members who are sending time on to your
assistant, please make sure they forward that information on to the A/A
program. With the Roll Out of SAP, you have the ability to go on-line @
http://ehronline.enron.com/ and input your time. I will continue to email for
timesheets regardless if you go on-line. This is to let you know it is time
to input your time or fills out your timesheet.
2. If you have moved recently, please provide the following and indicate the
new changes when sending your timesheet.

NEW ROTATION:
Business Unit and Group:
Effective Date:
Location:
Extension:
Supervisor:
Supervisor's Location:
Supervisor's Extension:
Supervisor's Assistant:
Assistant's Location:
Assistant's Extension:
Co #
RC #

3. Quick reminder that you can pick up your check or past period check @ EB
1198 (if they are not already coming to your location/mail stop).

Thank You for Your Cooperation
RT


(See attached file: HPLN0131.xls)

 - HPLN0131.xls


Attached please find an updated presentation.  Louise has expressed concern
about the slides containing spreads, # of products and # locations.  I know
this is the message you want to deliver.  I'm trying to touch base with
Louise on this.


Gaurav:
Here is the online GTC that we would start with.
Carol


Chris Calger
503-464-3735

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Thome, Stephen
Sent:	Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:59 PM
To:	Puthigai, Savita; Meredith, Kevin; Tweed, Sheila; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Walker, Chris
Cc:	Richter, Brad; Calger, Christopher F.
Subject:	CGT Pop-up

Please review the attached profile for a CGT pop-up.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Steve


---------------------- Forwarded by Kate Symes/PDX/ECT on 04/10/2001 01:29 PM
---------------------------

	From:  Chris H Foster                           04/10/2001 07:52 AM

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Deal #576468.1 & 572069.1 (4/6/2001 & 4/7/2001)

Kate:

Can you please modify that deal that you made the price $140 yesterday to
make it for the 6th only?  The 7th is all at $150.

Thanks

C
---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001
09:58 AM ---------------------------

Audrey Cook
04/10/2001 07:51 AM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Deal #576468.1 & 572069.1 (4/6/2001 & 4/7/2001)

Chris,
Good morning!  Hey, one thing I probably did not clarify to you yesterday on
was that when the new deal ticket was set up for the $140 price strip (Deal
#576468.1), the deal should only be in for (4/6/2001) according to APX's
statement (not including 4/7/2001).  Therefore, the entire offpeak for your
deal would be booked on Deal #572069.1 for the $150 price for 4/7/2001.  Let
me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.
ajc

---------------------- Forwarded by Audrey Cook/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 09:44
AM ---------------------------

Audrey Cook
04/06/2001 01:27 PM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: APX - 4/6/2001

Chris,
One more quick thing on 4/6/2001- APX is showing 2 different prices for
offpeak ($140 & $150 - different MW per strip).  EPMI is showing $150 @ 12/MW
per offpeak hours.  This difference amounts to a $144 difference (APX has
lower invoice).  Can you verify?  Everything else is fine....talk to you next
week.  Have a good weekend.
ajc


I agree with most of this but have found from experience that if you give
originators the freedom to pursue deals with little restrictions the deal
flow improves dramatically.

For EOTT, we want to pursue acquisitions of energy assets period..  We do not
need to limit ourselves to the crude oil business.  In fact a portfolio of
assets would likely reduce the companies overall risk to crude prices.
Second, we want to avoid any additional exposure to commodity prices.
Therefore, fee based business structures are the best fit.  That would
include pipeline acquisitions (crude, liquid, natural gas, CO2, etc) as well
as fee based processing.  Non-qualified income based aquisitions are also ok
as long as they are fee based-type deals 9IE..electric generation).
Terminals are also an excellent acquistion for MLP,s.

Does this get to your issues?

Thanks


make sure Jared brings his credit card

Kimberly Bates
04/23/2001 11:42 AM
To:	Jennifer Martinez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda Roberts/NA/Enron@Enron, Gary Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jill T Zivley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edie Leschber/HOU/ECT, John Craig Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Maureen Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robin Barbe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tammi DePaolis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gil Muhl/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Jones/NA/Enron@ENRON, Phil DeMoes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Nelson Ferries/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ruth Concannon/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Hodge/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ed McMichael/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan W Pereira/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea Ring/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Junek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jared Kaiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Hodge/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Victoria Versen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandra F Brawner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter F Keavey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brad McKay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vladi Pimenov/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Hendrickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clarissa Garcia/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sabra L Dinari/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Loving/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tamara Carter/NA/Enron@ENRON, Kelly Loocke/ENRON@enronXgate, Chris Ordway/NA/Enron@Enron, Tracy Wood/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robert Allwein/HOU/ECT@ECT, Meredith Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alvin Thompson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lia Halstead/NA/Enron@ENRON, Shanna Boudreaux/ENRON@enronXgate, Tricia Spence/HOU/ECT, Joe A Casas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joann Collins/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christina Sanchez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Gillespie/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject:	Jared's Happy Hour

Help us wish Jared well!!!!

Wednesday, April 25

at
Sambuca

910 Travis

4:30 p.m. - until

Please RSVP


If we want to preserve our NY gas and electric contacts, we need to take immediate action on regulatory and collateral matters.  Steffes urges us to all meet at 10:30am at 4746 to discuss our alternatives with John Mostell of Leboef.  Pls reply on whether you'll attend.


Start Date: 4/24/01; HourAhead hour: 7;  No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Generation schedule.
Variances detected in SC Trades schedule.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001042407.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 7 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EES
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  UNIT_ID: BADLND_7_PL1X2

---- SC Trades Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblInt_Interchange.
     Details: (Hour: 7 / Preferred: -575.00 / Final: -574.98)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EPMI
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  TRADING_SC: NES1
  PNT_OF_INTRC: SP15
  SCHED_TYPE: ENGY
  PURCH_SALE: 1
  DEAL_NO: 1

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 7 / Preferred:   2.13 / Final:   1.58)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE4
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  SC_ID: EPMI


Are you still going to run?


cell # 713.594.0220


The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
documents is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney
work product rule and is confidential business information intended only for
the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or representative of the recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the Systems Administrator at admin@pkns.com and immediately delete this
message from your system.
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:16:47 -0700
From: "Debbie Castro" <dcastro@pkns.com>
To: "Michael Kirby" <mlk@pkns.com>
Cc: "Stephen Chapple" <shc@pkns.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received: from b1b.brobeck.com (BRO002-SF003-5.arcommunications.net
[216.168.87.70]) by PKNS.COM; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:58:50 -0700
Received: by b1b.brobeck.com; id IAA09989; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:51:49 -0700
(PDT)
Received: from unknown(192.168.73.89) by b1b.brobeck.com via smap (3.2) id
xma009955; Tue, 15 May 01 08:51:41 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: b0fe6c76-9e59-11d1-b373-00805fa7c2de
Message-ID: <79587830D4B9D311A59400805FA75A2E09E14E42@sfrexch1.brobeck.com>
From: "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
To: "Andy Pickens (E-mail)" <apickens@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Barrett H.
Reasoner (E-mail)" <breasoner@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "David J. Noonan
(E-mail)" <djn@pkns.com>,        "Debbie Castro" <dcastro@pkns.com>,
"Emison, Theo" <TEmison@brobeck.com>,        "Jean Frizzell (E-mail)"
<jfrizzell@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Jeff Alexander (E-mail)"
<jalexander@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Meringolo, Peter"
<PMeringolo@brobeck.com>,        "Mike D. Smith (E-mail)"
<msmith1@enron.com>,        "Molland, Michael" <MMolland@brobeck.com>,
"Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>,
"Robert C. Williams (E-mail)" <Robert.C.Williams@enron.com>,        "Smith,
Amanda" <ADSmith@brobeck.com>,        "Susan Bisop (E-mail)"
<sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com>
Subject: FW: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:01:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
X-WSS-ID: 171F8D58123756-01-04
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=iso-8859-1

FYI.
Thanks.
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fergus, Gary S.
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:45 PM
> To: Michael L. Kirby (E-mail)
> Cc: Molland, Michael E.; Smith, Amanda D.
> Subject: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
>
> Mike,
>
>  Here is the draft research memo that Amanda prepared on some of the
> questions surrounding Senator Dunn's investigation (some of this you saw
> before):
>
> Legislative Committee Subpoena Power
>
> Government Code Section 9401, provides that "a subpoena requiring the
> attendance of any witness before the Senate, Assembly, or a committee may
> be issued by the President of the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly, or the
> chairman of any committee before whom the attendance of the witness is
> desired if permission has been secured from the rules committee of the
> respective house."
>
> There is a relative dearth of case law interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et
> seq. and the Govt. Code reporters cross reference to the Code of Civil
> Procedure Sections on issuance of subpoenas (C.C.P. 1985, et seq.).
> Therefore, it is possible that the provisions of both the Govt. Code and
> the C.C.P. will govern the issuance and enforceability of a subpoena
> issued by a legislative committee.
>
> Govt. Code Section 9402 provides that a subpoena is sufficient if it "(a)
> states whether the proceeding is before the Senate, Assembly or a
> committee. (b) is addressed to the witness [presumably the custodian of
> records when documents are sought]. (c) requires the attendance of the
> witness at a time and place certain and (d) is signed by the President of
> the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly or chairman of the committee before
> whom attendance of the witness is desired."
>
> If the witness does not appear or refuses to testify or "neglects or
> refuses ... to produce upon reasonable notice any material and proper
> books, papers or document sin his possession or under his control, he has
> committed a contempt."  Govt. Code Section 9405.   If the contempt is
> committed while the Legislature is in session, Govt. Code Section 9407
> provides that the committee shall report the contempt to the Senate or
> Assembly "for such action as may be deemed necessary by the Senate or
> Assembly."  If the Legislature is not in session, "the superior court in
> and for the county in which any inquiry, investigation hearing or
> proceeding [is] held ... may compel the ... production of books, papers,
> documents and accounts, as required by the subpoena issued by the
> committee, on the filing by the committee of a petition to the court
> asking that the witness be so compelled."
>
> Govt. Code Section 9409 provides that "any witness neglecting or refusing
> to attend in obedience to subpoena may be arrested...."  It is unclear how
> this provision would (or whether it could) be applied to a subpoena issued
> to the custodian of records of a non-resident company.
>
> Motion to Quash Subpoena
>
> California courts have held, under C.C.P. Section 1985, that a motion to
> quash is the procedurally appropriate method of testing the validity of a
> subpoena duces tecum.  See e.g. People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v.
> Younger (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 575.  My research has revealed no case in
> which a subpoena issued by a legislative committee has been challenged by
> a motion to quash, but, as noted above, there appear to be only a very few
> cases interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et seq.   Therefore, it appears that a
> superior court may be able to grant a motion to quash a subpoena issued by
> a legislative committee (assuming that we want to take the risk of state
> court jurisdiction).
>
> In one early case, the Court of Appeal held that the contempt order and
> accompanying affidavit issued by the Court upon the request of a Senate
> Committee were fatally defective.  Ex Parte McLain (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d
> 274.  In McLain, the Senate Interim Committee on Social Welfare served
> upon Mr. McLain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a corporation a
> subpoena calling for the production of various books, papers and
> documents.  Mr. McLain appeared before the committee but refused to answer
> questions or produce the documents.  Upon representation of the Committee,
> the Superior Court issued an order directing Mr. McLain to produce the
> documents.  Mr. McLain again appeared before the Committee and again
> refused to produce the documents at which point, an affidavit was filed in
> Superior Court stating:
>
> "That, based upon evidence in its possession, the said Senate Interim
> Committee has determined that each of the books, papers, and documents
> specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to the matters now
> under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee, and the
> production of such books, papers and documents is necessary in order to
> enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the duties
> imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of California
> pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162." and "That each of the books,
> papers and documents specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to
> the matters now under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee
> and that the production of such books, papers and documents is necessary
> in order to enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the
> duties imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of
> California pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162."
>
> The Superior Court found Mr. McLain guilty of contempt and ordered him
> committed to the sheriff until he produced the records.  The Court of
> Appeals found that the order and affidavit were defective because "a
> witness who is otherwise orderly and respectful cannot be adjudged guilty
> of contempt unless the order affirmatively sets forth the materiality and
> pertinency of the books and papers called for.  In cases of constructive
> contempt, as is this, not only the order but also the affidavit upon which
> it is based must sufficiently charge the alleged facts constituting the
> offense."  McLain at 276.
>
> This holding appears to be somewhat consistent with cases interpreting
> C.C.P. 1985, which hold that the subpoena and affidavits must allege
> material facts rather than conclusory statements.  See e.g. Grannis v.
> Board of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551.
>
> However, cases interpreting C.C.P. 1985 also require the subpoena to
> demonstrate a level of specificity, materiality and relevance to be held
> proper.  See e.g. Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 273
> Cal.App.2d 61.  It is unclear whether subpoenas issued by legislative
> committees are held to this same standard.
>
> What is the likely impact of a legislative committee subpoena issued
> against the Enron' custodian of records, an out-of-state resident,
> intended to affect the production of out-of-state Enron documents?
>
>
> Here are the threshold questions:
>
> A.  Since we have found so few cases interpreting Govt. Code Section 9401,
> to what extent would a legislative committee subpoena be governed by the
> same procedural and substantive rules as a subpoena issued in a pending
> civil state court action?
>
> B.  Would a court determining the validity of a legislative committee
> subpoena make reference to the Code of Civil Procedure Sections governing
> subpoenas "generally" (i.e. C.C.P. 1985 et seq.) or those governing
> "deposition subpoenas" (i.e. C.C.P. 2020 et seq.)?  This is a toss-up and
> the answer may well be "both."  The Government Code reporter sections on
> legislative subpoenas cross references to C.C.P. 1985 et seq. ("subpoenas
> generally").  However, the "deposition subpoena" provisions (C.C.P. 2025
> et seq.) more closely resemble the "discovery" process that the Senator
> seems to be undertaking.
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 1985 et seq.
>
> C.C.P. 1989 is entitled "Residency requirements for attendance of
> witnesses" and provides that "A witness, including a witness specified in
> subdivision (b) of Section 1987, is not obliged to attend as a witness
> before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness
> is a resident within the state at the time of service."
>
> There is a statutory limitation on the residency requirement imposed by
> Section 1989.  Section 1987.3 provides "[w]hen a subpoena duchess mecum is
> served upon a custodian of records or other qualified witness as provided
> in Article 4 (commencing with Section 1560) of Chapter 2 of Division 11 of
> the Evidence Code, and his personal attendance is not required by the
> terms of the subpoena, Section 1989 shall not apply."  (Evade. Code 1650
> lays out the terms for compliance with a subpoena for business records
> where the business is "neither a party nor the place where any cause of
> action is alleged to have arisen.")
>
> On commentator noted the following with respect to C.C.P. 1987.3:
>
> "The rule limiting subpoenas to California "residents" (C.C.P. 1989) does
> not apply to subpoenas duchess mecum served on custodians of records
> unless their personal attendance is required. See C.C.P. 1987.3; Amoco
> Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (1995) 34
> Cal.App.4th 554, 561 fn. 9.  Thus, a nonresident custodian of business
> records may be required to respond to a subpoena duces tecum served upon
> him or her while present in California, by producing the records in
> accordance with Cal. Evid. Code 1560 (delivering copies of the records and
> accompanying affidavit to the court clerk)... [However], C.C.P. 1987.3
> probably applies only where the nonresident custodian is employed by a
> business entity subject to California jurisdiction. Otherwise, there would
> be no way for the court to enforce compliance with a subpoena served on a
> nonresident.  See Amoco Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of
> London, supra."
>
> Werner, Fairbanks & Epstein, Rutter Group, California Practice Guide:
> Civil Procedure & Trials at 1.57-58
>
> Moreover, in one unpublished case, Allee v. King (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d
> 1081, the court held that it lacked power to compel a nonresident
> defendant to produce original out-of-state documents at trial.  In so
> holding, the court stated that:
>
> "even though King apparently voluntarily attended the trial, his presence
> does not confer jurisdiction on the court to oblige him to deliver the
> out-of-state documents.   Although section 1989 uses the word "witness"
> and does not refer to documents, it has long been presumed under common
> law that documents in other states are outside the court's territorial
> jurisdiction, so that a court will allow the use of copies or other
> secondary evidence instead of originals.  (See, e.g., Heinz v. Heinz
> (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 61, 66, 165 P.2d 967, and cases cited therein.)   The
> recognition that out-of-state documents are not subject to the court's
> process is in conformity with the general rule under common law that,
> absent a statute properly conferring broader powers, the extent of a
> state's subpoena power and its accompanying subpoena duces tecum power is
> coterminous with its borders.  (See 97 C.J.S., Witnesses, S 17, p. 367, S
> 23, p. 375, S 25, p. 380;  81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, S 8, p. 32, S 14, p.
> 39.)
>
> However, the Allee court notes that the "state-border" limitation on
> subpoena power has not been extended to local branches of national
> corporations who are subpoenaed to deliver documents which are
> out-of-state.  Therefore, even under Allee, if a subpoena was issued to a
> California Enron entity that possessed responsive documents, that Enron
> entity may be obligated to respond.  See Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co.
> (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806.
>
> Therefore, if a subpoena is issued which requires the attendance of an
> out-of-state officer of Enron, Enron has a very good argument that that
> witness is not obligated to attend under C.C.P. 1989.  It also seems
> probable that, under Amoco and Allele cited above, if a subpoena is served
> on an Enron custodian of records who is employed by a non-California Enron
> entity, the subpoena may be invalid.  However, if a subpoena seeking the
> production of documents is served on the custodian of records (or someone
> similarly situated) who is employed by an Enron entity that possesses
> responsive documents and is subject to personal jurisdiction in
> California, that Enron entity most likely is obligated to produce the
> documents.  It is an open question whether that custodian of records
> (employed by an Enron entity in California) would only be required to
> produce the Enron documents in the possession of the Enron California
> entity or whether that person's obligation would extend further -- to
> produce out-of state documents (i.e. documents from non-California Enron
> entities)  (This question is addressed somewhat in the commentary on the
> C.C.P. 2020 statutory scheme, see below, but is still open)
>
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 2020 et seq.
>
> Additional threshold question:  If the legislative subpoena was treated as
> a "deposition subpoena," would a court deciding the enforceability of a
> legislative subpoena treat Enron as a "party" or as a "non-party"?
>
> The rules governing the reach of discovery in California are obviously
> different for the two.  The deposition of a party or party-affiliated
> witness may be noticed (without a subpoena) for a place within 75 miles of
> the witness' residence.  It is unclear how a court would resolve this
> issue.  After all, if a court was resolving the issue at all, an Enron
> entity will have appeared before it. and would be a "party."  However, it
> seems moderately more likely that the court would treat Enron's
> obligations under the legislative committee subpoena as similar to its
> obligations if it was served with a "non-party" subpoena.
>
> There are three types of "deposition subpoena":  a "testimony only
> subpoena" (requires only the attendance and testimony of the witness), a
> "business records subpoena" (requires only the production of business
> records) and a "records and testimony subpoena" (requires both -- also
> formerly called subpoena duces tecum).  The second of these is the most
> relevant to Enron.
>
> The attendance of an non party out-of-state witness or the production of
> documents can be compelled only under the law of the place where the
> deposition is to be taken.  C.C.P. 2026 (b)(2).  Specifically, C.C.P.
> 2026(b)(2) provides "If the deponent is not a party to the action or an
> officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, a party serving
> a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and
> procedures required and available under the laws of the state, territory,
> or insular possession where the deposition is to be taken to compel the
> deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document or
> tangible thing for inspection, copying, and any related activity."
>
> Some states issue subpoenas routinely, some require a showing of
> materiality or relevancy, and some require a commission from the court
> where the action is pending.    This question will depend on the law of
> the state when the custodian of records resides.
>
> Regarding the question of whether the service of a deposition subpoena on
> an in-state custodian of records would compel the production of
> out-of-state documents.  Weil & Brown, Rutter Group, California Practice
> Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at 5:540.4 notes:
>
> "It is unclear whether service of a "business records" subpoena on a
> nonparty corporation in California compels production of its records
> located outside the state. ... C.C.P. 2020(d) requires that the subpoena
> be directed to the records "custodian" (or someone authorized to certify
> the records). Whether "custodian" requires actual custody of the records
> is unclear. If it does, serving an officer or agent in California would
> not compel production of business records located elsewhere.... The result
> is different where a "records and testimony" subpoena is used. That
> procedure extends to records in control of the subpoenaed party, not
> merely in his or her custody."
>
> If the State of California files civil suit against Enron to obtain
> discovery of the requested documents, does the fact that the State is the
> plaintiff (rather than a private party) affect Enron's prospects for
> removal of the suit to federal court?
>
>
> If the action filed by the State of California presents a federal
> question, then under the rationale of the court in People of the State of
> California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992) 792 F.Supp. 84, the case
> should be removable to federal court.
>
> In People of the State of California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992)
> 792 F.Supp. 84, the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles brought
> suit alleging violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition
> Statutes (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16720 and 17200).  The District Court
> found that, although the district attorney is only allowed to prosecute
> Cartwright Act violations on behalf of the county or public agencies
> located in the county, the unfair competition statutes expressly provide
> that suit be brought "in the name of the people of the State of
> California."  Id. at 85.  Therefore, for the purposes of the Unfair
> Competition Claims, the Court found that the State of California was the
> real party in interest.
>
> The Court then found:
>
> (1) that "for diversity purposes, a state is not a citizen of itself.
> Therefore it cannot sue or be sued in a diversity action."  Id.
> Specifically, the Court found that: "[e]ven assuming arguendo that
> defendant is correct that the County of Los Angeles is the real party in
> interest and the proper party in the Cartwright Act claim, diversity
> jurisdiction does not lie because, under long- established teaching, there
> must be complete diversity, i.e., all plaintiffs must be diverse from
> defendant.   E.g. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed.
> 435 (1806).   Here, there cannot be complete diversity because, to repeat,
> the State of California is not a citizen of any state. "  Id.
>
> (2) that "[i]ndependent of its failure to meet the complete diversity
> test, the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because of the bar of
> the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.   The Eleventh Amendment is a
> grant of sovereign immunity to a state against suit in federal court.   It
> is in "the nature of a jurisdictional bar."  .... Defendant, relying on
> the literal wording of the Eleventh Amendment, contends that this is not a
> "suit ... against one of the United States ..." because the State is the
> plaintiff.   However, since the immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment
> is an immunity from being made an involuntary party to an action in
> federal court, it should apply equally to the case where the state is a
> plaintiff in an action commenced in state court and the action is removed
> to federal court by the defendant." Id.  (internal citations removed).
>
> However, the Court noted that "where removal is predicated on federal
> question jurisdiction, removal is permitted even where a "non-removable"
> claim is joined with the removable claim...." Id.
>
> If a criminal case (price gouging, etc.) is brought against Enron, is
> there any theory (preemption, primary jurisdiction or double jeopardy)
> which would allow that criminal proceeding to be dismissed, stayed or
> removed given the criminal penalty provisions of the Federal Power Act?
>
>
> Our preliminary research shows that there is a body of substantive law
> dealing generally with the question of whether criminal proceedings are
> subject to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, but no case which considered
> this question with respect to the Federal Power Act specifically.
>
> Generally, in one case concerning a District Court order staying criminal
> action involving allegations of conspiracy and fraud against a defense
> contractor pending the District Court's referral of various questions
> regarding the case to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the
> Ninth Circuit has said:
>
> "Our concern with the district court's stay and referral is heightened by
> the fact that this action is a criminal prosecution.   While it is true
> that the primary jurisdiction doctrine has been applied in criminal cases,
> see United States v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co. (1913) 228 U.S. 87,
> 106-08; United States v. Yellow Freight Sys. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 737,
> 742, its use clearly interferes with the government's authority to
> prosecute criminal cases. ... We said in a related context:
>
> 'We approach the interpretation of the statute with a presumption against
> a congressional intention to limit the power of the Attorney General to
> prosecute offenses under the criminal laws of the United States.   In
> general, the "conduct [of] federal criminal litigation ... is 'an
> executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney
> General,' "  In re Subpoena of Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54 (2d Cir.1975),
> quoting United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1965) (Wisdom, J.,
> concurring).   Congress may limit or reassign the prosecutorial
> responsibility.   See Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 96-97, 66 S.Ct. 438
> [440-41] 90 L.Ed. 552 (946);  Nader v. Saxbe, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 92-93,
> 497 F.2d 676, 679-80 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1974);  FTC v. Guignon, 390 F.2d 323,
> 324 (8th Cir.1968).   But "[t]o graft such an exception upon the criminal
> law would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative
> will."  United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282, 32 S.Ct. 81, 82, 56
> L.Ed. 198 (1911).'  United States v. International Union of Operating
> Engineers, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied,
> 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S.Ct. 1026, 62 L.Ed.2d 760 (1980)"
>
> United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (9th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 1356,
> 1366.  The General Dynamics Court went on to say that "only where an issue
> unambiguously requires initial agency determination under the primary
> jurisdiction doctrine ... and the referring court has the authority to
> review the agency's order, can the agency's regulatory interests be
> required or allowed to subordinate the government's authority to prosecute
> criminal offenses."  Id.
>
> In another context, the Ninth Circuit held that the exhaustion of
> administrative remedies before the Federal Election Commission was not a
> prerequisite to indictment under the Federal Election Campaign Act:
>
> "... neither the language nor the legislative history of the Act provides
> the kind of "clear and unambiguous expression of legislative will"
> necessary to support a holding that Congress sought to alter the
> traditionally broad scope of the Attorney General's prosecutorial
> discretion by requiring initial administrative screening of alleged
> violations of the Act. On the contrary, the language and legislative
> history indicates that while centralizing and strengthening the authority
> of the FERC to enforce the Act administratively and by civil proceedings,
> Congress intended to leave undisturbed the Justice Department's authority
> to prosecute criminally a narrow range of aggravated offenses."
>
> United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701
> (1979) 638 F.2d 1161.  See also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Shipping
> Industry (D.D.C. 1960) 186 F.Supp. 298, 309 ("though the doctrine of
> primary jurisdiction may be applied to both civil and to criminal actions,
> it is more forceful in the civil regulatory type actions than in criminal
> actions for in the latter actions the violations of other federal statutes
> may more often be involved, and the regulatory scheme less affected.")
>
> Therefore, it seems clear that it will be difficult to invoke the doctrine
> of primary jurisdiction to dismiss or stay criminal proceedings against
> Enron, especially since the "criminal penalty" provisions of the Federal
> Power Act are relatively limited.
>
> In addition, at least one court has held, in the civil context, that the
> Federal Power Act was not designed to "shift the forum for the trial of
> anti-trust questions affecting power companies from the District Courts to
> the Power Commission [FERC's predecessor]"  Pennsylvania Water & Power Co.
> v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. (4th Cir. 1950) 184 F.2d
> 552, 562.
>
> I have not been able to find any case directly on point which invokes
> "double jeopardy" type arguments.  (In other words, if there are possible
> criminal penalties under the Federal Power Act and the same conduct is at
> issue that was examined by FERC, would State law criminal charges based
> upon the same conduct be precluded.)  Further research on this point after
> the filing of a criminal claim (when the details of the allegations are
> known) may be productive.  Also, it may be worthwhile to look for
> regulatory statutes that consider language similar to that in the Federal
> Power Act to determine if preemption/primary jurisdiction case law exists
> in analogous situations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com


The Research Weather Group has posted the 2001 Summer Outlook on Research
Intranet Page, under the Afternoon Video Report.

The links are:
http://gasfundy.corp.enron.com/Gas/sections/weather/InHouse/MorningComents/dis
cussionContent.asp?item=Afternoon

and  http://enaresearch.corp.enron.com/research/framework/default.asp


I'm orderring pizzas for the next week.  I'll include you.

Jeff


Done.

Lester Rawson
03/06/2001 07:09 AM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Deal Approval

Kate,

Please approve and autoschedule Deals # 515111,515110.

Les


Way to go...very excited for you.  You will HAVE to let me Monday know how things went.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Carlson, Tobin
Sent:	Friday, June 01, 2001 3:31 PM
To:	Scott, Susan M.
Subject:

I got a date!! This gal that I told you about last night is actually going to dinner with me!! I am stoked. Anyway, have a good weekend. We will de-brief on Monday....

Tubby