Please respond to The Motley Fool
===================== FOOLWATCH - THE MOTLEY FOOL ===============
                         Thursday, May 17, 2001
benjamin.rogers@enron.com
=================================================================
Editor's Picks:
---------------------
- Five Money Tips for New Grads
- Ignore Splits, Dividends Rock
- Online Seminar: Choosing Stocks with The Motley Fool
- P/E Ratio: What's the Big Deal?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

                    Close    Change  %Change

        FOOL 50   1,617.29    +9.59   +0.60%
        DJIA     1,1248.58   +32.66   +0.29%
        S&P 500   1,288.49    +3.50   +0.27%
        NASDAQ    2,193.64   +27.20   +1.26%

              (Numbers as of 4:00 p.m. ET)
               THE LATEST MARKET NUMBERS
           http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411381

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

SPONSORED BY: DIRECTV
Get a FREE DIRECTV system and FREE Pro Installation!  DIRECTV
delivers over 200 channels of sports, news, adult, family,
network and cable programming. *See Site for details
http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=411382

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

SPECIAL: MONEY TIPS FOR NEW GRADS
  Build long-term wealth with these five must-know tips for new
  graduates.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411383

DRIP PORT: IGNORE SPLITS, DIVIDENDS ROCK
  Did you know you could earn a 12% annual dividend yield by
  owning the right company the next eighteen years? Jeff Fischer
  shows you how.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411384

ONLINE SEMINAR: CHOOSING STOCKS WITH THE MOTLEY FOOL
  We'll show you how to find the best investments in any market.
  Join us today. 100% money-back guarantee.
http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=411385

FOOL ON THE HILL: P/E RATIO: WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
  Price-to-earnings ratios give investors a sense of how the
  market values a company's earnings. But do you know what it
  leaves out?
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411386

RULE MAKER: THE SOFTER SIDE OF RULE MAKER INVESTING
  There is more to the Rule Maker strategy than number crunching.
  Matt Richey exposes the Portfolio's underbelly.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411387

NEWS: HEWLETT-PACKARD'S PRICE STRATEGY
  The computing equipment company is cutting printer prices, but
  avoiding the PC price war.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411388

NEWS: TOM GARDNER CHALLENGES SEC
  If the SEC won't stand behind Regulation FD, says Tom Gardner,
  its purpose should be questioned.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411389

FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF TODAY'S STORIES, CLICK THE LINK BELOW.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411390

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

SPONSORED BY: DIRECTV
Get a FREE DIRECTV system and FREE Pro Installation!  DIRECTV
delivers over 200 channels of sports, news, adult, family,
network and cable programming. *See Site for details
http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=411391

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

My Portfolio: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411392
My Discussion Boards: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411393
My Fool: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411394
Fool.com Home: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411395
My E-Mail Settings: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411396

FAST AND FREE
Grab your new Member Benefits and check out
what's new for you this week.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411397

WE SAVE OUR BEST INVESTING IDEAS...
for our new research service, The Motley Fool Select.
Only $4.99  per month for subscribers.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411398

PAYING TOO MUCH TO TRADE?
Compare online discount broker fees in one click.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411399

FOOL DIRECT EMAIL SERVICES
Unsubscribe, change your settings, temporarily suspend mail
delivery:
http://www.fool.com/community/freemail/freemaillogin.asp?email=benjamin.rogers@enron.com

EMAIL DISCUSSION BOARD
Let us know what you think of our email products:
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=411400

_________________________________________________________________
(c) Copyright 2001, The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. This
material is for personal use only. Republication and
redissemination, including posting to news groups, is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of The Motley Fool.

MsgId: msg-12772-2001-05-17_17-06-53-6161389_1_Plain_MessageAddress.msg-17:17:23(5-17-2001)
X-Version: mailer-sender-master,v 1.84
X-Version: mailer-sender-daemon,v 1.84
Message-Recipient: benjamin.rogers@enron.com


Steve,

Attached is Business Controls' assessment of factors that could cause a
significant deterioration in the security posture at Dabhol.  Essentially,
the likelihood of serious security problems seems to be low, but because the
situation is both complicated and extremely fluid, it will need to be watched
closely as matters move toward resolution.  We're continuing our on-site
assistance in both Dabhol and Mumbai and fleshing out contingency plans for
evacuation and other worst-case scenarios.  A hard copy of this document has
been delivered to Rebecca McDonald.

David Cromley
Director, Business Analysis
Enron Corp.
(713) 345-4513


----- Original Message -----
From: Susan Coomes <COOMS@andrews-kurth.com>
To: PATRICIA LIN <LINPA@andrews-kurth.com>; Amber McCormack
<MCCOA@andrews-kurth.com>; STEPHANIE TIJERINA <TIJES@andrews-kurth.com>;
DIANE WILLEY <WILLDI@andrews-kurth.com>; <WALKEReb@aol.com>;
<sherrscher@belmontvillage.com>; <kimberlyscott_esq@hotmail.com>;
<shawnellemorrison@hotmail.com>; <lcoomes@houstonpress.com>;
<lee@intermat.com>; <pchapman2@pdq.net>; <pyoung@pdq.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 12:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Stress relief

Received: from smtp2.allstate.com ([167.127.14.134]) by ccgate.verner.com;
Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:42:36 -0400
Received: from 001-exims5-d.allstate.com (001-exims5-d.allstate.com
[10.40.48.69]) by smtp2.allstate.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05549;
Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:25:52 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by 001-exims5-d.allstate.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2650.21) id <KVAV3WMS>; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:25:54 -0500
Message-ID:
<E9D7E20780DDD21198610008C75D2E3B03B9C872@116-expo5-d.allstate.com>
From: "Frank, Dana" <cj1cl@allstate.com>
To:
Subject: FW: Stress relief
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:25:43 -0500
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3961722C.1B7A11EC"

> <<StressRelief.EXE>>
>  <<StressRelief.EXE>>

 - StressRelief.EXE


Thanks for following up on this.

	From:  Leslie Reeves                           12/11/2000 02:49 PM

To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Counterparty Names

Sally - per our conversation I have attached the message Jeff sent out this
morning.  We will follow up to ensure the source of incorrect cp names as
well as timeliness in correcting those.  I am meeting with Debbie Brackett in
credit on Wed. to review current process and procedures and make changes as
needed.

Thanks,
Leslie
---------------------- Forwarded by Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT on 12/11/2000 02:37
PM ---------------------------

Jeffrey C Gossett
12/11/2000 11:08 AM
To: Kam Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, William
Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Errol
McLaughlin/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Counterparty

Please make sure that your groups are changing counterparty names as soon as
they get the correction forms from confirmations.  With prices at these
levels, it is vital that all information be correct in the system,  whether
or not it has an impact on your p&l.

Thanks


Below is a perliminary report that Citizens sent and their recommendation.  Please note Rob's message.
Gary will you and Tiny review the report and next week we can set a conference call to discuss what we
think that can be done if we choose to regulate our pressure to the Citizens site.  The call will include all
the above personnel.  After we have our call I would like to call Citizens and let them know if there is anything
TW can or is willing to do, or is it a Citizens design problem.
I will let everyone know the dial in number on Monday.  I will be on vacation tomorrow.

Thanks DS

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Franson, Rob" <RFranson@czn.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:58 AM
To:	dschool@enron.com
Subject:	FW: preliminary report

-----Original Message-----
From: Franson, Rob
Sent:  Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:07 AM
To:  'darrell.schoolcraft@enron.com'
Subject: FW: preliminary  report
Attached is a copy of the preliminary report that  recommends that the inlet pressure to Citizens "Griffith Plant" Station be  limited to 740 psig.  Note that this is only a preliminary report that  Citizens is reviewing.  Some of our "reviewers" are on vacation, and have  held up the process of getting this report finalized.

Since  I was temporarily assigned to another position during the time that gas was  introduced to this line, I have asked my employee Martin Conboy to create a log  of events on how these stations had been operated.  I will send it to you  later today.

Can  you have David Roensch review to see if anything is missing.  I feel that  it is a good idea to document the different operation modes with results prior  to agreeing on any further changes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Kelm - Kelm Engineering  [mailto:ray@kelm-engr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:22  PM
To: Robert Franson - Citizens
Subject: preliminary  report
Robert,

I had to delete a couple figures to get the size  below 1 meg to email.

Call if you have questions.

Ray
 - CZN102301mod.doc


5/31/2001 Thurs

Notice: If any clients or potential clients that are getting duplicate e-mails just reply to this, and let us know and we will remove the extra recaps. If anyone feels that they may be
receiving these in error please kindly reply to have you removed from the list and we are sorry for any trouble we caused you.

Here were todays trades

"Swing" S/P full size
S 1280.50 open trade 5/25
b 1257.50 close trade 5/31
+23.0=$5,750.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 1257.50 open trade 5/31 open equity at close @ 1254.00    "trade still open"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mini
S 1281.00 open trade 5/25
b 1257.75 close trade 5/31
+23.25=$1,162.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 1257.75 open trade 5/31 open equity at close @ 1254.50    "trade still open"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mini Nasdaq
S 1940.00 open trade 5/29
b 1829.00 close trade 5/31
+111.0=$2,220.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B 1829.00 open trade 5/31 open equity on close @ 1798.50   "trade still open"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Bonds today

Commentary:

Todays price action saw was a bit of a fake out in the Am. It looked like we were going to take out the Globex low of 1250.00 but infact we went back down there just to bounce off and
make a new high after three hours of trading. Today we had Fed numbers on NAPA at 7:30cst they were 38.7 May. Again anything below #50 is viewed as bearish. Also employment numbers
were weaker as expected. The market had these numbers built in so the bearish posture had no impact today.

Our view on todays trading was more of the fact that we have for now hit a VERY short term technical bottom. The wave and Fib traders were looking at 1265.00 and a break above, in
order for a stab at 1280.00. Well I sure as heck hope the crowd is right since we are long. However we have never been fans of the wave or Fib methodology only due to the fact that its
very tough to figure entries. And as we have always stated due to the fact that we are "SYSTEM TRADERS" the markets make there trend CHANGES inta day. The "crowd" can give us a idea of
what "may" take place, but thats all we can get is just a idea.

Where do we go from here? We "think" that next week will bring higher levels, to what degree we dont know. As far as tomorrow we are looking for the Dow to close in the green.
"if" we can break above this 1262.00 area tomorrow then we do have a chance to lock in a small profit. The key is we will need three hours tomorrow above 1262.00 then we "think" our
long looks good. What we dont what is too much whip saw price action after the Fed reports at 7:30 cst. long term we are bears and we do feel that levels of 1234.00 1227.00, 1222.00
are areas we will retest. The big question is when.

We are very pleased that the third week in May recovered all of its pull back in equity since its high of 4/27. We will show all the trade by trade recaps that were ClOSED out in May
on tomorrows E-mail. The Month of May, "marked to the market" is now up aprox $9,000 MTD for the full size S/P thats 5/1-5/31. On all CLOSED out trades. Thats trades that were entered
on 4/27 and closed out in May. Today we stand at +$7,400.00 on #13 trades in the full size and the E-mini was aprox $1,600.00 on #13 trades. Yes this is, a far cry from last months
$35,000 gain in the full size. But for a month that was for the most part side ways all in all it sure is nothing to be viewed at as a bad trading month.

For those potential clients that are following us one very important aspect of our system is that it feeds on a great deal of data that is transmitted from the cash market. And both
technical and cash data is calculated inorder to confirm trend changes.We have our computer models take a look back every hour on the half hour to re check if any trend changes have
been violated regardless of where the fututes are.

What most of the retail public has is no idea that infact all the large firms both equity's and futures have there own (platforms) and there own (systems). Its been proven that as long
as one has a sound trading methodology that is coded and it can be looked and judged over long time frames, this is the ONLY way to make gains that can show year after year. Human
intervention has created more losses in the futures markets than I care to think of. It never fails that I talk to traders every day who pound there chest on what they did "today" but
whats more important is to look at what one has done over lets say a three year time frame. This is the secret for long term success.

Until Tomorrow

On the E-mail that has been sent out in the last few weeks on the new market starting 8/21/2001 "Single Stock futures" This will be very exciting for us due to the fact that we will be
one of the first firms in the country to offer this new market in a Managed program with the underlying trading methodology stemming from computer based models. The large firms will
have access to this market first then the retail public will begin 12/21/2001. As long as there are no problems that surface with the CFTC and SEC then Dec looks good.

For those of you who are not aware of the back ground of our programmers they have a history in the Futures and Equity side of the industry from institutional firms that are all
computer based with there own trading programs.

Again for those traders who are not aware of this market we will be able to trade futures on single stock issues. For example IBM will have a contract that will have 100 shares in a
contract. And that will have a life of 90 days just like the current four trading contract months per year. For more details on this market see details below.

CBOE Create Joint Venture on Single-Stock Futures World's Two Largest Equity Derivatives Exchanges to Create For-Profit Company CBOT to Join With Limited
Stake CHICAGO, May 14, 2001

 - The world's largest options exchange and the largest futures exchange in the U.S. are teaming up to introduce a highly anticipated new product - single-stock futures contracts. The
Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) today signed a letter of intent to create a joint venture to introduce single-stock futures, following
approval by the boards of directors of both exchanges. The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) has also agreed to participate in the joint venture with a limited stake. Legislation signed
into law in December will allow the introduction of single-stock futures by U.S. financial exchanges later this year, after an 18-year prohibition on the products. "Today's
announcement highlights the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit among Chicago's exchanges," said CBOE Chairman and Chief Executive Officer William Brodsky. "This exciting new
initiative combines the best of securities and futures trading. Our willingness to work together on this venture will ensure that Chicago remains the world's center in derivatives
trading and risk management." "The creation of this joint venture recognizes the tremendous synergies of CME and CBOE, making us a formidable competitor in the global marketplace for
single-stock futures," said CME Chairman Scott Gordon. "Our complementary customer bases of retail and institutional investors will benefit from the efforts of all three Chicago
exchanges to establish deep pools of liquidity in these products." "I am enthused that Chicago's exchanges have worked so well together to understand and address our customers' needs
and our members' concerns," said CBOE Vice Chairman Mark Duffy. "We have designed a product that, I believe, will appeal to our customers, and a business structure that will provide
great benefit to our members." "Our largest customers have emphasized the importance of collaboration between the CBOE and CME to combine the capabilities, distribution and
connectivity of the futures and securities worlds," said CME President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNulty. "This alliance should also provide the highest level of capital
efficiency for our customers who trade in both futures and options." "The CBOT is pleased to work with the leadership of CBOE and CME in this initiative to bring this exciting new
product to our markets," said Nicholas Neubauer Chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade. "The involvement of our members and the access to our customers will make important
contributions to the success of this venture." The joint venture will be a for-profit company, will have its own management and board, and will be separately organized as a regulated
exchange. Single-stock futures will be traded electronically, and orders may be entered through both the new CBOEdirectTM electronic platform and CME's GLOBEX?2 electronic trading
system. CME and CBOE officials said they are engaged in negotiations with the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC), which clears all CBOE transactions, to clear the new products. McNulty
said the negotiations contemplate CME becoming a special clearing member of OCC to provide access for CME clearing members who are not members of the OCC. The exchanges anticipate
contracting with Designated Primary Market-Makers (DPMs) in these products and expect that the board appointed to govern the joint venture will determine the eligibility criteria,
selection process, rights, privileges and duration of such arrangements. Single-stock futures are expected to bring new efficiencies to securities trading, securities lending and
corporate hedging activities. CME and CBOE officials said they also expect to develop rules that would accommodate block trading and exchange-for-physicals (EFPs). The Chicago Board
Options Exchange created and launched the first listed options on stocks in 1973 and the first index options in 1982. Today, CBOE lists options on more than 1,500 stocks and on over 40
indexes, such as the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial AverageSM, the Russell 2000, the Nasdaq-100, and the S&P 100. It remains the world's largest and most successful options
marketplace. Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. launched the first successful stock index futures contracts on the S&P 500 in 1982. Today, CME trades futures and futures options on
indexes including the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, S&P MidCap 400, Russell 2000, FORTUNE e-50? , S&P/BARRA Growth and Value Indexes, and Nikkei 225, as well as its electronically traded E-mini
S&P 500 and E-mini Nasdaq-100 contracts - the fastest growing products in the exchange's history. CME also trades interest rate, foreign currency and agricultural commodity products.
On November 13, 2000, CME demutualized and became a for-profit, shareholder-owned corporation. CBOE is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). CME is regulated by
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Additional information about the CBOE and CME can be found at their respective Web sites: www.cboe.com and www.cme.com.

If anyone who would like to chat in more detail on our CTA managed accts please dont hesitate to call me at toll free (800) 773-1713

Thank you

Jerry Jacobs
C.T.A.

IF ANYONE WHO DID NOT GET THE "PDF" FILE ATTACHMENT SHOWING THE TWO AND ONE
HALF YEAR LONG TERM NUMBERS AND FULL CFTC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT PLEASE E-MAIL
OR CALL TOLL FREE (800) 773-1713 AND WE WILL RESEND IT RIGHT AWAY

RISK DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

THE RISK OF LOSS IN TRADING COMMODITIES CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL.  YOU SHOULD THEREFORE CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH TRADING IS SUITABLE FOR YOU IN LIGHT OF YOUR FINANCIAL CONDITION.  IN
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO TRADE OR TO AUTHORIZE SOMEONE ELSE TO TRADE FOR YOU, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING:

IF YOU PURCHASE A COMMODITY OPTION YOU MAY SUSTAIN A TOTAL LOSS OF THE PREMIUM AND OF ALL TRANSACTION COSTS.

IF YOU PURCHASE OR SELL A COMMODITY FUTURE OR SELL A COMMODITY OPTION YOU MAY SUSTAIN A TOTAL LOSS OF THE INITIAL MARGIN FUNDS AND ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT YOU DEPOSIT WITH YOUR
BROKER TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION.  IF THE MARKET MOVES AGAINST YOUR POSITION, YOU MAY BE CALLED UPON BY YOUR BROKER TO DEPOSIT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL MARGIN
FUNDS, ON SHORT NOTICE, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION.  IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FUNDS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, YOUR POSITION MAY BE LIQUIDATED AT A LOSS, AND YOU
WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY RESULTING DEFICIT IN YOUR ACCOUNT.

UNDER CERTAIN MARKET CONDITIONS, YOU MAY FIND IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO LIQUIDATE A POSITION.  THIS CAN OCCUR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE MARKET MAKES A "LIMIT MOVE".  THE PLACEMENT OF
CONTINGENT ORDERS BY YOU OR YOUR TRADING ADVISOR, SUCH AS A "STOP-LOSS" OR "STOP-LIMIT" ORDER, WILL NOT NECESSARILY LIMIT YOUR LOSSES TO THE INTENDED AMOUNTS, SINCE MARKET CONDITIONS
MAY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO EXECUTE SUCH ORDERS.

A "SPREAD" POSITION MAY NOT BE LESS RISKY THAN A SIMPLE "LONG" OR "SHORT" POSITION.  THE HIGH DEGREE OF LEVERAGE THAT IS OFTEN OBTAINABLE IN COMMODITY TRADING CAN WORK AGAINST YOU AS
WELL AS FOR YOU.  THE USE OF LEVERAGE CAN LEAD TO LARGE LOSSES AS WELL AS GAINS.

IN SOME CASES, MANAGED COMMODITY ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO SUBSTANTIAL CHARGES FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY FEES.  IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THESE CHARGES
TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL TRADING PROFIT TO AVOID DEPLETION OR EXHAUSTION OF THEIR ASSETS.  THIS DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT CONTAINS AT PAGE SEVEN A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF EACH FEE TO BE CHARGED
TO YOUR ACCOUNT BY THE COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR.

THIS BRIEF STATEMENT CANNOT DISCLOSE ALL THE RISKS AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE COMMODITY MARKETS.  YOU SHOULD THEREFORE CAREFULLY STUDY THIS DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT AND COMMODITY
TRADING BEFORE YOU TRADE, INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL RISK FACTORS OF THIS INVESTMENT AT PAGE FIVE.

YOU SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE THAT THIS COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR MAY ENGAGE IN TRADING FOREIGN FUTURES OR OPTIONS CONTRACTS.  TRANSACTIONS ON MARKETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
INCLUDING MARKETS FORMALLY LINKED TO A UNITED STATES MARKET MAY BE SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS WHICH OFFER DIFFERENT OR DIMINISHED PROTECTION.  FURTHER, UNITED STATES REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
MAY BE UNABLE TO COMPEL THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES OF REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OR MARKETS IN NON-UNITED STATES JURISDICTIONS WHERE YOUR TRANSACTIONS MAY BE EFFECTED.  BEFORE YOU TRADE
YOU SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT ANY RULES RELEVANT TO YOUR PARTICULAR CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS AND ASK THE FIRM WITH WHICH YOU INTEND TO TRADE FOR DETAILS ABOUT THE TYPES OF REDRESS
AVAILABLE IN BOTH YOUR LOCAL AND OTHER RELEVANT JURISDICTIONS.

THIS COMMODITY TRADING ADVISOR IS PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM ACCEPTING FUNDS IN THE TRADING ADVISOR'S NAME FROM A CLIENT FOR TRADING COMMODITY INTERESTS.  YOU MUST PLACE ALL FUNDS FOR
TRADING IN THIS TRADING PROGRAM DIRECTLY WITH A FUTURES COMMISSION MERCHANT.

Global Financial
93 Partridge Dr.
San Rafael Ca. 94901
800 773-1713   fax 415 457-5088


Helen-

What is the mailing address?

Susan Pereira

Hermannpk@aol.com on 11/15/2000 12:37:21 PM
To: Susan.W.Pereira@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Riding lessons

Susan,

I have Kali on our list for Sat the 25th. If you can, send a check for $27
and that will move you to the head of the list. Prepaid riders go to an
instructor ahead of "stand-by" riders. If you are unsure about whether or not
Kali wants to ride, wait to pay. There are no refunds or make-ups for prepaid
lessons.

Helen Peters


John,

Thought I'd ask you first.

David

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Frevert, Mark
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 5:23 PM
To:	Oxley, David
Subject:	RE: Woodlands Country Club Membership

How about Dave Duran. Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Oxley, David
Sent:	07 June 2001 17:03
To:	Frevert, Mark
Subject:	FW: Woodlands Country Club Membership

Any suggestions about who we might "offer" this to?

David

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Brown, Aaron (Executive Comp)
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:58 PM
To:	Oxley, David
Subject:	RE: Woodlands Country Club Membership

seems like a pretty good deal...

- $1000 transfer fee (payable by Enron)
- $331 per month dues
- free golfing for members including all family (at 3 courses...all but TPC, where there's a minimal charge)  guest charge is about $60 per round
- golf cart rental fee is $14 per person (don't need if you have your own)
- tennis is free...$10/hr for indoor
- pool access
- pay for food at restraunts.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Oxley, David
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:41 PM
To:	Brown, Aaron (Executive Comp)
Subject:	RE: Woodlands Country Club Membership

How does it work, do you still have to pay to play?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Brown, Aaron (Executive Comp)
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:38 PM
To:	Oxley, David
Subject:	FW: Woodlands Country Club Membership

David, do you know anyone who might want a membership to the Woodlands?  The memberships are transferable and might be a good deal for someone (better than having to pay the initiation fee of something like $10 grand or so...

Aaron

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lessor, Mary
Sent:	Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:36 PM
To:	Butler, Pam; Brown, Aaron (Executive Comp)
Subject:	Woodlands Country Club Membership

We have a membership available for transfer at the above subject club.  Please let me know if you hear of anyone wanting a membership here.

Thanks.


Please see the revised memo from Steve Kean regarding WSJ article on Mark to
Market Accounting.


The two new pub codes that need to be addded to TAGG are:

1.     GDP-WYOMING
2.     GDP-KERN/OPAL

Thanks.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 - 10-19 1200 Report.xls


Twanda, could you please check to see if we have this?  Thanks.  Michelle

---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 02/10/2000 09:19
AM ---------------------------

Angeline Poon
02/09/2000 08:51 PM
To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Fran L Mayes/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: JG Hong

Hi Michelle

I'm not sure if the Employment Agreement matter with JG Hong has now been
completed.   We do not seem to have a copy of the same in the file.  Could
you fax a copy to me at (65) 734-2868?

thanks and regards
Angeline

---------------------- Forwarded by Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT on 02/10/2000 10:46
AM ---------------------------

Anita Fam
08/19/99 09:31 AM
To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT
cc: Fran L Mayes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: JG Hong

Thanks for your note, Michelle.

Yes, I think that we should put in your additional suggested language.

Regards,
Anita


?
To  Judge Biren and All Parties in I.99-07-003:
?
??? I am enclosing, with this e-mail,  the "Prepared Direct Testimony of
Richard H. Counihan of GreenMountain.com on  Behalf of Core Aggregators in
support of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement"  that has been designated
as Exhibit 7 in this proceeding.? A hard copy of  this document is being
served today by U.S. Mail.
?
??? There are two documents attached to  this e-mail:? the prepared direct
testimony; and the title page and table  of contents.? If you have any
problems opening the attachments (in  "Word" format), please do not hesitate
to call me at  (619)699-2536.
?
???????????????????????  -John Leslie
?
?
?

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

CONFIDENTIAL

Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps  LLP
600 West Broadway
Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-3391
(619)  236-1414

The information contained in this electronic mail  transmission is
confidential and intended to be sent only to the stated  recipient of the
transmission.? It may therefore be protected from  unauthorized use or
dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney  work-product
privileges.? If you are not the intended recipient or the  intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.? You are also asked to notify us immediately by telephone and  to
return the original document to us immediately by mail at the address
above.? Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Biren, Andrea  [mailto:alb@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:44  PM
To: 'alan_reid@pcp.ca'; Biren, Andrea; 'andy.bettwy@swgas.com';
'aod@newsdata.com'; 'askaff@energy-law-group.com'; 'bcragg@gmssr.com';
Ortega,  Barbara; 'bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us'; 'burkee@cts.com';
'bwood@energy.state.ca.us'; 'ceyap@earthlink.net'; 'chilen@llgm.com';
'chris.king@utility.com'; 'craigc@calpine.com'; 'davef@abag.ca.gov';
'dcarroll@dbsr.com'; 'ed@clfp.com'; Farrar, Darwin; 'eke@aelaw.com';
'eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us'; 'epoole@adplaw.com'; 'evk1@pge.com';
'ewo@jmbm.com'; Quan, Edwin; 'furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil';
'garyb@abag.ca.gov'; 'gbudin@energy.state.ca.us';
'ghinners@reliantenergy.com'; 'grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us';
'gsullivan@sempra.com'; 'gtbl@dynegy.com'; 'iep@iepa.com';
'igsinc@ix.netcom.com'; 'inggm@sce.com'; 'jcattermole@pcenergy.com';
'jkarp@whitecase.com'; 'jleslie@luce.com'; 'jmct@gmssr.com';
'jmpa@dynegy.com'; 'johnj@bcjlaw.com'; 'joseh@lif.org'; 'jsteffen@iid.com';
'jweil@aglet.org'; 'jwr@cpuc.ca.gov'; 'karen@klindh.com';
'karpjos@sf.whitecase.com'; 'kfyip@seiworldwide.com'; 'kmccrea@sablaw.com';
'kmills@cfbf.com'; 'lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com'; 'lmh@eslawfirm.com'; Tran,
Lana; 'marcel@turn.org'; 'mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com'; McNamara, Michael D.;
'mday@gmssr.com'; 'mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com';
'mjaske@energy.state.ca.us';  'napedersen@jonesday.com';
'pjpowerlaw@aol.com'; Gileau, Patrick L.; Myers,  Richard A.;
'raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us'; White, Rosalina;
'rbw@mrwassoc.com'; 'rczahar@aol.com'; 'rgloistein@orrick.com';
'rick.counihan@greenmountain.com'; Pocta, Robert M.; 'rochmanm@cubjpa.org';
'rochmanm@spurr.org'; 'ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com'; 'ronknecht@aol.com';
'rpelote@energy.twc.com'; 'rpetti@ladwp.com'; 'salleyoo@dwt.com'; Sarvate,
Sarita; 'skatz@sempratrading.com'; 'slins@ci.glendale.ca.us';
'sscott3@enron.com'; 'stomashe@energy.state.ca.us'; Horner, Trina;
'tdickers@westerngas.com'; 'tom.roth@et.pge.com'; Beck,  Valerie
Subject: Prepared Testimony in I  99-07-003

It has been brought to my  attention that the April 12, 2000 ruling re
testimony says, in Ordering  Paragraph 4, that testimony shall be FILED on
May 5.? This word was  inadvertently employed.? Testimony should be served on
the service list  and lodged with me.? It should not go to the Docket
office.?  Testimony will become part of the record after motions to strike
are ruled  upon and witnesses have adopted their testimony at the hearing.

I am sorry for the confusion  caused by the incorrect choice of words.

 - Core Aggregators - Cover-Table of Contents - Counihan's Prepared Direct
Testimony of GreenMountain.com in Support of Gas Oil Comprehansive Sttlmt.doc
 - Core Aggregators - Counihan's Prepared Direct Testimony of
GreenMountain.com in Support of Gas Oil Comprehansive Sttlmt.doc


Deniese,

Thanks for the invitation. I shall join you.

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	dph@swbell.net@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-dph+40swbell+2Enet+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, July 02, 2001 4:35 PM
To:	vkamins@ect.enron.com
Subject:	Invitation

Vince,

Hope you can join us on the 11th...see attached.

Regards,
Deniese

 - Capp Coal Launch - Invitation from V. Viola2.doc << File: Capp Coal Launch - Invitation from V. Viola2.doc >>


Good morning Adam:

The Enron Corp. Research Group would like to conduct an informal interview
with you at your convenience.

Please give me some dates and times that would be convenient to, sometime
within the next 2-3 weeks and I will coordinate an interview schedule.

I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Best regards,

Shirley Crenshaw
Administrative Coordinator
Enron Corp. Research
713-853-5290
email:  Shirley.Crenshaw@enron.com

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 03/08/2001
09:30 AM ---------------------------

"Adam Bobrowski" <adambob@stat.rice.edu> on 03/07/2001 09:45:03 PM
To: <vkamins@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: resume

Dear Mr. Kaminski,

as a follow - up to your oral communication with my friend Tom Ware, I would
like
to express  my interest in working for your company, Enron. Please  find
enclosed
my resume and Curriculum Vitae. If you need additional data, please feel
free  to
call me at

         (713)592-8909 (Home) or (713)743-3483 (Office),

or email me at

        adambob@stat.rice.edu or adambob@math.uh.edu.

Yours sincerely,

   Adam Bobrowski.

 - cvbobrowski.ps
 - bobrowskiresume.doc


Jeff / Michelle / Ken,

Here's the Daily Update for the 2nd ... Enjoy your weekend!

Suzanne

 - IGSUpdate.xls


Hillary,

Can we extend deal 77352 for the rest of the year?  I tried to do this, but I
got the message to add a contract.  This deal is set up in case GSF needs
compressor fuel and should roll each month.  However, there is no line for
July.

D


Ken -

Good morning.

As a follow up to the voice mail that I left for you, following are some
background and preparatory notes for a potential phone call today between
Chancellor Reed and yourself.  Communications and indications from the UC/CSU
team are that he may call you today as a follow up to your discussion with
him on February 2, 2001.  As I mentioned at the Executive Committee meeting
on Tuesday, 2/20/01, all things are moving along well in California with our
clients, PG&E and SCE.  The current exception to the "smooth sailing" is
UC/CSU.  Tom Riley, the account manager for UC/CSU, has prepared the
following outline of business concerns, sequence of events and suggested
talking points.

Ken, thank you for your assistance and continued participation with this
client.

Regards - Dan

******************************************************************************
*********************
Business Concerns

UC and CSU have business concerns regarding Enron's action to De-DASR their
accounts.  They have not communicated their concerns with enough detail that
would allow us to address them, but I have been able to surmise that they
consist of the following:

1.  UC/CSU is now a bundled access customer instead of a direct access
customer.  AB-1X, recently signed by Gov. Davis, has ban language preventing
large commercial/industrial customers from going Direct Access.  Per Jeff
Dasovich of Enron Gov. Affairs, it is not clear, but possible, that if we had
not De-DASRed the accounts, that UC/CSU might have been grandfathered as a
direct access customer.  Further, SB-27X (still pending), which is Senator
Bowen's attempt to reverse the ban language of AB-1X, may have a financial
ramification for customers switching to and from Direct Access status.
Dasovich is investigating further.

2.  UC and CSU bought approximately 130 meters from Enron as we implemented
the contract.  Our action is forcing the utility to remove these
University-owned meters, meaning that their meters will become useless.  We
are currently using those meters to provide daily 15 minute interval data as
required in our contract. (Our operations and billing group have come up with
a transition plan that SCE has agreed to. SCE would install dual-sockets
allowing for the installation of the SCE meter, while keeping our meter in
tact, mitigating their concern.  At this point, UC and CSU are not listening
to our business solutions so we have not received feedback from them on this
solution).

3.  We have a contractual obligation to be the Universities scheduling
coordinator (SC).  As a result of our action, we are no longer their SC.
They are concerned this may inhibit our ability to act as their SC for their
recent proposal to the ISO under the Demand Reduction Program.

Sequence of Events

February 1 - I informed the UC/CSU electricity oversight board leaders and
contract administrators of Enron's decision.  I walked through the power
point presentation.  They expressed no concerns at that point, and even
expressed appreciation we were standing by our contract.  I sent the UC and
CSU contract administrators the letter later that day advising them of our
decision.

February 2 - Ken Lay called Chancellor Reed assuring the Chancellor that we
will honor the contract.  I have since heard that this call was extremely
well received and that the CSU campus VPs have been advised of the call and
Ken's assurances that were communicated.  We offered the call to the UC
President as well, but were channeled to his SVP.  By the time I made contact
with the SVPs administrator, we had begun receiving letters (below), so I
backed off on arranging the call.

February 5 - UC and CSU contract administrators inform us they have been
speaking to their regulatory advisor and asked for some clarifications.
Maureen Palmer and I speak to the contract administrators and answer their
questions.

February 8/9 - UC and CSU send letters to their PG&E and SCE account managers
advising them they have concerns regarding Enron's decision, and that they
(PG&E and SCE) should only De-DASR on the Universities' request.

February 12 - I received a letter from the UC/CSU contract administers asking
for clarifications regarding our action, and requesting we re-DASR their
accounts.

February 14 - I responded with a letter providing them with responses to
their clarification questions, but did not offer to re-DASR their accounts as
they had requested.

February 16 - UC informed me they were unhappy we did not comply with their
request to re-DASR and indicated they would be sending another letter.  I
suspect this letter will express potential legal recourses.

February 20 - CSU and UC informed they would hold off on the letter pending
outcome of a call between Chancellor Reed and Ken Lay.

Throughout the entire process, I have been asking that the business
administrators meet with us so Enron can hear their concerns.  I gather CSU
would like to do this, however, UC is more inclined to write letters and seek
legal remedies.

Suggested Talking Points for Call and Desired Outcome

1.  We were faced with a difficult business decision, and made our California
decision with our customers in mind.  We have kept our contracts in tact.
Other energy service providers have left the market and their customers.

2.  We are an energy outsourcing company.  We should source supply from the
"best available" source in the marketplace. We feel we have a contractual
right to have made the decision.

3.  Desired outcome is that we want to sit down with the University business
administrators to listen to and address their concerns.  We have not been
afforded this opportunity to date though we have offered.  However, the
Chancellor needs to understand we are not willing to re-DASR their accounts
in the meantime.

I will be available for the debrief with Ken if desired.  I can be reached at
925-543-3703 (office), or 925-548-0326 (mobile) if you have any questions.

Regards, Tom
******************************************************************************
*********************


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000
04:28 PM ---------------------------

"George Richards" <cbpres@austin.rr.com> on 09/26/2000 01:18:45 PM
Please respond to <cbpres@austin.rr.com>
To: "Phillip Allen" <pallen@enron.com>
cc: "Larry Lewter" <retwell@mail.sanmarcos.net>, "Claudia L. Crocker"
<clclegal2@aol.com>
Subject: Investment Structure

STRUCTURE:
Typically the structure is a limited partnership with a corporate (or LLC)
general partner.  The General Partner owns 1% of the project and carries the
liability of construction.

LAND OWNERSHIP & LOANS
The property would be purchased in the name of the limited partnership and
any land loans, land improvements loans and construction loans would be in
the name of the limited partnership.  Each of the individual investors and
all of the principals in Creekside would also personally guarantee the
loans.  If the investor(s) do not sign on the loans, this generally means
that a larger amount of cash is required and the investor's share of profits
is reduced.

All loans for residential construction, that are intended for re-sale, are
full recourse loans.  If we are pursuing multifamily rental developments,
the construction loans are still full recourse but the mortgage can often be
non-recourse.

USE OF INITIAL INVESTMENT
The initial investment is used for land deposit, engineering &
architectural design, soils tests, surveys, filing fees, legal fees for
organization and condominium association formation,  and appraisals.  Unlike
many real estate investment programs, none of the funds are used for fees to
Creekside Builders, LLC.  These professional expenses will be incurred over
the estimated 6 month design and approval period.

EARLY LAND COSTS
The $4,000 per month costs listed in the cash flow as part of land cost
represent the extension fees due to the seller for up to 4 months of
extensions on closing.  As an alternative, we can close into a land loan at
probably 70% of appraised value.  With a land value equal to the purchase
price of $680,000 this would mean a land loan of $476,000 with estimated
monthly interest payments of $3,966, given a 10% annual interest rate, plus
approximately 1.25% of the loan amount for closing costs and loan fees.

EQUITY AT IMPROVEMENT LOAN
Once the site plan is approved by the City of Austin, the City will require
the development entity to post funds for fiscal improvements, referred to as
the "fiscals".  This cost represents a bond for the completion of
improvements that COA considers vital and these funds are released once the
improvements have been completed and accepted by COA.  This release will be
for 90% of the cost with the remaining 10% released one year after
completion.  Releases can be granted once every 90 days and you should
expect that the release would occur 6 months after the start of lot
improvement construction.  These fiscals are usually posted in cash or an
irrevocable letter of credit.  As such, they have to be counted as a
development cost, even though they are not spent.  Because they are not
spent no interest is charged on these funds.

The lot improvement loan is typically 75% of the appraised value of a
finished lot, which I suspect will be at least $20,000 and potentially as
high as $25,000.  This would produce a loan amount of  $15,000 on $20,000
per lot.  With estimated per lot improvement costs of $9,000, 'fiscals' at
$2,000 and the land cost at $8,000 , total improved lot cost is $19,000
which means $0 to $4,000 per lot in total equity.  The investment prior to
obtaining the improvement loan would count towards any equity requirement
provided it was for direct costs.  Thus, the additional equity for the
improvement loan would be $0-$184,000.   Even if the maximum loan would
cover all costs, it is unlikely the bank would allow reimbursement of funds
spent. The higher estimates of equity investments are shown in the
preliminary proforma to be on the safe side.  The engineer is preparing a
tentative site layout with an initial evaluation of the phasing, which can
significantly reduce the cash equity requirement.

Phasing works as follows.  If the first phase was say 40 units, the total
lot improvement cost might average $31,000 per lot.   Of this, probably
$13,000 would be for improvements and $19,000 for the land cost.  The
improvements are higher to cover large one time up front costs for design
costs, the entry road, water treatment costs, perimeter fencing and
landscaping, and so on, as well as for 100% of the land.  The land loan for
undeveloped lots would be 70% of the appraised raw lot value, which I would
estimate as $10,000 per lot for a loan value of $7,000 per lot.  Then the
loan value for each improved lot would be $15,000 per lot.  This would give
you a total loan of $992,000, total cost of $1,232,645 for equity required
of $241,000.  This was not presented in the initial analysis as the phasing
is depended on a more careful assessment by the Civil Engineer as the
separate phases must each be able to stand on its own from a utility
standpoint.

CONSTRUCTION LOANS
There are three types of  construction loans.  First, is a speculative
(spec) loan that is taken out prior to any pre-sales activity.  Second,  is
a construction loan for a pre-sold unit, but the loan remains in the
builder/developers name.  Third, is a pre-sold unit with the construction
loan in the name of the buyer.  We expect to have up to 8 spec loans to
start the project and expect all other loans to be pre-sold units with loans
in the name of the builder/developer.  We do not expect to have any
construction loans in the name of the buyers, as such loans are too
difficult to manage and please new buyers unfamiliar with the process.

Spec loans will be for 70% to 75% of value and construction loans for
pre-sold units, if the construction loan is from the mortgage lender,  will
be from 80% to 95% of value.

DISBURSEMENTS
Disbursements will be handled by the General Partner to cover current and
near term third party costs, then to necessary reserves, then to priority
payments and then to the partners per the agreement.  The General Partner
will contract with Creekside Builders, LLC to construct the units and the
fee to CB will include a construction management and overhead fee equal to
15% of the direct hard cost excluding land, financing and sales costs.
These fees are the only monies to Creekside, Larry Lewter or myself prior to
calculation of profit, except for a) direct reimbursement for partnership
expenses and b) direct payment to CB for any subcontractor costs that it has
to perform.  For example, if CB cannot find a good trim carpenter sub, or
cannot find enough trim carpenters, etc., and it decides to undertake this
function, it will charge the partnership the same fee it was able to obtain
from third parties and will disclose those cases to the partnership.
Finally, CB will receive a fee for the use of any of its equipment if it is
used in lieu of leasing equipment from others.  At present CB does not own
any significant equipment, but it is considering the purchase of a sky track
to facilitate and speed up framing, cornice, roofing and drywall spreading.

REPORTING
We are more than willing to provide reports to track expenses vs. plan.
What did you have in mind?  I would like to use some form of internet based
reporting.

BOOKKEEPING
I am not sure what you are referring to by the question, "Bookkeeping
procedures to record actual expenses?"  Please expand.

INVESTOR INPUT
We are glad to have the investor's input on design and materials.  As always
the question will be who has final say if there is disagreement, but in my
experience I have always been able to reach consensus. As you, and I presume
Keith, want to be involved to learn as much as possible we would make every
effort to be accommodating.

CREEKSIDE PROCEEDURES
CB procedures for dealing with subs, vendors and professionals is not as
formal as your question indicates.  In the EXTREMELY tight labor market
obtaining 3 bids for each labor trade is not feasible.  For the professional
subs we use those with whom we have developed a previous rapport.  Finally,
for vendors they are constantly shopped.

PRE-SELECTED PROFESSIONALS, SUBS AND VENDORS
Yes there are many different subs that have been identified and I can
provide these if you are interested.

I know I have not answered everything, but this is a starting point.  Call
when you have reviewed and we can discuss further.

Sincerely,

George Richards
President, Creekside Builders, LLC

 - winmail.dat


Anne

Can we discuss this tomorrow when I meet from 2:30 to 4:30

dq
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	ann.s.chen@accenture.com@ENRON
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:30 PM
To:	Quigley, Dutch
Subject:	Questions regarding storage

Hi there Dutch!

How are you? Hope you're doing well.

We having been working on a storage problem that Philip as given us the
framework for.  In working out the details, we've come across a few
questions that we know you can help us answer. I've included Philip's
description of this problem in the word doc below, just for reference.

1) In Philip's document, he lists discount factors over the months.  We
understand that since the users are making storage decisions and hedging
future months, they need to take time value of money into account.  What is
actually being discounted? Is it NYMEX? Is it prices of the instruments?
How does that factor into user's storage decisions?

2) In our problem, we ask the user to fill out a storage schedule and then
select instruments to hedge positions created by the storage.  In our other
scenarios we have initial and natural position split out into the Enron
risk buckets (Price, Index, Basis, GD) and have users choose the
appropriate hedging instruments based on the risk areas the instruments
cover.  In this storage scenario, the only positions created are by storage
decisions.  What risk bucket would storage create a position in? My
thoughts are that if the only positions created are by storage, then would
the user really need only 1 type of instrument to hedge their risks?

Thanks in advance for your help, Dutch!

Ann

(See attached file: Storage Problem.doc)

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original.  Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
 - Storage Problem.doc << File: Storage Problem.doc >>


Caroline:

Your email is the first I've heard of Arthur Amron as legal counsel.  Do you
have his email address?
Also, who are Marty Lifgren and Charles Davidson at Wexford who received our
documents?  Are these individuals traders?

I will let you know who my backup will be.

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com

	Caroline Abramo@ENRON
	04/26/2001 10:05 AM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Fred Lagrasta/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: hedge funds

i gave you inside counsel for valentis / cd- arthur amron 203 862-7012.. ok-
i guess i will have to get everything done monday and tuesday.. i am out from
the 3-11 as well.. who can i have the rest of the team direct inquiries to in
your absence.. frank?

thanks,
ca

From: Sara Shackleton@ECT on 04/26/2001 09:33 AM
To: Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Frank
Sayre/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: hedge funds

Caroline:

You should have already seen the two ISDA's (Valentis, CD Holdings) emailed
yesterday evening per your instructions.  I am still waiting for you to send
information regarding inhouse/outside legal counsel for both parties.

The Schedule and Paragraph 13 sent to Valentis et al is very much like the
hedge fund template which legal is refining.  We are reviewing the first
draft and commenting.

FYI - I will not be in the office on Friday, April 27.  Also, the Enron legal
conference is next week and the lawyers will be in San Antonio from May 2
(afternoon) through May 4.  And finally, I will be on vacation during the
week of May 7 - May 11.  Please try to make plans (conference calls,
counterparty comments, etc.) accordingly.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com


Susan:  Would you please send a copy of the referenced agreement to Ellen Su
(30th floor - Gary's group).  Thanks.  Sara


Dear Mr. Schaeffer,

Apologies for the delay in responding to your e-mail below.

Jeff has given your proposal serious consideration.  However, given the
current demands on his time, he has decided to decline your offer to join the
Cogent Communications Advisory Committee.

On behalf of Jeff, many thanks for the opportunity and best wishes for
success.

Regards,
Sherri Sera
Assistant to Jeff Skilling
713.853.5984
713.646.8381 (fax)
sherri.sera@enron.com

"Dave Schaeffer" <ds@cogentco.com> on 11/21/2000 10:37:17 AM
To: <jeff.skilling@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Cogent Communications

Dear Jeff,

Hope you are doing well.  It has been quite a long time since we last spoke
when I was with Pathnet.  I have since started another company called Cogent
Communications and the company has been progressing very well in the last
year.

I'm in the process of putting together an Advisory Committee for the company
composed of industry, business, and political leaders.  I think your depth
of experience in telecom could add a lot of value to the company and am
looking to gauge your interest level in joining the committee.  The
commitment is limited to one meeting per year and you would receive stock in
the company.  Thus far we have commitments from Sergio Zyman of Coca Cola
and are in discussions with Bob Dole and Vernon Jordan.

Cogent is a facilities-based ISP offering very high bandwidth Internet
access to business users in the top tier cities in the US.  Utilizing the
latest in fiber-optic technology, we've built an all optical nationwide
network and are offering 100mbps non-oversubscribed service for a flat rate
of $1,000 per month.  Feel free to take a look at our website at
www.cogentco.com.  The company has raised over $350MM in financing to date
with investors including Oak Investment Partners, Broadview Capital, Texas
Pacific Group, Capital Research, and Worldview Technology Partners.

Please give me a call/email at your earliest convenience.  I look forward to
speaking with you and catching up.

Sincerely,

Dave Schaeffer, CEO
202-295-4201


Louise,

Instead of sending us a 1-paragraph extension letter Wed night, Allegheny sent a one-sided 4-pager yesterday afternoon.

The tone of the letter was inappropriate (Las Vegas agreeing it was in default, but AESC being kind enough to give us a chance).  Also, the business points were overeaching and/or vague.

The team turned the draft last night to clarify the business points and tone.  Comments from Legal (commercial, litigation, finance), Finance, Credit, Orig.

Parquet spoke with Dan Gordon to share our major comments.  Gordon was non-commital but said that "sounds like we are pretty close".

Basic deal we have put in the letter:

- AESC believes they can terminate
- LVCII believes we have complied with tolling agreement
- Parties will work for 5 business days to execute Pledge agreement, Security agreement, Deed of Trust, Subordination and Non-Disturbance Agreement
- AESC gets subordinated lien on ground lease
- Ground lease has non-disturbance provisions (LVCI can not break lease for LVCII)
- AESC gets subordinated lien on LM6000 and Transformer contracts
- Natwest loan agreement gets prepaid
- AESC acknowledges that LVCII is in compliance with security provisions of tolling agreement if we complete the above
- Increase collateral threshold to $50MM for both parties in Master Power Agreement
- No additional margin calls made prior to December 31, 2001
- $16MM Margin call made July 31 is withdrawn
- AESC keeps the $160MM+ L/C in place to cover existing exposure
- Enron Corp guarantess EPMI for $60MM

We are waiting to hear back from Allegheny.  Plan is to have both teams with legal and commercial have conf call to review document today.

DASH has been circulated to the group for comment and will be finalized today.

Parquet is reviewing all of their previous comments on the security agreements so we are prepared to dig inot them over the next 5 business days if we get this letter executed.

Finance is preparing necessary documentation to execute plan.

Parquet is in his office and is obviously available to discuss - 415-782-7820.

I am around and will participate when our next meeting is scheduled.

Regards,

Chris


Jeff,
John White has proposed to the CEERT Board that we send the attached letter to the Governor attacking the DWR contracts. Would you please take a look at it and let me know what you think of it.  You can reach me on my cell phone at 213-359-0853. Thanks.
Hap
---------------------- Forwarded by Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron on 09/11/2001 06:41 PM ---------------------------

"Rachel McMahon" <rachel@cleanpower.org> on 09/11/2001 04:16:37 PM
To:	"'V. John White'" <vjw@cleanpower.org>, "'Jack Pigott'" <jackp@calpine.com>, <blunden@hotmail.com>, <counihan@greenmountain.com>, <rcavanagh@nrdc.org>, <dank@environmentaldefense.org>, <rich@ceert.org>, <emaddox@seawestwindpower.com>, <jweisgall@aol.com>, <jlevin@ucsusa.org>, <srose@ecovote.org>, <lnelson@westernrenewables.com>, <hap.boyd@enron.com>, <steve_ponder@fpl.com>, <emiller@siliconenergy.com>, <olsendil@concentric.net>, <smitty@greenbuilder.com>, <rachel@rnp.org>, <taschehoug@mnmethane.com>
cc:

Subject:	for Board review and comment

CEERT and Clean Power Campaign Directors - Attached is a revised version of
the letter sent earlier this week regarding CDWR power contracts.  Please
review and respond with comments as soon as possible.  A discussion of
CEERT's plan of action will be scheduled shortly.

Thank you,
Rachel McMahon
CEERT
916-442-7785
916-447-2940 fax
rachel@ceert.org

 - Sept 11 to Governor re contracts.doc


Here is the latest turbine comparison sheet.  Let me know if you have any
questions.
Ben
3-7998


A meeting has been set to discuss the 20/20 Closing Adjustments.  This
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 15 @ 1:00pm in EB24C2.  If you
are unable to attend this meeting please contact Nikole Jackson (58634) or
Lisa Lunz (35634) ASAP.

Thanks

Nikole Jackson


Thanks

I am not quite there I am afraid. Are you saying that the folks outside NY
and London have no autonomy and are merely acting on trading instructions
issued by the London or NY trading desks ? If that is the case:

Why don't NY and London do the deals themselves and let the locals
concentrate on generating business ?
There should be no "Chicago Book" (SCRP) for example
That conflicts with the "envelope" which you mention, which appears to be a
delegated trading authority, in which case we are back to "square one" it
would appear.

Help me out.

DP

To: David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Bjorn Hagelmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT,
Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Lloyd Fleming/LON/ECT@ECT, Marcelo
Parra/NYC/MGUSA@MGUSA, Tim Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Authorised Traders : Montreal & Chicago

David

The set-up for the financial trading is similiar except that the instructions
are relaid by e-mail each night to New York and Tokyo.  Tim Pateman
(authorised trader in London) sends details of positions and instructions on
prices / volumes.

The mail provide directions on pricing (off set basis on EOL) and volumes,
creating an envelope in which they can trade.
They  must call for further instructions if the price shifts by more than $10
($100 for Tin & Nickel)  or the position by more than 100 lots.

Regards
Andy

Tim Poullain-Patterson
09/11/2000 15:27
To: David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT, Bjorn Hagelmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally
Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike
Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Lloyd Fleming/LON/ECT@ECT,
Marcelo Parra/NYC/MGUSA@MGUSA

Subject: Re: Authorised Traders : Montreal & Chicago

David,

The business model you outline is actually the one we are implementing with
one big difference - the Head Trader in London (Sam Hainsworth) calls the
sales person each day to tell him what to do before they speak to any
customers. As you point out, these conversations are recorded so if the sales
person does anything other than what is agreed at the outset of each day,
then they will be red carded.

I refer you back to the memo supplementing the updated list of authorised
traders that I sent out and which Marcelo and Sam have discussed with
Commercial staff in both these offices (Shona and Bjorn have this memo), as
well as Marcelo's operational plan.

Clarification point - when Andy says "internally" he means that Commercial
(Rob Soeldner) is taking a lead in resolving Joe Robertson's concerns.

Regards,
Tim

From:  David Port @ ENRON
        09/11/2000 13:52

To: Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Bjorn Hagelmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT,
Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT, Lloyd
Fleming/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Authorised Traders : Montreal & Chicago

How about this for a business model for an origination and trading outfit.

salesperson talks to customer
customer agrees to trade
salesperson phones trading desk and gets price (trading desk is London or NY
- NB: all lines are taped)
salesperson tell customer
customers says ok
salesperson says "done" to customer and trading desk
trading desk books deal, middle and back office processes kicks in, sends out
and chases up confirm etc
accounting process identifies value added by salesperson and gives them a
piece of the price as a credit
no bank accounts or signing authority in sales office
no accountants, middle office people or other similar humans in the sales
office, just sales people
all hedging and risk taking resident in trading books in NY or London

Can we not make this work ?
DP

To: Bjorn Hagelmann/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona
Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mike
Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim
Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Authorised Traders : Montreal & Chicago

Bjorn

As discussed, given Joe's comments below, a note to confirm that this being
dealt with internally.

Rob Soeldner has made it clear to Joe that:

Enron places great importance on trading controls. These are non-negotiatable.
The suggested course of action is not an option
We aren't seeking to close any of the Agency offices given implemetation of
these controls.

Joe is not in yet - Rob will be discussing with him further when the US gets
in.

Of note - Joe is on the commercial side,  Marcelo Parra who is responsible
for the operational side is fully onboard for the operational changes made.

Regards
Andy

---------------------- Forwarded by Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT on 09/11/2000
11:07 ---------------------------

Joe Robertson@MGUSA
08/11/2000 20:38
To: Tim Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT, Lloyd Fleming/LON/ECT@ECT, Marcelo
Parra/NYC/MGUSA@MGUSA, Michael Farmer/EU/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Naomi
Connell/LON/ECT@ECT, Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Sam
Hainsworth/EU/Enron@Enron@ECT

Subject: Re: Authorized Traders : Montreal & Chicago

As a practical matter the procedures outlined are not workable. We need to
find a way to go forward that works and can satisfy all concerned.

Either the people in these offices can be entrusted to transact and execute
business or we should consider closing these offices and relocating some of
the people which I do not believe makes any sense at all.

Joseph E. Robertson, Jr.
Enron Metals & Commodity Corp.
520 Madison Avenue
28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5254
Fax: 212.715-2357
E-mail: joe.robertson@enron.com


Sally,
Below is a draft of the official organization announcement that will address
Brent and his team.  I was unable to get this out earlier and am ready upon
your review.  Please examine the Brent section and make sure that it is
correct and stated properly.  Please send your comments back ASAP and I'll
get this out.

Thanks,
Mike

draft

After having conducted our first of several business reviews, we'd like to
outline the following organizational changes effective immediately.

The Global Risk Markets group under Jere Overdyke illustrates enormous
opportunities given the size of those businesses.  To better focus on the
different commercial functions, and to capture market share and value, the
group is being realigned.  Jere will continue to manage Global Risk Markets,
and build on our insurance capabilities.  Mark Tawney is responsible for our
weather business and will now report to the EGM Office of the Chairman.
Still under consideration - The Enron Corporate Insurance group under Jim
Bouillion will now report into the corporate organization under  George
Wasaff.

Brent Price will be joining Enron Global Markets as Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer.  He will report to the EGM Office of the Chairman, and to
Rick Causey, Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer for Enron
Corp.  He will be responsible to Sally Beck for the business operations areas
of the businesses.  Reporting to Brent in his new position will be Sheila
Glover, business controller for Financial Products;  Todd Hall, business
controller for weather; and Scott Earnest, business controller for global
liquids and coal.  In addition, Tom Myers as Director of Accounting.  Brent
and his team are responsible for all accounting and position reporting issues
for all the businesses within EGM.

Cindy Skinner will join the Enron Global Markets team with responsibility for
Human Resources.  She will also report to David Oxley and the HR organization.

Please join us in congratulating everyone in their assignments.


Further to our conversation, below is language inadvertently excluded from the Master Agreement.  Specifically concerning Section 4.1 (page 2) and  the Material Adverse Change found in the Appendix.

 Turning to page 2 of the Agreement, Article 4 Defaults and Remedies should include the following language beginning in the middle of the section after ....."contract for each such Transaction and .....(ii)

 (ii) ascertaining the associated costs and attorneys' fees.  To ascertain the market prices of a replacement contract the Notifying Party may consider, among other valuations, any or all of the settlement prices of NYMEX Gas futures contracts, quotations from leading dealers in Gas swap contracts and other bona fide third party offers, all adjusted for the length of the remaining term and the basis differential.  All terminated Transactions shall be netted against each other.  The Notifying Party shall give the Affected Party (defined in Section 4.2) written notice of the amount of the Termination Payment, inclusive of a statement showing its determination.  If a Termination Payment is owed to the Notifying Party, the Affected Party shall pay the Termination Payment to the Notifying Party within 10 Days of receipt of such notice.  If a Termination Payment is owed to the Affected Party, the Notifying Party shall pay the Termination Payment to the Affected Party within 10 Days of Affected Party's receipt of such notice.  At the time for payment of any amount due under this Article 4, each Party shall pay to the other Party all additional amounts payable by it pursuant to this Agreement, but all such amounts shall be netted and aggregated with any..... Termination Payment payable hereunder.  If the Affected.........

Concerning the "Material Adverse Change" the following is included:

 -, or customer ceases to be owned or otherwise controlled by its current ultimate parent, "owned or otherwise controlled by" meaning the direct or indirect ownership of at least 51% of the outstanding capital stock or other equity interests of Customers having ordinary voting power."

As more fully stated in the Amendment attached below.

If you are in agreement with these changes we can execute the Master Agreement and proceed with the Amendment.

Should you have questions concerning this matter or any part of the Agreement please do not hesitate to give me a call.  I apologize for any confusion and thank you in advance for your cooperation.

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


you like that

	  From:  Julie Brewer @ ENRON                           03/26/2001 09:58 AM

To:	Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sony Wilson/HOU/ECT, Laura Vargas/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carole Frank/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:	Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janie Aguayo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diane Anderson/NA/Enron@Enron, Bianca Ornelas/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Deming/NA/Enron@Enron, Ellen Wallumrod/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject:

Please rebook as indicated by Credit.

Thanks.


U.S. Panel Proposes Big Market Change To Curb California's Electricity Prices
The Wall Street Journal, 11/02/00

U.S. Proposes Changes in Electricity Marketing in California
The New York Times, 11/02/00

The Cutting Edge U.S. Urges Major Fixes for State's Power Market Energy:
Federal panel says electricity crisis is product of flaws in deregulation,
but it stops short of ordering reductions in sky-high prices.
Los Angeles Times, 11/02/00

U.S. Panel Proposes Big Market Change
To Curb California's Electricity Prices
By Rebecca Smith
?
11/02/2000
The Wall Street Journal
Page A3
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed sweeping changes in
California's deregulated electricity market in a bid to push down high
electricity prices.
The proposed order, which will be open to industry and public comment before
being implemented, comes as Californians are suffering record high power
prices. The proposals go further than many industry watchers had expected but
stop short of ordering that profits be seized from generators and refunded to
consumers, as the state's utilities and many public officials had demanded.
The move also marks the first time the federal government has intervened to
make major changes in a state market since the era of electricity
deregulation began four years ago.
"California's market had become a threat to the health and financial
well-being of the average citizen," said FERC Chairman James Hoecker. "We had
to do something after the tsunami hit."
The draft order proposes to cap wholesale electricity prices for two years at
$150 per megawatt hour but to allow electricity-plant owners to receive
higher prices, on a case-by-case basis, if they can demonstrate they deserve
it. The cap in New York and New England, other deregulated markets, is $1,000
per megawatt hour. The cap has been set higher there because competition in
those markets has held down retail prices.
The four-member commission, in authorizing the new "soft cap" for wholesale
prices charged in California, dismissed a variable-price scheme adopted last
week by the California Independent System Operator, the organization
responsible for keeping enough electricity on hand to meet actual demand.
That scheme, which now won't be implemented, would have capped prices at
between $65 and $250 per megawatt hour, depending on demand.
An important element in FERC 's new pricing plan is that it makes it less
likely that a single generator will be able to effectively set the price that
everyone receives, as has previously been the case. Under the old regime,
even a small generator could ramp up prices for the entire spot market if it
could position itself as the last unit called into service to meet demand.
The commission came down hard in its interpretation of the high prices seen
in the California market last summer. It said the wholesale prices paid to
generators failed to satisfy the federal test that electricity rates be "just
and reasonable." But Mr. Hoecker, FERC 's chairman, also said the commission
had no authority to order profits seized from power generators and traders so
that refunds could be made to those who paid the high prices. "We exercise
such authority as Congress gives us," he said. "It's as simple as that."
Mr. Hoecker acknowledged that FERC 's decision not to seek refunds would
undoubtedly disappoint California regulators, utilities and consumer
advocates. "They expected a lynching and . . . the disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains," he said.
FERC 's decision to not take action on refunds, at least for now, leaves the
state of California with a major mess on its hands. Since June, wholesale
power costs have exceeded the amount utilities were able to charge their
customers by more than $5 billion. For now, utilities are footing the bill
since customer rates are frozen and it is impossible to pass those costs
along. But the utilities are lobbying state regulators for permission to dump
the cost on consumers, offering to soften the blow somewhat by stretching out
the collection period over four or five years. State regulators and
legislators, without help from FERC to retrieve profits from generators and
traders, now have an unpalatable choice: leave the burden on utilities or
back-bill consumers who never asked for deregulation in the first place.
While the FERC proposal does nothing to remedy the problem of past
shortfalls, the commissioners said they were doing their utmost to push down
prices in the future. FERC said it wants to eliminate a requirement that
California's investor-owned utilities buy and sell all their power through
state-sanctioned energy auctions -- regardless of the prices in those
markets. That is the law now. This simple change would enable utilities that
have sold most of their plants and buy power in the open market to hedge
their price risk by signing contracts with a variety of suppliers.
The commission also effectively issued a vote of no confidence to the
governance structure used by the state's market-making organizations, the
ISO, which operates the transmission system and runs a "balancing market" to
keep energy supplies in sync with fluctuating demand, and the California
Power Exchange, which runs a day-ahead market and a forward auction.
Both organizations have large,unwieldy stakeholder boards consisting of
representatives of different interest groups such as generators, utilities,
large consumers and others and have been accused of putting the parochial
interests of members ahead of the state's 35 million consumers. "They've
become a debating society among interest groups," says Curt Hebert, one of
the commissioners.
FERC said it wants the boards of the ISO and the power exchange dissolved,
most likely within 60 days. In their place, it wants smaller, disinterested
boards such as those that exist in the East, where New York, New England and
the mid-Atlantic states all have ISOs. It didn't, however, order the boards
merged as some members had speculated might occur.
Terry Winter, chief executive of the ISO, said he was an "avid supporter" of
the stakeholder boards that looked like a worthy experiment in democracy
"until all the heavy financial and political pressures caved in on them" last
summer. This year alone, the ISO board changed price ceilings three times as
different coalitions garnered the necessary votes, each time sending shock
waves through the markets.
In general, observers reacted positively to the FERC proposals, which will be
the subject of a public hearing on Nov. 9. Generators were relieved there
won't be refunds and were happy that the new "soft cap" system would allow
price variation among generators with different costs. Steve Bergstrom,
president of Dynegy Inc., which owns power plants in California, said he is
pleased " FERC has shown it isn't going to stop deregulation."
Utilities were pleased at the effort at cost containment and purchasing
flexibility. But Mike Florio, an attorney for a San Francisco consumer group
who sits on both the ISO and Power Exchange boards, said he finds it
impossible to reconcile FERC 's conclusion that prices weren't fair with its
reluctance to seize profits. "I thought `just and reasonable' rates were a
requirement of the law, not just some guiding principle," he said.

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

National Desk; Section A
U.S. Proposes Changes in Electricity Marketing in California
By NEELA BANERJEE
?
11/02/2000
The New York Times
Page 21, Column 1
c. 2000 New York Times Company
Citing the ''seriously flawed'' nature of the California electricity market,
which was plagued with price spikes and brownouts this summer, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission proposed changes yesterday in the sale and
pricing of electricity intended to overhaul deregulation in the state.
The commission's review was set off by widespread outrage after consumers in
San Diego saw their electricity bills triple this summer.
Once viewed as a pioneer in developing an efficient electricity market,
California is now thought to embody the many problems that can arise from
deregulation. States that are taking a go-slow approach to deregulation are
sure to follow closely the changes proposed for California.
Commission and industry analysts warned that the proposed measures, which
would affect 85 percent to 90 percent of the California market, were but a
first step to undoing the complicated knot of factors that led to high
prices. They said the measures were not a guarantee that prices would be
lower next summer.
''Some people want, to use a psychobabble word, closure on all this,'' said
Robert Michaels, a deregulation expert and professor of economics at
California State University at Fullerton. ''But the California institutions
are so complex that no one measure by F.E.R.C. will resolve it. The process
will go on for a long time.''
The commission oversees the progress of deregulation across the country
although states determine the specific conditions. The commission will accept
commentary on the proposals and issue a binding order in December, a
spokeswoman said.
California electricity prices rocketed last summer largely because consumer
demand for power outstripped supply. As a result, the commission warned,
California officials will have to find ways to build more power plants and
transmission lines.
The commission's recommendations center on the sale of power through
institutions set up as part of California's deregulation process. Many
investor-owned utilities no longer generate power, but buy it on the
wholesale market. Currently, utilities can buy and sell power only through
the California Power Exchange, a state-run electricity marketplace. The
commission has proposed eliminating that requirement so utilities can shop
around for long-term electricity contracts, a move most analysts welcomed.
''This gives us more flexibility to obtain affordable power for customers,''
said Shawn Cooper, a spokesman for the PG&E Corporation, the major utility in
Northern California. ''Right now, we're limited on the energy product we can
buy.''
Turning to the exchange, Mr. Cooper said, ''is like going to a car lot and
being able to buy only one or two models.''
But experts said the other proposals might be easily thwarted by
power-generating companies seeking top dollar. The commission proposed, for
example, to lower the price cap for a megawatt hour to $150 from $250. Power
suppliers that bid over $150 would be paid their price but would be required
to explain the reasons for their bid. Such a system, some experts say, would
prove a sizable loophole.
James Bushnell, a research associate with the Energy Institute of the
University of California, said, ''I think a clever engineer at any power
company could come up with a whole bunch of reasons for whatever they want
their costs to be.''
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Business; Financial Desk
The Cutting Edge U.S. Urges Major Fixes for State's Power Market Energy:
Federal panel says electricity crisis is product of flaws in deregulation,
but it stops short of ordering reductions in sky-high prices.
NANCY RIVERA BROOKS NANCY VOGEL; CHRIS KRAUL
?
11/02/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page C-1
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company
California's electricity crisis is the product of flaws in the deregulated
market and a long-term shortage of power in the state, federal regulators
said Wednesday, proposing sweeping changes to fix the $23-billion electricity
trade.
But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stopped short of ordering
retroactive reductions of the sky-high electricity prices paid since June,
saying it lacked the legal authority.
The commission, which found no evidence of individual companies driving up
electricity prices, left the door open for some sort of refund should it
uncover specific instances of such market abuses. That leaves undetermined
whether major utilities can pass on more than $5 billion in electricity costs
to consumers across the state.
The technical changes proposed to fix California's flawed market include
giving utilities freedom to buy power from sources other than the
state-mandated exchange and imposing loose price caps on power purchases.
Still, California faces years of high prices and threatened blackouts, the
commission said, unless legislators and regulators tackle problems beyond the
federal body's scope, particularly the faster building of power plants and
transmission lines.
"Ideally, some people would want us to round up the bad guys who manipulated
this market without restraint or conscience and order disgorgement of all
their ill-gotten gains. It's not as simple as that," Chairman James J.
Hoecker said at a special meeting of the four-member commission. "If
information that the market was or is being manipulated unlawfully comes to
us through complaint or as product of our own investigation--we will act on
that information, I guarantee you."
The commission's menu of proposed changes to the California market, which it
hopes to enact by the end of the year after public comment, drew scalding
criticism from consumer groups, tepid praise from utilities and power
generators, and a mixture of hot and cold responses from politicians.
Nonetheless, observers expect the proposals will be approved in their current
form.
Some lauded the commission's proposed order for what it didn't do, mainly
impose cost-based electric rates that would have represented a
"re-regulation" of the industry. Generators breathed a sigh of relief that
the commission--at least for the time being--did not judge the power
merchants as having wielded illegal "market power," and therefore subject to
refunds to the utilities and consumers they sold power to.
And even consumer advocates, angry as they are, were comforted by the
commission's finding that electricity rates at times this summer were "unjust
and unreasonable," legal language that could open the way for the California
Public Utilities Commission or the California Legislature to go after any
profits they consider excessive.
Gov. Gray Davis, during a news conference with U.S. Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson to unveil initiatives to improve electricity supply and
reliability, called the federal commission's proposal "a mixed blessing."
"They do recognize that we're operating in a dysfunctional market and they do
agree that rates are not just and reasonable," Davis said. "However, they did
not, as I encouraged, order rebates to the consumers and businesses in San
Diego who were literally gouged for the profiteering and market manipulation
San Diego had to suffer through."
Among the market changes proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission:
* A temporary reworking for the next two years of the way prices are set for
electricity in the California Power Exchange, the primary market for
electricity. Currently, the highest bid for each hour sets the price for all
the bids during that hour. The commission would change that policy so that
bids higher than $150 a megawatt hour could not set the "market clearing
price" paid by all participants.
* Freeing the big utilities--Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas &
Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric--from the requirement that they
purchase most of their electricity from the Power Exchange. This would give
the utilities greater freedom to shop for the best deals on electricity.
* Requiring all market participants to schedule 95% of their transactions the
day before rather than--as happened repeatedly this summer--waiting until the
day the power is needed, buying at the last minute in an emergency market
operated by the California Independent System Operator. This nonprofit was
formed to schedule and transmit electricity, but found itself this summer in
the unexpected position of running a major market for electricity as
generators sought the best price for their electrons.
* Overhauling the boards of governors of the California Power Exchange and
the California Independent System Operator, which currently are composed of
"stakeholders" representing all parties to deregulation, including
generators, utilities and consumer advocates. Instead, the two nonprofit
corporations would have smaller, independent boards selected by the current
boards.
(Customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which is not
participating in market deregulation and has escaped the state's power woes,
are not affected by these proposals.)
The commission based its proposals on a staff investigation that blamed high
electricity prices on a supply-demand imbalance and market design problems
that give electricity sellers the opportunity to drive up prices when
supplies are tight. But the commission found no evidence of specific attempts
by individual companies to drive up the price of electricity, partly because
there was not enough time to conduct such a thorough, formal investigation.
Curt Hebert Jr., the only Republican on the commission, offered the most
criticism of the proposed order.
"If it were up to me, today's order would be much, much different," Hebert
said. "However, on balance, it appears to be a step in the right direction."
Hebert said he could support the order only because it does not represent the
final order and may be changed after the three-week public comment period. He
said he would prefer that the order eliminate all price controls.
California's two biggest utilities--Southern California Edison and Pacific
Gas & Electric--commended the commission for its proposed fixes, calling them
"a sound beginning."
In particular, PG&E called the proposed reform of bidding "a creative attempt
to fix the market and moderate prices, while still allowing competition to
evolve."
Power players praised FERC 's decision to allow utilities to go outside the
PX to procure energy--a practice that a couple of years ago was deemed too
risky because it might give the big utilities the temptation and impunity to
self-deal: buying from their own affiliates.
Although utilities have had limited power to make long-term energy contracts
outside the PX, utilities have been reluctant to enter into them. That's
because state regulators reserve the right to review such deals and to force
companies and their shareholders to eat added costs if market rates decline
below the contracts.
Together, PG&E and Edison estimate that they have spent at least $5 billion
more on electricity this summer than they could pass on to customers who are
protected by a rate freeze imposed in 1996 as part of the deregulation law.
The Public Utilities Commission is weighing the utilities' requests to
eventually pass on those costs to customers.
But consumer groups were outraged by the lack of rebates to customers of San
Diego Gas & Electric, and, by extension, to the customers of SCE and PG&E,
who currently are protected by a rate freeze but could face sharply higher
bills if the utilities are allowed to pass along their uncollected
electricity costs.
"They are trying to give medicine for an incurable disease, and that's
electricity deregulation," said Doug Heller of the Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights. " FERC has found that rates were excessive, yet they
failed to take action. That's like a judge that says we have all the evidence
in the world that this guy committed murder, but it's all inadmissible."
Mike Florio, a lawyer with the San Francisco-based consumer group called the
Utility Reform Network and a member of the Cal-ISO board, said the commission
took a step backward by nullifying Cal-ISO's recent decision to set a sliding
rate cap of as low as $100 per megawatt hour. The commission ordered that the
price cap in the Cal-ISO market remain at $250 a megawatt hour until the new
FERC pricing mechanism is finalized.
"I wasn't one of those that thought FERC was going to ride in on a white
horse and rescue us, but this appears to have made things worse," Florio
said.
San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said that county attorneys would review
the FERC order to assess the county's options for pursuing rebates.
"We're proceeding on our own," he said. On Tuesday, supervisors voted to
study creating a municipal utility district.

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


John:
I have asked Mike and Larry to spend half an hour each talking to you about
opportunities on the gas floor.  Please advise if the following schedule is
unacceptable.  I will be leaving today at 2:15.
Larry 4:00-4:30
Mike 4:30-5:00

Thanks,
John


TASK ASSIGNMENT

Status:		completed

Task Priority:		2
Task Due On:		12/27/2000
Task Start Date:	12/27/2000


Hi Maria -

To my knowledge, Mr. Lay has not received his locker assignment.

Thanks.

Rosalee Fleming for Ken Lay.

From: Maria Mitchell/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/26/2001 06:47 PM
To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, George Hopley/HOU/ECT@ect, Scott
Tholan/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Verifying Locker Assignments

February 26, 2001

Thank you for your participation in the Enron Body Shop.
We are currently verifying all locker assignments.  Please
return receipt via this e-mail if you have NOT received
your locker assignment.

Thank you,
The Enron Body Shop Staff


Dear Lucie,

When I agreed to speak at the above conference, it was agreed that Enron
could bring another staff member to attend gratis. However, I noticed that
Enron is actually providing two speakers - Dr Vince Kamainski and myself. It
would be appreciated if we could instead of sending two staff members to the
same seminar that Enron sends one staff member to the Aust Energy seminar and
one staff member to the RISK 2000 - Sydney seminar in August 22-23. The
length & pricing are similar for both the seminars.

Upon your reply, i will supply the names of the staff members, there is
strong internal competition to go.

Thank you, Raymond
715pm 4 july

"Lucie Deathridge" <ldeathridge@risk.co.uk> on 05/25/2000 09:30:25 AM
Please respond to "Lucie Deathridge" <ldeathridge@risk.co.uk>
To: <raymond.yeow@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Australian Energy Risk 2000

Thank you for agreeing to speak at the Australian Energy Risk 2000
conference  in Sydney in July. Last week I sent a speaker pack to you. I
would be grateful  if you would confirm receipt of this by return of email.
In the event that you  have not received it please let me know IMMEDIATELY
and send me your full  contact details. I am the co-ordinator of this
conference and please do not  hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Regards
Lucie Deathridge
Conference Co-ordinator
Risk  Publications
?
Tel: (+44) (0207) 484 9867


Enron Methanol nominates the following natural gas requirements for the
Methanol Plant for May 2000:

 39,000 mmbtu per day

EGPFC nominates the following natural gas requirements for the MTBE plant at
Morgan's Point for May 2000:

 10,000 mmbtu per day


Clarksdale #8 will run Thursday for HE 16 and 17.  It has a 30 minute start
up.
Clarksdale #9 will run Thursday for HE 16.  It has a 2 hour start up.

Unit #8 will put out 13 to 14 mw's and Unit #9 will put out 21 to 22 mw's

Thanks
Kayne


NOTE:  YOU WILL RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE EACH TIME YOU ARE SELECTED AS A REVIEWER.

You have been selected to participate in the Year End 2000 Performance
Management process by providing meaningful feedback on specific employee(s).
Your feedback plays an important role in the process, and your participation
is critical to the success of Enron's Performance Management goals.

To complete requests for feedback, access PEP at http://pep.corp.enron.com
and select Perform Review under Performance Review Services.  You may begin
providing feedback immediately and are requested to have all feedback forms
completed by Friday, November 17, 2000.

If you have any questions regarding PEP or your responsibility in the
process, please contact the PEP Help Desk at:

Houston: 1.713.853.4777, Option 4
London:  44.207.783.4040, Option 4
Email: perfmgmt@enron.com

Thank you for your participation in this important process.

The following is a CUMULATIVE list of employee feedback requests with a
status of "OPEN."   Once you have submitted or declined an employee's request
for feedback, their name will no longer appear on this list.

Review Group: ENRON
Feedback Due Date: Nov 17, 2000

Employee Name                   Supervisor Name                 Date Selected
-------------                   ---------------                 -------------
WILLIAMS, JASON C               ROBERT A SUPERTY                Nov 02, 2000


I'm tied up but you don't need me anyway.

Fred Mitro@ECT
02/06/2001 09:16 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Carlos Sole/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, jkeffer@kslaw.com,
ccampbell@kslaw.com

Subject: Re: PSEG

My availability is better this morning. I could do anytime from 9:30 - 11:30
am.

Fred

Kay Mann@ENRON
02/06/2001 07:58 AM
To: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Carlos Sole/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, jkeffer@kslaw.com,
ccampbell@kslaw.com
Subject: PSEG

Fred,

I suggest a phone call among the team today to make sure we are all on the
same wave length.  What is your schedule?

Thanks,

Kay


Lloyd,
a couple of questions:
Will Joe Capasso be aggreeable to start in my group on August 1st?    That would be awesome.    Let me know if I can help with anything on this

What is the status of the personal best award recommendation for Errigo and Olinde?

Thanks,
JMF


Attached are the final documents:


Marie:

Please place Michael Schuh by RWE and Raoul Saxena by J Aron instead of me as I am only acting as a Houston resource to Michael and Raoul as necessary. They are handling the negotiations. You should also add them to the distribution list. Thanks.

Alan

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Heard, Marie
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 4:58 PM
To:	Aronowitz, Alan; Athena Alexander (E-mail); Clark, Morris; Cook, Mary; David Mitchell (E-mail); Davis, Angela; Del vecchio, Peter; Douglas, Stephen H.; Evans, Mark (London Legal); Gaffney, Chris; Gray, Barbara N.; Hansen, Leslie; Heard, Marie; Hendry, Brent; Hodge, Jeffrey T.; Johnston, Greg; Jones, Tana; Keohane, Peter; Koehler, Anne C.; Lech Kalembka (E-mail); Leite, Francisco Pinto; Marissa Morelle (E-mail); McCullough, Travis; Mellencamp, Lisa; Murphy, Harlan; Murray, Julia; Nemec, Gerald; Portz, David; Rick Antonoff (E-mail); Rohauer, Tanya; Sager, Elizabeth; Sayre, Frank; Shackleton, Sara; Simons, Paul; St. Clair, Carol; Van Hooser, Steve; Viverito, John; Von Bock Und Polach, Marcus; Williams, Jason R (Credit)
Subject:	Master Netting Agreement Assignments

Updated list of master netting agreement assignments.

	 << File: MASTER NETTING AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENTS.doc >>


Dear Board Members, Presenters and Meeting Attendees,

For tomorrow afternoon's Board meeting, Mr. Boswell asked that we remind you
that the dress for all Board meetings is business casual.  We look forward to
seeing you tomorrow.

Best Regards,  Rae

The GISB organization follows a privacy policy, which does not permit
distribution of contact information. As such, all email addresses are denoted
blind in correspondence.  Upon receipt of notice, the GISB office will modify
the distribution to no longer carry your address.  If you would like to add
other participants from your organization to this distribution list, please
also email such request to the GISB office.


11/24/2000 07:53 AM
Jeffrey Porter
Jeffrey Porter
Jeffrey Porter
11/24/2000 07:53 AM
11/24/2000 07:53 AM
To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, joann.collins@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Correction to 12/1 Numbers

I omitted the details for CPA demand on Joanns TCO sheet. 4-25 needs to be
TGP BrunCobb (4,099r/4,009d )while the remainder will be split beteen A05,
A06 and Leach/Pool. I will send you details on Monday.