fyi.  Don't know if any of your folks ever attend this kind of thing.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/16/2001 02:35
PM ---------------------------
From: Barbara N Gray@ECT on 05/15/2001 07:35 PM
To: Ann Elizabeth White/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Carlos
Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Electricity Risk Management 101 Workshop and Portfolio Valuation and
Optimization Conference, June 19-22, 2001, Washington, D.C.

At the bottom of this announcement there are several listings for "short
courses".  Please  consider whether it would be helpful for you to attend one
of them bng
----- Forwarded by Barbara N Gray/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2001 07:32 PM -----

	"Laxmi Mrig" <lmrig@qwest.net>
	05/15/2001 05:47 PM

		 To: "Undisclosed-Recipient" <>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Electricity Risk Management 101 Workshop and Portfolio Valuation
and Optimization Conference, June 19-22, 2001, Washington, D.C.

Electricity Risk Management 101 Workshop, and  Portfolio Valuation and
Optimization  Conference

June 19-22, 2001, Washington,  D.C.

?Overview

In the  current environment of volatile energy prices and deregulation, it
has become  increasingly more important for the electricity industry to learn
how to manage  price risk. EUCI presents a two part Workshop/Conference
formatted for the  beginner to expert in price risk management. The first
Workshop is designed for  the beginner with no prior experience in risk
management and introduces the  basic vocabulary and concepts in a concise and
easily understandable format  which forms the foundation for the more
advanced concepts applied in the  Conference.

To view  the details for these events, please visit:

Electricity Risk Management 101 Workshop
http://www.euci.com/Conferences/ermjun01.htm
Portfolio Valuation and  Optimization?Conference
http://www.euci.com/Conferences/pvojun01.htm

?List of Other Upcoming  Events

Transmission Grid Expansion and System  Reliability Conferences
Conference  1: Focus on Regulation (Regulatory, Legislative Update, and
Incentives for  Transmission Grid Expansion and System Reliability), May
21-22, Denver,  CO

???????  ??? http://www.euci.com/Conferences/formay01.htm

Conference 2: Focus on Pricing (Pricing and  Incentives for Transmission Grid
Expansion and System Reliability), May 23-24,  Denver, CO

???????????  http://www.euci.com/Conferences/fopmay01.htm

Market Based Planning for Transmission Capacity  Expansion, May 25, Denver, CO

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/mbtmay01.htm

Short  Courses

Engineering  and Planning for Aging T&D Infrastructures , June 20-22,
Washington,  D.C..???

???????????  http://www.euci.com/Conferences/eapjun01.htm

What  Generation Developers Need to Know About Transmission , June 20-22,
Washington,  D.C.

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/wgdjun01.htm

?Distributed  Generation Conferences

?Distributed  Generation ) Basics of Evaluation and Selection, August 7,
2001. Denver,  Colorado.

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/dgbaug01.htm

?Distributed  Generation Conference, August 8-9, 2001. Denver, Colorado.

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/dgcaug01.htm

?Distributed  Generation Power Quality Solutions, August 10, 2001. Denver,
Colorado.

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/dgpaug01.htm

?Distributed  Generation Interconnection Challenges, August 10, 2001.
Denver,  Colorado.

http://www.euci.com/Conferences/dgiaug01.htm

?After you click any of these  event titles, you will see links for program
agenda, registration information,  and online registration on the right hand
column. Depending upon your browser  and monitor, you may need to maximize
the page to see these  links.

We  have just published conference proceedings on recently held Ancillary
Services  Conference and associated pre-and post conference Workshops. The
table of  contents for these can be seen by clicking to our proceedings page
http://www.euci.com/proceedings.htm

Kindly  forward this announcement to your colleagues who might benefit from
attending  these conferences/workshops/courses.

Best  Regards,

L.  Mrig
Electric Utility Consultants, Inc. (EUCI)
5555 Preserve  Drive
Greenwood Village CO 80121
(303) 770-8800
Lmrig@euci.com

Send  us a note if you do not wish to receive these announcements.

?


Ellen,
 I am forwarding this to you for your information.  Gary Lamphier is sending
to the counterparty and I will forward a signed copy once Gary gets it back.


This request has been pending your approval for  45 days.  Please click
http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000024686&Page=
Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000024686
Request Create Date : 3/21/01 8:04:40 AM
Requested For       : juan.padron@enron.com
Resource Name       : TradeWave MAIN
Resource Type       : Applications


Jim:
Pat Cathers was going to call you to have you send me e-mail or fax the spare
parts list if you haven't done so all ready.  Thanks
Ben
713-853-7998


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	Weekly Priority Mtg./Raetta

Date:		4/19/2001
Time:		9:30 AM - 10:30 AM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Outlook Migration Team

Detailed Description:


I will be in Phila.  Please grab materials for me.

	From:  Jennifer Fraser                           12/06/2000 02:57 PM

To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Caroline
Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron, John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Amanda
Huble/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Jennifer Burns/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cathy Phillips/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: PIRA World Oil Outlook Presentation

Dr. Gary Ross (PIRA CEO)  will here tomorrow to discuss the global oil
markets.

Thursday Dec 7, 2000 in room 8c1 from 3:30 to 5.


We care a great deal on Point #2 - the PX Credit issue.  Harry Kingerski will
have the right messages.

Jim

Susan J Mara
05/11/2001 12:28 PM
To: Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, jbennett@gmssr.com, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: SCE Plans to Implement billing and balancing account aspects of MOU
as of June 3

I learned at the AReM meeting today:

SCE has informed ESPs that it will implement its advice letter on the MOU
(don't recall the number) beginning with the new rates on June 3.  We are
planning to protest that AL.  Do we care? IF we do, Jeanne, can we stop them?

Also, SCE has informed people that it is calculating the PX Charge/Credit
based on its AL that was rejected by the CPUC. Do we care on that one?

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


Ayesha,

Attached is the pulp presentation. I used RISI as the primary source of information and where RISI had no data I used other sources.

Monika


Dear Subscribers,

Here is the 2000 Longhorn football roster. I'll send the newsletter in just a
few minutes. This was in my newsletter that was mailed today, so you will
wind up getting three separate e-mails containing all of the newsletter. This
is the first installment.

Jerry

2000 Longhorn Football Roster

Alphabetical Roster

Name    No  Pos.    Ht. Wt. Cl-Exp.     Hometown (HS/JC/TR)
Anderson, Jermain   89  DE  6-3 232 Jr.-1L  Texas City, Texas (Texas City)
Anderson, Matt  62  C   6-4 300 Jr.-2L  Cuero, Texas (Cuero)
Applewhite, Major   11  QB  6-1 207 Jr.-2L  Baton Rouge, La. (Catholic)
Babers, Roderick    21  CB  5-10    183 So.-1L  Houston, Texas (Lamar)
Baker, Beau 74  C   6-5 275 So.-1L  Houston, Texas (Clear Lake)
Bates, Trey 54  OL  6-5 285 Fr.-HS  Missouri City, Texas (Elkins)
Beltran, Arturo &Sneezy8    29  RB  5-10    205 Fr.-HS  Abilene, Texas
(Abilene)
Boyd, Reed  45  MLB 6-3 230 Fr.-RS  Garden Ridge, Texas (Canyon)
Bradford, Corey 69  OG  6-1 283 Jr.-SQ  Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster)
Brooks, Ahmad   5   CB  5-8 180 Jr.-1L  Abilene, Texas (Abilene)
Brown, Greg 24  FS  6-2 210 Sr.-2L  Baton Rouge, La. (Catholic)
Campion, Paul*  28  DB  5-9 195 Jr.-SQ  Richardson, Texas (Berkner) Collier,
Monti   28  CB  5-11    170 Fr.-RS  Dallas, Texas (Carter)
Cook, Nathan*   16  QB  6-0 170 So.-HS  Houston, Texas (Jersey Village)
Cooper, Doug*   77  DL  6-4 260 So.-SQ  Dallas, Texas (Highland Park)
Davis, Chad*    25  DB  5-10    180 Fr.-HS  Dallas, Texas (Skyline)
Davis, Leonard  70  OT  6-6 365 Sr.-3L  Wortham, Texas (Wortham)
Doane, Robbie   71  OT  6-6 305 So.-1L  Coppell, Texas (Coppell)
Dockery, Derrick    76  OG  6-6 330 So.-1L  Garland, Texas (Lakeview
Centennial)
Doiron, Adam    96  DE  6-4 260 Fr.-HS  Duncan, Okla. (Duncan)
Doiron, Josh*   83  TE  6-4 260 So.-TR  Duncan, Okla. (Duncan/Kansas St.)
Edwards, Brock  84  TE  6-5 265 Fr.-HS  Fort Worth, Texas (FW Christian)
Ellis, Artie    8   WR  6-4 205 Fr.-RS  Houston, Texas (Westfield)
Emley, Scott*   47  LB  6-0 209 Sr.-SQ  San Antonio, Texas (Churchill)
Flowers, Montrell   2   WR  5-9 182 Jr.-1L  Dallas, Texas (Skyline)
Garcia, Courtnee    7   WR  5-8 160 So.-1L  Lufkin, Texas (Lufkin)
Garr, Lionel    75  OL  6-7 335 Fr.-HS  Diboll, Texas (Diboll)
Geiggar, Phillip    22  FS  5-11    205 Fr.-HS  Shreveport, La. (Evangel
Christ.)
Glynn, Jason    52  OL  6-2 275 Fr.-HS  Richardson, Texas (Berkner)
Gordon, Maurice 48  DE  6-1 246 Jr.-SQ  Mesquite, Texas (West Mesquite)
Hampton, Casey  64  DT  6-1 310 Sr.-3L  Galveston, Texas (Ball)
Hanson, Gerald  15  WR  5-9 164 Fr.-RS  Houston, Texas (Jersey Village)
Hayter, Kenny   33  RB  5-11    215 So.-SQ  Houston, Texas (Cypress Falls)
Haywood, Ryan   98  DT  6-5 260 Fr.-RS  Englewood, Colo. (Jefferson)
Healy, Brandon  86  WR  6-1 200 Sr.-1L  Carlsbad, Calif. (Carlsbad)
Hedgecock, Brandon* 38  DB  6-1 194 So.-SQ  El Paso, Texas (Socorro)
Hermes, Bradford*   40  DB  5-7 178 Jr.-SQ  Sanger, Texas (Denton)
Hightower, Richard* 27  WR  5-8 175 Sr.-SQ  Houston, Texas (Aldine-MacArthur)
Hill, Ervis 1   CB  5-9 185 Jr.-2L  Texas City, Texas (Texas City)
Holland, Bobby* 27  RB  6-0 225 So.-SQ  Dallas, Texas (Highland Park)
Holloway, Tillman   61  OG  6-3 297 Fr.-RS  Basalt, Colo. (Faith Christian
Acad.)
Hunt, Kyle* 32  RB  5-11    215 Jr.-SQ  Victoria, Texas (Victoria)
Ike, Victor 28  RB  5-11    195 So.-1L  Austin, Texas (Bowie)
Jackson, Lee    23  SS  6-3 205 Jr.-2L  Longview, Texas (Longview)
Jammer, Quentin 6   CB  6-1 198 Jr.-2L  Angleton, Texas (Angleton)
Jeffery, Tony   10  WR  6-2 170 Fr.-HS  Houston, Texas (Klein Forest)
Jenkins, Levar  35  FS  5-10    200 Sr.-1L  Cuero, Texas (Cuero)
Johnson, B.J.   82  WR  6-1 190 Fr.-HS  Grand Prairie, Texas (South GP)
Jones, Mike 81  TE  6-4 260 Jr.-1L  San Antonio, Texas (Marshall)
Jones, Tyrone   39  SLB 6-4 235 Jr.-1L  Texas City, Texas (Texas City)
Kaspar, Nathan* 31  DB  5-11    192 So.-SQ  Ganado, Texas (Ganado)
Kirk-Hughes, Antwan 77  OG  6-3 310 Jr.-2L  Waxahachie, Texas (Waxahachie)
Lee, Stevie 65  DT  6-4 300 Fr.-HS  Shreveport, La. (Evangel Christ.)
Lewis, De,Andre     10  MLB 6-1 245 Jr.-2L  Houston, Texas (Aldine)
Loeffler, Cullen*   85  TE  6-4 260 Fr.-RS  Ingram, Texas (Tom Moore)
Long, Ryan  33  P/PK    6-1 200 Sr.-2L  Richardson, Texas (Pearce)
Lynch, David*   42  LB  6-3 215 So.-SQ  Temple, Texas (Temple)
Martin, C.J.*   35  RB  5-7 180 So.-HS  Heath, Texas (Rockwell)
Matthews, Will  37  RB  6-3 235 Fr.-HS  Austin, Texas (Westwood)
McAden, Kyle*   18  P/PK    5-10    175 Fr.-HS  Corpus Christi, Texas
(Richard King)
McClintock, O.J.    31  WLB 6-2 232 So.-1L  Austin, Texas (Westwood)
McConathy, Adam 42  DE  6-4 250 So.-SQ  West Monroe, La. (West Monroe)
McFadden, Matt  15  PK/P    5-11    180 Fr.-HS  Coppell, Texas (Coppell)
McKay, Miguel   94  DT  6-1 275 So.-SQ  Lufkin, Texas (Lufkin)
McWilliams, Hunter* 50  DB  6-2 220 So.-1L  Austin, Texas (Westlake)
Metta, Ammanual*    57  LB  6-0 235 Jr.-SQ  Irving, Texas (MacArthur)
Mitchell, Hodges    3   RB  5-7 185 Sr.-3L  Dallas, Texas (Skyline)
Mock, Chance    5   QB  6-2 205 Fr.-HS  The Woodlands, Texas (The Woodlands)
Musselman, Matt*    26  WR  5-11    180 So.-SQ  Dallas, Texas (St. Mark,s)
Nethercut, Robby*   67  OL  5-11    275 Jr.-SQ  Austin, Texas (Westlake)
Nguyen, Tien Van*   30  LB  5-11    189 So.-SQ  Rockport, Texas
(Rockport-Fulton)
Pfister, Kyle*  14  PK  6-1 180 Fr.-HS  Rockport, Texas (Rockport-Fulton)
Pearson, Dakarai    9   FS  5-10    180 Fr.-RS  Dayton, Texas (Dayton)
Pittman, Cole   44  DE  6-5 265 So.-1L  Shreveport, La. (Evangel)
Quye, Cory  66  OT  6-6 315 Sr.-2L  San Antonio, Texas (Marshall)
Rawls, Everick  2   WLB 6-1 235 Jr.-1L  Texas City, Texas (Texas City)
Redding, Cory   40  DE  6-5 260 So.-1L  Houston, Texas (North Shore)
Robin, Brett    25  RB  5-11    190 Fr.-RS  Austin, Texas (Westlake)
Rogers, Shaun   73  DT  6-4 320 Sr.-3L  LaPorte, Texas (LaPorte)
Sands, Steve*   14  DB  6-0 180 Jr.-SQ  Grapevine, Texas (Grapevine)
Scaife, Bo  80  TE  6-3 240 So.-1L  Denver, Colo. (Mullen Prep)
Sendlein, Austin    58  LB  6-3 240 Fr.-HS  Scottsdale, AZ (Chaparral)
Shanahan, Kyle* 87  WR  6-3 170 Jr.-TR  Englewood, Colo. (Cherry Creek/Duke)
Simms, Chris    1   QB  6-5 222 So.-1L  Franklin Lakes, N.J. (Ramapo)
Slagle, Travis* 98  DE  6-3 235 So.-SQ  Pflugerville, Texas (Pflugerville)
Smith, Justin   47  P/PK    6-5 185 Fr.-HS  Midland, Texas (Midland)
Stevens, Chad   36  RB  6-4 245 So.-1L  Cypress, Texas (Cy-Fair)
Stigall, Stevie*    88  TE/DE   6-4 205 Fr.-HS  Lone Oak, Texas (Rains)
Stockton, Kris  13  PK/P    5-9 195 Sr.-3L  Katy, Texas (Taylor)
Stroup, Chris*  97  DE  6-3 245 Jr.-HS  Killeen, Texas (Killeen)
Thomas, Rashad  49  LB  6-2 235 Fr.-HS  Dallas, Texas (Carter)
Thomas, Sloan   9   WR  6-2 195 Fr.-HS  Houston, Texas (Klein)
Thompson, Jamel 12  WR  6-0 180 Sr.-3L  Dallas, Texas (Skyline)
Thornton, Kalen 43  DE  6-3 270 Fr.-HS  Dallas, Texas (St. Mark,s)
Tsirtis, Ares*  22  WR  6-0 170 Fr.-HS  Dallas, Texas (J.J. Pearce)
Trahan, Beau    18  QB  5-11    200 So.-1L  Bay City, Texas (Bay City)
Trissel, Matt   46  RB  6-0 235 So.-1L  Teague, Texas (Teague)
Tubbs, Marcus   95  DT  6-4 280 Fr.-RS  DeSoto, Texas (DeSoto)
Ungar, Michael* 29  WR  6-0 175 Jr.-SQ  Fort Worth, Texas (Trinity Valley)
Vasher, Nathan  41  DB  5-11    170 Fr.-HS  Texarkana, Texas (Texas)
Virdell, Keith* 58  OL  5-10    275 So.-SQ  Marble Falls, Texas (Marble Falls)
Walker, Joe 17  SS  6-0 185 Sr.-3L  Houston, Texas (North Shore)
Walther, Marcus*    28  DB  6-1 181 Sr.-SQ  Dallas, Texas (Hillcrest)
Wilkins, Marcus 56  SLB 6-2 225 Jr.-2L  Austin, Texas (Westwood)
Williams, Ivan  26  RB  6-1 235 Fr.-RS  Cleveland, Texas (Cleveland)
Williams, Mike  63  OT  6-6 339 Jr.-2L  The Colony, Texas (The Colony)
Williams, Roy   4   WR  6-5 210 Fr.-HS  Odessa, Texas (Permian)
Wright, Billy*  36  DB  5-11    195 So.-SQ  San Antonio, Texas (Robert E. Lee)
Wyndham, Jon    38  SLB 6-1 202 Jr.-1L  Manor, Texas (Manor)

*non-scholarship player

Numerical Roster

1   Ervis Hill, CB
1   Chris Simms, QB
2   Montrell Flowers, WR
2   Everick Rawls, WLB
3   Hodges Mitchell, RB
4   Roy Williams, WR
5   Ahmad Brooks, CB
5   Chance Mock, QB
6   Quentin Jammer, CB
7   Courtnee Garcia, WR     8   Artie Ellis, WR
9   Dakarai Pearson, FS
9   Sloan Thomas, WR
10  De,Andre Lewis, MLB
10  Tony Jeffery, WR
11  Major Applewhite, QB
12  Jamel Thompson, WR
13  Kris Stockton, PK/P
14  Steve Sands, DB*
14  Kyle Pfister, PK*
15  Gerald Hanson, WR
15  Matt McFadden, PK/P
16  Nathan Cook, QB*
17  Joe Walker, SS
18  Beau Trahan, QB
18  Kyle McAden, P/PK*
21  Roderick Babers, CB
22  Phillip Geiggar, FS
22  Ares Tsirtsis, WR*
23  Lee Jackson, SS
24  Greg Brown, FS
25  Chad Davis, DB*
25  Brett Robin, RB
26  Ivan Williams, RB
26  Matt Musselman, WR*
27  Richard Hightower, WR*
27  Bobby Holland, RB*
28  Victor Ike, RB
28  Monti Collier, CB
28  Marcus Walther, DB*
28  Paul Campion, DB*
29  Arturo &Sneezy8 Beltran, RB
29  Michael Ungar, WR*
30  Tien Van Nguyen, LB*
31  O.J. McClintock, WLB
31  Nathan Kasper, DB*
32  Kyle Hunt, RB*
33  Ryan Long, P/PK
33  Kenny Hayter, RB
35  Levar Jenkins, FS
35  C.J. Martin, RB*
36  Chad Stevens, RB
36  Billy Wright, DB*
37  Will Matthews, RB
38  Jon Wyndham, SLB
38  Brandon Hedgecock, DB*
39  Tyrone Jones, SLB
40  Cory Redding, DE
40  Bradford Hermes, DB*
41  Nathan Vasher, DB
42  Adam McConathy, DE
42  David Lynch, LB*
43  Kalen Thornton, DE
44  Cole Pittman, DE
45  Reed Boyd, MLB
46  Matt Trissel, RB
47  Justin Smith, P/PK
47  Scott Emley, LB*
48  Maurice Gordon, DE
49  Rashad Thomas, LB
50  Hunter McWilliams, DB*
52  Jason Glynn, OL
54  Trey Bates, OL
56  Marcus Wilkins, SLB
57  Ammanual Metta, LB*
58  Austin Sendlein, LB
58  Keith Virdell, OL*
61  Tillman Holloway, OG
62  Matt Anderson, C
63  Mike Williams, OT
64  Casey Hampton, DT
65  Stevie Lee, DT
66  Cory Quye, OT
67  Robby Nethercut, OL*
69  Corey Bradford, OG
70  Leonard Davis, OT
71  Robbie Doane, OT
73  Shaun Rogers, DT
74  Beau Baker, C
75  Lionel Garr, OL
76  Derrick Dockery, OG
77  Antwan Kirk-Hughes, OG
77  Doug Cooper, DL*
80  Bo Scaife, TE
81  Mike Jones, TE
82  B.J. Johnson, WR
83  Josh Doiron, TE*
84  Brock Edwards, TE
85  Cullen Loeffler, TE*
86  Brandon Healy, WR
87  Kyle Shanahan, WR*
88  Stevie Stigall, TE/DE*
89  Jermain Anderson, DE
94  Miguel McKay, DT
95  Marcus Tubbs, DT
96  Adam Doiron, DE
97  Chris Stroup, DE*
98  Ryan Haywood, DT
98  Travis Slagle, DE*


THANK YOU.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Trejo, Reese
Sent:	Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:56 PM
To:	Campbell, Larry F.
Cc:	Berlin, Jason
Subject:	WESCO Checkouts

Campbell,

We had a discrepancy with WESCO on our checkouts for 9/23/2001.  WESCO shows all 100 MW with the following path:

SCEG-SCEGW135074F50/50-SCEG-DYPMI - WESCO ---E--- MORGAN  - SOCO-SOCOW/S

WESCO does not recognize the schedule with the following path for 25MW:

MDU-CARGILL-MAPPW-AMRNW-TVAW-CARG-SCEG-DYPMI - WESCO ---E--- MORGAN  - SOCO-SOCOW/S

We both agree that 100 MW should sink at SOCO, however, they show all 100 coming from SCEG into SOCO, and we show 75 from SCEG to SOCO and 25 from MDU to SOCO.  Let me know if I need to make any changes.

Thanks,

Jason Berlin
(I'm using Reese's email)


1996.  it had 65k.  $18k.


I will be available at 1:30 pm CST today.  With regard to turning the
document, I will be traveling on Thursday.  Therefore, I believe the
earliest I could have a draft of the agreement (w/o exhibits, w/o
override letter) is Friday evening.  If we could wait until Monday
delivery, I could have drafts of both the agreement and exhibits.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:59 AM
To: Thompson, Peter J.
Subject: Re: GE- Standard Domestic Contract- Need your help

fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/16/2001
08:58
AM ---------------------------

From: Sheila Tweed@ECT on 05/16/2001 08:49 AM

To:   Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   John G Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kay
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject:  Re: GE- Standard Domestic Contract- Need your help  (Document
link: Kay Mann)

Yes. Let's do 1:30 for an internal call.  I'll get Suzanne to send out
the
dial-in instructions.  Let's make sure that the GE guys know NOT to call
in.  Thanks!.  I know that John Schwartzenburg will be late since he is
TurboParking until 2 pm but let's proceed at 1:30.

Scott

Dieball@ENRON_D       To:     Sheila
Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT
EVELOPMENT            cc:     John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kay
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron@ECT,
John
05/16/2001
Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
07:15 AM              Subject:     Re: GE- Standard
Domestic Contract- Need your
help(Document link: Sheila
Tweed)

Read your notes re scheduling a call w/ or w/o GE.  From John's and my
perspective, it seems that we should first have an internal call re the
consolidation of our assignments from weeks past  into Peter's draft
contract and then send to GE for their review and follow up call either
later this week or next.  Steve Swift is OK with this approach.

At the moment we seem to be knee deep w/GE and Owner on Arcos and
suspect
that 9:30 CST (3:30 London time) will be difficult for us to call in.
Instead, 1:30 CST would work better for us.

If this works for the Houston gang could you let us know soonest and we
will let Mike and Steve know as well.

Sheila

Tweed@ECT            To:     John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:     Scott
Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Kay
05/15/2001           Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

04:18 PM             Subject:     Re: GE- Standard
Domestic Contract- Need your
help(Document link: Scott
Dieball)

Would you all be in a posiotion to get together tomorrow morning at 9:30
am
Houston time to review the issues list and  talk about how we get to the
end of this process with GE.  We immediately need to start the drafting
of
the Longview turbine contract and I'd like to see if we are close enough
to
get that started.  Scott, today the extension to the Agreement in
Principle
expires and we need to extend.  Can you tee this up with Steve Swift?
Our
meeting tomorrow will be in lieu of the regularly scheduled GE call.
I'll
let them know we will call them later this week or we'll talk next
Wednesday, but I would like to get through whatever we need to in order
to
get the Longview Turbine Contract going.
I've talked to John Schwartzenburg about this and he is available
tomorrow
morning.


This is real helpful.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 05/07/2001 06:44 PM -----

	"Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>
	05/07/2001 12:16 PM

		 To: <mmilner@coral-energy.com>, <rreilley@coral-energy.com>,
<ray.alvarez@ei.enron.com>, <acomnes@enron.com>, <cyoder@enron.com>,
<dfulton@enron.com>, <jdasovic@enron.com>, <jsteffe@enron.com>,
<linda.robertson@enron.com>, <rshapiro@enron.com>, <smara@enron.com>,
<snovose@enron.com>, <steve.c.hall@enron.com>, <gackerman@wptf.org>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Fwd: Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices
In CA

----- Message from "Tracey Bradley" <tbradley@bracepatt.com> on Mon, 07 May
2001 10:49:32 -0500 -----
To:	"Justin Long" <jlong@bracepatt.com>
cc:	"Aryeh Fishman" <afishman@bracepatt.com>, "Andrea Settanni"
<asettanni@bracepatt.com>, "Charles Ingebretson"
<cingebretson@bracepatt.com>, "Charles Shoneman" <cshoneman@bracepatt.com>,
"Deanna King" <dking@bracepatt.com>, "Dan Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>,
"Gene Godley" <ggodley@bracepatt.com>, "Kimberly Curry"
<kcurry@bracepatt.com>, "Michael Pate" <mpate@bracepatt.com>, "Paul Fox"
<pfox@bracepatt.com>, "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>
Subject:	Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices In CA
FYI

Murkowski Challenges Capitalists To Cap Runaway Power Prices In CA

In what some observers believe could be a watershed change in rhetoric,
Senate energy policy leader Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is berating the capital
community for not coming forward and detailing what kind of ceiling on
wholesale power prices it would take to insure adequate generation -- but
head off continued economic damage to the state of California.

 The criticism signals that the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee has grown impatient with the hail of philosophical
charges and counter-charges that have followed FERC's April 26 order on the
California market and is turning elsewhere than FERC for a solution. Sources
also say it may be a signal that there is a majority on his committee that
would support some kind of legislative control on the wholesale power market
in the West.

"I am issuing an admonition to the financial community," Murkowski said at
the conclusion of a hearing on the recent FERC order. "If the financial
community will come in and say what terms and conditions they will need to
bring new generation into the state, we can cut through this chatter."

Among other provisions, the FERC order institutes a plan for price controls
during Stage 1 and higher power emergencies. Lawmakers at the hearing,
especially from California and the West, criticized the action as
insufficient to prevent price gouging.

FERC Chairman Curt Hebert said the limited nature of the price controls will
continue to provide the power industry with incentives to build power plants
in California.

Murkowski called on financial interests attending the hearing to settle the
debate.

"Tells us what you will or will not do under a price cap," said Murkowski.

Murkowski indicated that the answer to his question should come directly from
top figures in the financial community.

Murkowski also signaled that Congress may step in and take legislative action
on the California crisis.

"We have to question the adequacy of the order and introduce legislation to
address problems if necessary," Murkowski said.

The sentiment was echoed by other members of the Committee.

"We cannot allow our government to sit idly by and allow a tragically flawed
and easily manipulated power market wreak havoc on our economy," Sen. Maria
Cantwell told Hebert. "If you're not going to take action, Congress is going
to act."

All three FERC commissioners testified at the hearing but it was Chairman
Curt Hebert who was on the receiving end of most of the criticism.

"FERC has done a wonderful imitation of a potted plant," Sen. Byron Dorgan
(D-ND) told Hebert. "Regulation is not a four letter word. The market system
sometimes gets out of wack.

Commissioner William Massey also criticized FERC's order, and acted as
counterpoint to Hebert throughout the hearing. Commissioner Linda Breathitt
defended her support of the April 26 order.

"One thing is clear, you all don't get along very well," observed Dorgan.

"I'm amazed at what's been done," said Murkowski in defending FERC's action
over the past several weeks. "It's better than nothing."

"I've been disappointed," replied Dorgan. "I hope FERC decides it's a
regulatory body and steps up and takes some action."

Sen. Feinstein suggested to Hebert that FERC take a closer look at the impact
of skyrocketing natural gas prices on the exorbitant increase in electricity
prices in California.

In response, Hebert announced that FERC was holding a technical conference
May 24 on current and projected natural gas pipelines into California.

"I agree that this is a natural gas situation and we intend to look into this
as well," Hebert said.

Source: EnergyWashington.com
Date: May 4, 2001
, Inside Washington Publishers


Good news!  Please find a message from Power Systems CEO John Rice:

 Last week, I spent several days with people in Washington, D.C. and at our
Global Research Center (GRC) in Niskayuna, NY, who play large roles in
support of our growth plans.

In Washington, I visited with a number of Senators and Representatives who
are shaping energy legislation. The purpose for these meetings was to
introduce our business and to find out where we could be helpful in
providing information to support their work. I also met with Bob Card, Under
Secretary at the Department of Energy, whose office manages most of the
government funding effort in support of new energy technologies. Bob had
recently visited the GRC and commented on the outstanding work being done
there and the close collaboration that existed with GEPS.

While I was in Washington, there was yet more "swirl" coming now from
WorldCom and (even) Martha Stewart! The people I met with were very
concerned about all the recent examples of poor corporate leadership. But it
was gratifying to me to see the respect they have for GE and the reputation
for integrity that goes with our name.

I also spent a day with Jon Ebacher, Vic Abate, Scott Donnelly (leader of
the GRC), and their teams, discussing some of the great new technologies
that are making a difference for our customers today, and creating the
foundation for our future. I agree with Bob Card's assessment, and really
think that the collaboration between GEPS and the GRC is outstanding and
exemplifies the best of what we mean by "boundaryless behavior." I love the
enthusiasm that was evident in every discussion, and am particularly pleased
with the work being done to integrate our newest acquisitions - Bently
Nevada, GE Wind and PII. This is the kind of work that will separate us from
all the other companies out there that are just buying businesses to get
bigger.

Great technology and great people continue to be our most important assets.
When we get it right, we can't be beat. When we get it wrong, our customers
wonder why they cannot do business with the "six sigma" GE they read about.

Little things can go a long way toward making the large, complicated global
business that we are simpler and more "user friendly" for our customers to
work with. Customers sometimes ask us to help with problems that belong to
someone else - another person, function, or even business. In these
situations our response MUST be to make sure the problem gets quickly
communicated to the teams that can resolve it.

Believe it or not, we have had several recent examples where GE people have
responded with "it is not my department" or "try calling Jim" rather than
take the initiative themselves to help. To put it mildly, this is
unacceptable. To put it bluntly, people in customer facing positions who
respond like this will not be left in their jobs. When it comes to customer
centric behavior, everyone has to be in the game and we cannot let
"functions," "departments," or "P&L's" become barriers!

In these uncertain times, you and I should be certain of one thing, and
that's the importance of integrity. With everything going on in today's
business world, integrity must be absolute. It has to guide our
decision-making process - and ultimately defines who we are. This deeply
held value has been, and will continue to be, a cornerstone of our
competitive advantage, and every single GEPS employee in every corner of the
world has a role to play.

Finally, in a few days we will be reporting on yet another "best quarter" in
the long history of our business. Thanks to all of you for these results and
for all you are doing to help us get ready for change - and success - in the
future.

John


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Chris Edwards [mailto:cedwards@completerx.com]
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject:	Enjoy Life


Frank,

I have on my laptop. It's easier to send it from home.
What is your E-mail address. Please cc to
vkaminski@aol.com.

Vince

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Frank Hayden @ ENRON                           01/31/2001 03:17 PM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: GARP

Vince,
I throughly enjoyed last night.  A sincere thank you.  J

Frank

Any chance I could get a copy of your presentation?


(See attached file: hpl0721.xls)

 - hpl0721.xls


each period from ,and including, one Valuation Date to, but excluding the
next following applicable Valuation Date during the Term of the Transaction,
except that (a) the initial Calculation Period will commence on, and include,
January 17, 2001 and (b) the final Calculation Period will end on, but
exclude, the Termination Date.

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


Guys,

Please disregard the earlier message, which was sent prior to its completion.

This is the complete message.

Gentlemen,

Attached is the latest version to ENA's form of "Schedule to ISDA Master Agreement".  This document has been upgraded to include our new "set-off" provision.

For your convenience, I have attached a redlined version, so you can track the set-off language changes made therein.

Regards,
Susan S. Bailey
Senior Legal Specialist
Enron Wholesale Services
Legal Department
1400 Smith Street, Suite 3803A
Houston, Texas 77002
phone: (713) 853-4737
fax: (713) 646-3490
email: susan.bailey@ enron.com


When I called and wrote a couple of years ago about his corner, Glenda
Scott (I think) said she would dispatch an engineer, who a couple of
months later wrote me a letter saying everything was fine with the
corner.  We all must be suffering from the same delusion.  ;-)

On Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 03:26  PM, Gayle Rodgers - Rodgers,
Ramsey, Inc. wrote:

> There has been a lot of documentation done on this location and the
> standing water problem, and it certainly merits taking up again.  It
> will, in fact, take an infrastructure 'fix'--a good item for Capital
> Improvements and far more likely to get attention than new curbs and
> gutters, which are missing in many if not most innercity neighborhoods.
>
> Gayle Ramsey
>
>
> zaeza wrote:
>
>>    Part 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>>            Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> emca-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
Joe Carl White
Singer, Consultant, Humanitarian
joe@joewhite.com


Boy, he sure didn't waste any time!  Let me know what we need to do.  Sara

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 01/09/2001 03:21 PM -----

	"Serge Martin" <Sgm@steelhector.com>
	01/09/2001 03:13 PM

		 To: Sara.Shackleton@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: FPL Energy Power Marketing Inc./Enron North America Corp.

Sara: Enclosed per our conversation are drafts of the FPL Energy Power
Marketing Inc./Enron North America Corp. ISDA master agreement, credit
support annex, guaranty of Enron Corp. and guaranty of FPL Group Capital
Inc  (FPL Energy Power Marketing Inc. debt is unrated, FPL Group Capital
Inc debt is single A).  Thank you in advance for your assistance with
these agreements.  Regards, -Serge

Serge G. Martin
smartin@steelhector.com
Steel Hector & Davis LLP
200 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 33131-2398
(305) 577-7097 phone
(305) 577-7001 fax

 - 640966_1.DOC


FYI:  An e-mail from Jon and my response.

Dan: Do you know which airport we're flying into in Shanghai?
(the new Pudong Airport or the older Hong Qiao
Airport)?

Eric Gillaspie
713-345-7667
Enron Building 3886
----- Forwarded by Eric Gillaspie/HOU/ECT on 04/12/2001 10:37 AM -----

	Eric Gillaspie
	04/12/2001 10:36 AM

		 To: jongillaspie@emailvista.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: ching-chong bliss

Jonny-son:

I think we'll take the plane from Shanghai and Qingdao if its only $85.00
instead of the 22 hour train ride.

I think Dan is planning on taking care of the lodging in Shanghai, do you
have any best bets or recommended places or parts of town that are better to
stay at?  If you want you can just crash in our room to save some yuan.  I
assume Anna won't be with you in Shanghai, or will she?
If you think it is a good idea to get the Shanghai to Qingdao flight ahead of
time (seat availability, etc.), we should do that.  Do you need some credit
card information to get us all booked?

Does this updated itinerary make sense: (FYI: I'm suggesting this with no
working knowledge of anything but logic):
June 5th: Arrive in Shanghai @3:15p.m.; I assume we'll be frazzled and may
want to rest the rest of the day & night - will require a bed & plum wine.
June 6th: Shanghai
June 7th: Shanghai
June 8th: fly to Qingdao in the morning, sightseeing?, etc.
June 9th: Wedding
June 10th: Further sightseeing in Qingdao or leave for Beijing/somewhere
else...

Basically I'd like some guidance on how soon/late should we get to Quingdao?
Where/What would be the best use of our sightseeing time? Are there any
pre-wedding activities we could/need to help you with?  How long should we
stay in Qingdao for sightseeing, etc?
We bought some travel books and I'll start getting acquainted with what
attractions are in those areas, but I'd like your input as well.

Sorry for all the questions, I'd call you and we could get this resolved in a
5 minute phone call but I hear the rates are high.....Are wedding
preparations making you freak out yet?

Eric Gillaspie
713-345-7667
Enron Building 3886

I RECIEVED THIS E-MAIL FROM JON THIS MORNING.

Eric:

Thanks for the info. Sounds like a good plan.

Regarding the Shanghai>Qingdao journey: I would recommend flying, the train
ride is about a 22 hour ride. It would be an overnight ride, and the
landscape isn't very interesting. In comparison, the Shanghai>Qingdao flight
is about 45 minutes long and costs about $85.00 USD. I wouldn't waste a day
on the train ride. Don't worry about the safety of China's domestic
airlines. China Eastern uses new generation Boeing and Airbus planes. I can
arrange the Shanghai>Qingdao flight for you before you arrive, if you want.

Yes, I'll probably be able to meet you at the Shanghai airport. (I assume
you're flying into the new Pudong Airport and not the older Hong Qiao
Airport.) Let me know after you study your plane ticket. If you want, we can
also arrange your lodging in Shanghai.

Dad said that Mom and Jennifer discused travel plans while in Houston
together. Your plan looks good. Hopefully, I'll be able to travel to Beijing
with the family. My advice concerning the consumption of exotic foodstuffs:
eat it all.

Thanks for the timely repsonse. Hope all is well. Write again soon.

Cheers,

Jon Gillaspie


I have made some formatting (margin) changes, nothing overly noticeable.
Please review - I think it looks very good.

(See attached file: RES071601F.doc)

Love you


I apologize if these comments are trivial, since I am not familiar with the ERCOT ISO structure/process.

Not understanding our relationship and obligations as a QSE with Frontera, are there not provisions Frontera and Enron have in place in the QSE-gen relationship that holds us harmless from a generator's refusal or incapability to dispatch its units?  It seems that a QSE should not be caught in the middle between ERCOT ISO and a generator.  A QSE, as I understand it, performs a service on behalf of a generator.  If we are not in the middle of the dispute then the complaint should come from Frontera, not Enron QSE.

If we have no choice, I would like to know what is the process at ERCOT to get the protocols clarified or revised?  That should be part of the complaint.  We should not only complain about the ERCOT interpretation, we should ask to utilize the process in place to address the conflict.  If there is no process available, then we should know what our next step should be.

In the complaint we should point out that the ERCOT interpretation to not pay OOME causes the wrong economic incentives.  I would think that John Adams' interpretation is not economically motivated, but operations/reliability related.  I am not familiar with the logic of his interpretation, but we should try to point out why his interpretation is not just inapprorpriate for the economics, but also unnecessary for operations and reliability.

Doug's suggestion about the RMR units makes sense, but I imagine that either a) that battle was fought and lost when the rules were established for RMR, or b) that the unit did not meet any established criteria for RMR status.  If it was not apparent that the Frontera unit was to be used to relieve congestion on a regular basis until now, then again, is there a process in place to address this?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nicolay, Christi L.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:25 PM
To:	Twiggs, Thane; Yeung, Charles; Maurer, Luiz
Cc:	Ryall, Jean; Steffes, James D.
Subject:	ASAP please: Ercot Questions OOMC & OOME
Importance:	High

Thane, Charles and Luiz -- Please see the messages below.  This is an important issue for our ERCOT desk.

Can you please determine how we would best submit a "complaint", etc. at ERCOT on an expedited basis and draft a document, if necessary.  Please talk with Doug or John about this too.

Also, let me know if you think we need outside assistance with this.  THANKS!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Portz, David
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:12 PM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.
Cc:	Gilbert-smith, Doug; Baughman, Edward D.; Miller, Jeffrey; Forney, John M.
Subject:	Ercot Questions OOMC & OOME

Forwarded as discussed.  Doug Gilbert Smith has asked that your group draft a complaint to the PUCT regarding this misinterpretation of the Protocols by the ERCOT ISO, which effectively requires a generator called on for the OOMC ancillary service to run its plant, and sidesteps the obligation to pay an OOME price component when the plant's output is utilized by ERCOT.  The OOMC compensation is currently negligible (and recovery of actual costs under Protocols Sec. 6.8.2.1(6) may take a long time), and the OOME compensation has various problems as well: (1) the more ERCOT calls on a plant for OOME, the the lesser the OOME price paid (Protocols Sec. 6.8.2.2 -- Heat Rate value decreases), and (2) plants directed to provide, say, 135MWs of OOMC/OOME, are not allowed to generate above 135 MWs in an interval (thus running the plant economically at a lower heat rate) to sell the excess in the marketplace. The Frontera plant, a customer of EPMI acting as QSE, is located such that ERCOT is and will be consistently telling the plant via its QSE to provide OOMC -- to produce energy going north on a line in South Texas. Doug says we should advocate to the PUC that plants in such a position should be Reliability Must Run ("RMR") and be paid at an adequate premium for their support of the system' reliability.

I noted to you as well that this is likely to be a dispute with ERCOT over the interpretation of the Protocols, conducted under Protocols Section 20, and we would appreciate any reg. group efforts toward preparation for iinitiating such dispute.  Frontera has indicated they will not provide OOMC tomorrow even if ERCOT tells us, their QSE that it should be dispatched. Thus we are caught in the middle.  The legitimate bases for not complying with an ERCOT dispatch instruction are stated in Protocols Section 5.4.4(2): "threat to safety, risk of bodily harm or damage to the equipment, or otherwise is not in compliance with these Protocols".  Though the Protocols Sections 1-22 seem to recognize as to other capacity- oriented ancillary service products that it is 'generating capacity available but not energy delivered to the grid', I have not seen this made clear as to OOMC.  The Operating Guides' definition of OOMC, page 21 seems to recognize this however, and Section 2B of the ERCOT Market Guide, p. 8 (Feb 22, 2001) recognizes the distinction between capacity and generated energy clearly in support of the position stated by John Forney below.

Sorry for the long e-mail -- I was trying to provide a statting point for your group.
  -----Original Message-----
From: 	Forney, John M.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:27 PM
To:	Portz, David; Gilbert-smith, Doug
Subject:	Ercot Questions

David,
I need some help with an Ercot protocol interpretation:

Frontera has been issued  OOMC requests by the ISO on numerous occasions, starting September 14th.    This Out of Merit request is issued if no mkt bids exist to solve congestion, whether local or zonal.
The OOMC, as I understand it,  reserves capacity for Ercot and the premium is predetermined based on a formula mentioned in the protocols.   The formula is based on the replacement reserve clearing price,  which currently is zero.   This is because the replacement reserve market is non-existent.  An announcement on how the OOMC capacity payments will be calculated is due out this week,  per Mark Patterson.

The second component of this option is OOME.    This is a request for actual energy related to the OOMC option.   The strike price is calculated from a preset heat rate multiplied by the HSC daily price, as mentioned in the protocols.  So the OOMC/OOME ws designed to work like the ancillary services with a capacity award and an energy component.  I think that this is the spirit of the OOM's, as mentioned in Section 6 of the Protocols.

Here is the problem:
the head of Ercot Market Operations,  John Adams,  interprets the protocols to mean that OOMC requries the plant to be generating.     When Ercot dispatchers had issued an OOMC,  they quickly followed up to ask us why we were not generating into the grid.
We explained to them, on numerous occasions,  that we dont believe OOMC means run.   If they wanted us to run,  then they would need to issue an OOME for the actual energy component.    I asked my employees to clarify with Ercot whether we were being asked to run,  yes or no.    When instructed to run by Ercot,  we had to assume that we were settled based upon the OOME calc, as we were previously under OOMC orders.

I sent at least three e-mails to my Ercot rep,  Mark Patterson regarding this issue.   I finally caught him by phone and he relayed that he thought Ercot's  intrepretation was correct.    For all of the times that we ran,  at their request,  we werent going to be paid based on the OOME heat rate calc,  rather we were going to receive the balancing energy price ( a penalty for Resource Imbalance).   For example,  in the early morning hours we would receive as little as $1 for electricity that cost $27 to generate.   Mark also mentioned that when they said run,  they expected us to sell to someone else,  or just generate into the imbalance.    Mark told me "dont worry,  you can file to receive your generation expenses in the event that you lost money."

Here is my view:
OOMC does not mean run.  It means have the capacity available in the event Ercot calls,  much like replacement,  responsive reserve and non-spinning.
Ercot's interpretation is being decided by the Manager of Mkt Operations,  a group supposedly unconcerned with price.
If OOMC means to run,  then why would the protocols contemplate, or need OOME?  They would never have to pay OOME if we were already running into the imbalance.
OOMC is an option and the exercise is OOME.   This is basically the disagreement.    This could very well be a $500,000 issue for Frontera.
Why would anyone generate for $27 and dump to the imbalance mkt at $5 in hopes of filing for a "breakeven."   Ridiculous.

I spoke with Bill Kettlewell with Customer Relations and he had "no comment" on whether OOMC means to generate.  Mark Patterson now also has "no comment."
Bill and Mark said that we needed to file a dispute in order to receive closure on the OOM capacity payment.   I suspect that we will follow this same path when we file for OOME reimbursement vs.  the imbalance price we will receive.

I had instructed my employeess to refuse to turn on the plant   (in response to an OOMC) until we receive an OOME instruction.   This has compelled  Ercot to deploy an OOME request to us, because they need  to have us online to control local congestion.   Would this not be an omission that their view was incorrect?  Section 5.4.4 says that a QSE may fail to comply with an Ercot directive if it causes a safety concern, or ,  Ercot is not in compliance with the Protocols.  The latter is in effect.
Ercot is now telling us that they cannot instruct us, or give us an OOME deployment,  unless we are already runnnig.    I think that this is a software issue, not a protocol issue.
We worked out an interim compromise with Ercot until this issue can be settled.  Once we have been OOMC'd,  we will start to gen.   Once we reach full load,  we will request an OOME.   If they dont comply,  we will shut down the unit.    Ercot said that " it was entirely reasonable that we would  request to be compensated in the form of an OOME."
The Ercot dispatchers are complaining that OOME requires them to send an instruction every 15 minutes.   Is this why we are not getting the OOME instruction on a regular basis?

Finally,  I stressed to Ercot that I wasnt trying to manipulate prices, via OOME or force Ercot into a corner.    It just is not the right economic environment to generate for $27 and sell for $5.    Further,  operations personell at Ercot have frelayed their displeasure with me for "forcing them to OOME our plant."

Can I get an opinion on whether OOMC means to run?   If you agree with me,  what is our next step?  I need to move aggressively on this issue.

Thanks,

JForney
37160


Tomorrow's meeting on O&M costs will be held at 4:30pm in 3125A.  Give me a
call if there are any problems.  Thanks
Ben


You have received this email because you are listed as an alternate data
approver. Please click
http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000005412&Page=
Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000005412
Approver            : stinson.gibner@enron.com
Request Create Date : 10/23/00 8:49:45 AM
Requested For       : brian.mihura@enron.com
Resource Name       : \\enehou\houston\common\Research - [Read/Write]
Resource Type       : Directory


what are you guys talking about?

-----Original Message-----
From: Fenner, Chet [mailto:Chet_Fenner@bmc.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:43 AM
To: 'chad knipe'; Fenner, Chet; Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; c.r.zander@att.net; Parks, Joe; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: RE: man night again?

Screw it, I'm going to Tony's.

-----Original Message-----
From: chad knipe [mailto:knipe3@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:55 PM
To: Chet Fenner; Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: Re: man night again?

what

----- Original Message -----
From: Fenner, Chet
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:01 PM
To: 'chad knipe'; Fenner, Chet; Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: RE: man night again?

I feel like Erik.  No one will answer my question.

-----Original Message-----
From: chad knipe [mailto:knipe3@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:49 PM
To: Chet Fenner; Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: Re: man night again?

sh"IN" - dig.......get it?  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh

----- Original Message -----
From: Fenner, Chet
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:11 PM
To: 'chad knipe'; Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; Fenner, Chet; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: RE: man night again?

Where is this shin-dig?

-----Original Message-----
From: chad knipe [mailto:knipe3@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:23 AM
To: Brian Constantine; EriK Wollam; Brad Corrier; Chet Fenner; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: Re: man night again?

in.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Constantine
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:26 AM
To: Erik Wollam; bcorrier@cox-internet.com; knipe3@msn.com; chet_fenner@bmc.com; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: RE: man night again?

I am IN!!! Would like to be there by 6:30 or so...maybe later. Zander is "out"...unless he brings Jake. Someone forward to Chambers...you know he's in.

BC

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wollam [mailto:erwollam@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 5:25 PM
To: bcorrier@cox-internet.com; knipe3@msn.com; chet_fenner@bmc.com; c.r.zander@att.net; Joe.Parks@bridgeline.net; Brian Constantine; lawfeder@msn.com
Subject: man night again?

Zero response from my last effort on this matter. Are your emails working
men?

Zander called and suggested we attend the CCA crawfish boil function to be
held Thurday May 2, 2002. Reasonably priced event, beer, mud bugs and we can
sit back and watch pig win raffle prizes.

I'm in

e.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


Thanks,
Melissa
3-1886


OK


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001
07:59 AM ---------------------------

Alex Huang@ENRON
04/09/2001 05:26 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: weather knock-out option


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Corey, Paula
Sent:	Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:12 PM
To:	Kaminski, Vince J; Mends, Anthony; steve.lovett@dynegy.com; Livermore, Carl; alaina@alaina.net; Perlman, Beth; Casari, Lou
Subject:	Round Table

Beth has made our reservations for the Round Table Friday night (5/18) at Sullivan's Steak House for 6:30.
See you all there - this is ling overdue

Paula


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
?	A New MOU Takes Shape in the Assembly
?    The Fate of Direct Access
?    DWR Rate Agreement

California's Assembly Rallies 'Round a New MOU
The lights were burning late in the California Capitol last night as lawmakers in the Democratic caucus volleyed final versions of the newly consolidated Edison MOU bill, AB82.  Details leaked to the public concentrate on disputes over the valuation of SoCal's transmission line assets, however, sources report this matter is only a prelude to even greater contentious language buried in the bill's various sub clauses.  Earlier media reports noting that the bill would be based on Senator Burton's preferred legislation are also far off the mark.  The draft bill tries to get the State out of the power business as fast as possible and binds power users to decades of high prices.  The proposed language also significantly reduces the chance of a SoCal Ed bankruptcy and provides the company with lavish concessions.  SoCal Ed is complaining about some technical details in public, but the draft bill offers probably the most generous deal any electricity utility has seen from regulators.  Sacramento insiders tell us the bill has "a pretty good chance" of passing in the next 3-4 days, but could touch off a political and legal storm because of its draconian impact on Californian power users.

The Assembly's AB 82 contains three primary additions that distinguish it from thee Senate's SB 78XX bill and:

1)	The Governor and Assembly Democrats propose to charge a massive 'exit fee' to any end user wanting to switch a future alternative power providers.  All California electricity users will be liable for the cost of Governor Davis' expensive long-term power contracts for their whole term (save municipalities like SMUD and LADWP).  This is apparently the only acceptable compromise for legislators that would both secure revenue to cover the State's long-term power costs and maintain the promise of direct access established at the onset of California's deregulation.  The clause sidesteps some of the obstacles the California State Constitution places in the way of stopping direct access, particularly for municipalities.  But it could still be open to legal challenge.  California officials hope that it will be enough to quiet the issue until the October power bond sale is finalized.

2)	The Assembly expanded the rate base of "commercial class" users to pay back SoCal's bailout bonds by incorporating small businesses that use 20 kW.  It appears likely that this change was made because S&P told the state that a larger rate base would be needed to support the bailout bonds.  S&P wants all ratepayers to help repay and secure the bailout bonds; including small businesses.  This change is likely to draw heavy fire from the powerful California Technology and Manufacturers' Alliance (CTMA).

3)	The PUC will be mandated to set rates at any level necessary to preserve SoCal Edison's solvency and borrowing ability.  This regulation essentially links consumer electricity rates with maintaining SoCal's investment grade credit rating.  Arguably, SoCal would need to do little more than make a case that that S&P might downgrade them and the CPUC would necessarily respond with a rate increase. If SoCal can get this concession, the nickel and dimes issue of transmission line valuation will be muted, a promising sign to those fearing bankruptcy.

Sources within the Sacramento Capitol inform us that the Governor and Hertzberg are likely to get their way for now. The precise wording of the clauses may be toyed with in the final markup session, but we understand there is considerable momentum behind the substance.  There are some indications that the Governor may have overestimated the amount of support AB82 has in the Assembly.  Republicans are not on board, so if the bill passes it will be subject to 90 days delay before taking effect.  It remains unclear whether the plan will come to a vote next week.  When/if the plan does pass, it will likely have no more than a 50% chance of escaping the Senate.  Senator Burton, the consumer advocates, and the CTMA are staunchly against any plan that would include small businesses in paying off SoCal's bailout bonds.  Sen. Minority leader Burlte told several lobbyists yesterday that the Republicans would walk away from any amended SB 78XX that emerged in the House, having already agreed to the Sher bill (SB 78XX) before the recess. This is reportedly the same attitude Brulte's counterpart in the Senate, John Burton, has articulated -- and not a good sign for Edison.

Direct Access
Contrary to the CPUC's press release explaining their decision to delay the direct access ruling to allow more time to review the case, sources report the reason for the delay is that the Commission prefers to wait for the Legislature to act on SB 18XX (bond repayment) before ruling.  Key business community leaders expect the PUC to formally end direct access on Sept. 6. However, the Legislature has the authority to reinstate direct access in whatever form it may choose.
Presuming the PUC carries out the expected action and permanently suspends direct access; the following are some possible outcomes:

?	The Legislature, under pressure from a unified business community, could restore direct access before the end of the session allowing moderate Democrats in swing districts to say they protected the economic climate, but only with exit fees and time commitment restrictions that are unpalatable to businesses. Many in the business community are willing to accept having to "eat" a DWR surcharge for long-term power contract commitments and a surcharge to pay for a substantial portion of Edison's accumulated debt. But according to our sources, Legislative Democrats are insisting on exit fees substantially beyond these surcharges to head off the need for additional residential rate increases that might be needed to satisfy DWR commitments.

?	If this occurs, or if the Legislature simply stands idle and declines to restore direct access, business leaders may likely give up on direct access and shift their efforts to restructuring the rate allocation to shift a greater portion of the burden to the residential ratepayer classes. (The March rate increase by the PUC placed a disproportionate share of the revenue requirement burden on the industrial ratepayer classes.) This would present a huge political challenge. But because the amount of net short power expected to be available for direct access agreements is so small -- one estimate places it at no more than 5000 MW (or about 10% of demand) through 2007 -- there is growing sentiment in the business community that it is no longer really worth fighting for direct access given the political obstacles.

?	Additionally, there is the interesting prospect that DWR itself might expand and dominate the market for net short power sales, given the agency's expected surplus supply via the forward contracts. There is nothing in law or regulation currently that would prevent DWR from acting as a market participant and selling excess power; indeed, DWR already sells excess power to municipal utilities, private utilities and power managers outside California.

DWR Rate Agreement and Edison Rescue
In the Senate informational hearing today on the DWR rate agreement, DWR representatives acknowledged that the agency is still negotiating contracts for additional forward power.  This prompted concern by some legislators and consumer activists who believe DWR has already over-purchased long term power, causing sales by DWR of excess power for as little as $1 per MW at times this summer.


Tina,

Attached is the Global Risk Management Operations Update for the Philippe and Greg Weekly Report, for the week ending May 30.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,

Jennifer Reimer
x57970


I just received a copy of a Section 5 complaint filed by SoCal requesting a
FERC order 1) determining that the SoCalGas/Topock delivery point is fully
subscribed on a firm primary basis, 2) directing El Paso to comply with
previous Commission orders that preclude the selling of firm primary capacity
at points where none is available and 3) directing El Paso to schedule
capacity acquired during an open season (effective Jan. 1, 2000) into
SoCal/Topock on a secondary basis only.  SoCal states that it has experienced
daily cuts of up to 57% and averaging 25%.

If you would like a copy of the complaint, let me know.


Tanya


Per our conversation on yesterday's leadership call, attached is the report
that Dan Allegretti and Jennifer Thome put together for EES/Delainey
document  identifying specific customer acquistion opportunities to get the
utility out of the merchant function.


Please join me and the Global Accounting leadership team in congratulating
the following individuals on their promotions to:

To Managing Director
 Sally Beck (EWN)
 Fernley Dyson (EEL)

To Vice President
 Beth Apollo (ENW)
 Janine Juggins (EEL Tax)
 Phillip Lord (EBS)
 Laura Scott (ENA)
 Chris Sherman (ENA)
 Wade Stubblefield (EES)

To Senior Director
 Buddy Aiken (EEL)
 Jim Coffey (ENA)
 Donette Dewar (Intl. Tax)
 Patricia Dunn (NEPCO)
 Mark Frank (ENA)
 William Gehle (EECC)
 Joseph Grajewski (EECC)
 Jan Johnson (Corp)
 Scott Mills (ENW)
 James New (EEL)
 Mary L. Ruffer (ENA)
 Richard Sage (EEL)
 Elaine Schield (Corp)
 Kevin Sweeney (ENW)
 Beth Wapner (EBS Tax)

Director
 Thresa Allen (ENW)
 Ron Baker (Corp)
 Misty Barrett (EES)
 Jeff Blumenthal (EWS)
 Trey Cash (Corp Tax)
 Karen Choyce (Corp)
 Cheryl Dawes (ENA)
 Lanette Earnest (EWS Tax)
 Jeffrey Gossett (ENW)
 Robert Guthrie (ETS Tax)
 Susan Helton (ENA)
 Ralph Jaeger (EEL)
 Andrea Kerch (EEL)
 Faith Killen (ENA)
 Johnna Kokenge (Corp)
 Matt Landy (EEL)
 Andy Lawrence (ISC)
 Connie Lee (EBS)
 Caroline Lothian (EEL)
 Meg Malone (Corp Tax)
 Gary Peng (Corp)
 Stephen Schwarzbach (Corp)
 Sally Seelig (EES Tax)
 Don Shackley (EES/London Tax)
 Patricia Shannon (Corp)
 Eddie Sikes (Intl. Tax)
 Jeffrey Smith ( EGM)
 Ron Smith (GSS)
 Kim Theriot (ENW)
 Hope Vargas (ENA)
 Tina Ward (EEL)
 Stephen Whitaker (EEL)
 Stacey White (ENW)
 Rob Wilcott (Corp)

To Manager
 Christopher Abel (ENW)
 Stacey Aune (ENA)
 David Baumbach (ENW)
 Maya Beyhum (ENW London)
 Patricia Bloom (ENA)
 Matthew Brown (ENW)
 Vince Cacaro (ISC)
 Clara Carrington (ENW)
 Carol Carter (ENA)
 Carolyn Centilli (ISC)
 Erin Copeland (EECC)
 Richard Cross (ENW)
 Rachel Davis (Corp)
 Michael Desbiens (ISC)
 David Dupre (ISC)
 Eileen Flanagan (EEL)
 Regina Figueroa (ISC)
 Rebecca Ford (ENW)
 Darron Giron (ENW)
 Julie Goodfriend (International Tax)
 Karen Gruesen (ENA)
 Kevin Hall (EEL)
 Kristen Hanson (ENW)
 David Horne (ISC)
 Larry Hunter (ENW)
 Todd Hunter (EES)
 Jim Ischy (GSS)
 Chris Jones (ISC)
 William Kasmervisz (ENW)
 Kam Kaiser (ENW)
 Kedar Kulkarni (ISC)
 Monica Lande (ENW Portland)
 Suzanne Lane (EEL)
 Vince Mack (ISC)
 David Maxwell (ENW)
 Emitra Nelson (ISC
 Caroline Nugent (EWS Tax)
 Mark Pope (ISC)
 Yiannis Poulopoulos (London Tax)
 Melissa Ratnala (ENW)
 Jason Sharp (Corp Tax)
 Stephanie Smith (Corp)
 Patricia Spence (ENW)
 Amy Spode (ENW)
 Patricia Sullivan (ENW)
 Lisa Sutton (ETS)
 John Swinney (ENW)
 Deana Taylor (Corp)
 Dimitri Taylor (ENW)
 Wayne Tencer (EES)
 Bernella Tholen (ENA)
 Theresa Vos (ENA)
 Blake Walker (EECC)
 Bob Ward (International Tax)
 David Williams (EEL)

To Senior Specialist
 Amelia Alland (ENW)
 James Armstrong (ENA)
 Carmen Ayala (GSS
 Cynthia Balfour-Flanagan (ENW)
 Gilda Bartz (Corp)
 Stacey Brewer (ENW)
 Marian Briscoe (Corp Tax)
 Aneela Charania (ENW)
 Patricia Clark (Corp)
 Chris Crixell (EES Tax)
 Diane Ellstrom (ENW)
 Heidi Griffith (EES)
 Marla Hernandez (ISC)
 Marlene Hilliard (ENW)
 Dave Hollick (London Tax)
 Rachel Jones (EEL)
 Dawn Kenne (ENW)
 Harry Kent (EWS Tax)
 Blanca Lopez (ENA)
 Brian Hunter Lindsay (EEL)
 Rachel Lyon (EEL)
 Stacy Hardy (ENA)
 Sally McAdams (ISC)
 Kelly McCain (Corp Tax)
 Errol McLaughlin, Jr. (ENW)
 Sylvia Martinez (ISC)
 Kevin Meredith (ENW)
 Meredith Mitchell (ENW)
 Winnie Ngai (Corp Tax)
 Thien-Huong Ngo (ENW)
 Brian Palmer (ENW)
 Bich Ann T Pham (ENA)
 Shelly Pierson (Corp)
 Lillie Pittman (ISC)
 David Rae (ENW)
 Dixie Riddle (ETS Tax)
 Salvador Dominguez (Corp)
 Mark Schrab (ENW)
 Stephanie Sever (ENW)
 Danielle Shafer (ISC)
 Shifali Sharma (ENW)
 Keith Simper (ENA)
 Christopher Spears (ENW)
 Caron Stark (ISC)
 Tara Sweitzer (ENW)
 David Vandor (ENA)
 Mary Womack (ISC)
 David Yang (International Tax)
 Sabrae Zajac (ENW)

To Specialist
 Kim Chick (EES Tax)
 Justin East (EEL)
 Joey Esperance (International Tax)
 Randi Howard (ISC)
 Melanie Hutchinson (EWS Tax)
 Mary Joseph (Corp Tax)
 Sherri Kathol (International Tax)
 Lex Lacaze (International Tax)
 Michelle LeBlanc (Corp Tax)
 Ling Li (EWS Tax)
 Kori Loibl (ENW)
 Alan Marsh (Corp Tax)
 Bruce Mills (ENW)
 Erika Moore (EEL)
 Matthew Motsinger (ENW)
 Sherry Meyers (ISC)
 Andrea Price (Corp Tax)
 Bernice Rodriguez (ENW)
 Tina Salinas (EES Tax)
 Brent Vasconcellos (Corp Tax)
 Brandi Wachtendorf (ENW)
 Patryk Wlodarski      (ENW London)

To Entry Specialist
 Stuart Sheldrick (EEL)

To Accountant I
 Becky Klussman (Corp)

To Accountant II
 Silvia Shelby (Accounts Payable)

To Staff
 Mary Behn (EES)
 Guy Freshwater (ENW London)
 Geralynn Gosnell (ENW)
 Richard Miley (ENW)
 Brent Storey (ENW London)
 Stuart Thom (ENW London)
 Judith Walters (ENW)
 Jonathan White (ENW London)
 Joan Winfrey (ENW)

To Senior Tax Analyst
 Emily Allwardt (International Tax)
 Leon Branom (EBS Tax)
 Shanna Husser (EES Tax)
 Shilpa Mane (Corporate/London Tax)
 Todd Richards (Corp Tax)
 Michelle Thompson (Corp Tax)

To Sr. Administrative Assistant
 Norma Chavez (International Tax)
 Sarah Knott (ENW London)

To Sr. Travel Administrator
 Cheryl Slone (GSS )

To Administrative Coordinator
 Heather Choate (ENW)
 Kayla Heitmeyer (GSS)

To Senior Clerk
 Angela Barnett (ENW)
 Matthew Davies (ENW London)
 Daniela De Lisi (ENW London)
 Rufino Dorteo (ENA)
 Mark Pilkington (ENW London)
 Narjinder Sandhu (EEL)
 Howard Sweasey (EEL)
 Laura Vargas (ENW)
 Jo Ann Woods (Corp Tax)

To Intermediate Clerk
 Maria Maldonado (Accounts Payable)
 Araceli Mondragon (Accounts Payable)
 Irma Rodriguez (Accounts Payable)
 Bernita Sowell (Accounts Payable)


Please find attached the above article from the Rueters English News Service, October 12, 2001.

UK: INTERVIEW-Metals screen trade set to evolve - Spectron.
By Andy Blamey

10/12/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

LONDON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Electronic trading of base metals futures has established a firm foothold in the market but the nature of online trading platforms looks set to evolve further, says Gavin Gross, head of LME metals at Spectron Futures Ltd.
UK-based energy and commodities broker Spectron's electronic platform for the trading of London Metal Exchange (LME) contracts has become required viewing for traders alongside the LME's own system LME Select and the Enron Group's EnronOnline.
"I think we've proved that people will trade LME derivatives contracts online, because there are some great advantages to doing so," Gross told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"And unlike the physical markets, where things haven't really taken off online, all three platforms are pretty much indispensable to the market."
Both Spectron and LME Select are neutral platforms in which Category 1 and Category 2 LME members trade with each other, while EnronOnline is open to a wider membership but has Enron itself as the sole counterparty in each transaction.
This leaves a gap in the market for a multi-party trading system open to industry participants beyond the immediate trading community, Gross suggested.
"I think the clear trend for metals derivatives trading for the future is for open platforms which would allow dealers and clients in the market to interact with each other online," he said.
Direct access for clients to an electronic trading environment could mean changes in the role of the broker, he said.
"Clients will have the advantage of more control, more visibility and more transparency in what they do. However, they'll have to pay for services," Gross said.
"You could see a situation where dealers specialise in different areas - certain dealers would provide credit functions, certain institutions would provide clearing, others would provide execution and certain companies would provide market-making."
DIFFICULT CONDITIONS
Difficult market conditions are already forcing metals traders to rethink their activities; this week alone has seen N.M. Rothschild & Sons exit base metals trading and both Bank of Nova Scotia and Enron looking to scale back.
"On the LME now you've got low volumes, falling volatilities, falling prices and we're in the grips of a bear market. It's very, very poor for business in general," Gross said.
"There are too many dealers around chasing a shrinking amount of business...Each company is going to have to look very carefully at their business and their staffing levels."
Spectron has not been immune from declining volumes.
"Our volumes for the first 12 months of operation were fantastic, way beyond what we had expected. However, our volumes have fallen in the recent quarter," Gross said.
"That's due to two factors: first, the overall market activity is lower, and second LME Select has managed to attract some of the business that we would previously have had 100 percent of."
The company is now looking at ways to further develop its trading platform.
"We're beginning to investigate ways to add certain features and do things differently. That might involve creating an alternative platform where clients could access prices and thereby widen the service," Gross said.
But, he stressed, "we have to keep the interests of our dealer clients foremost."
UNCERTAINTY
In the current environment, the LME's refusal to throw its weight behind either open-outcry floor trade or its new screen system - the exchange has taken pains not to express any preference and to "allow the market to decide" - may prove to be counterproductive, Gross said.
"By having two systems running side by side ... the exchange is almost moving in two totally different directions," he said.
"There's a feeling that the ring is doomed, which doesn't do anything to encourage its use, while the reluctance to fully back electronic trading means that you're still only seeing a trickle of business going through Select in terms of overall volumes."
While preferences vary in different sectors of the market, the current uncertainty is helping no-one, he said:
"Metals traders just want to trade. They just want to know with some kind of certainty how the market will be structured in future so they can structure their business to support that and make money."


Is this any help?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Blay, Jennifer
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:04 AM
To: Vanek, Darren
Cc: Stevens, Mechelle
Subject: Re: Texaco

Darren-
The wiring instructions are the same for both Texaco Inc and Texaco Natural
Gas-

Chase Manhattan Bank
Acct # 910-277-4818
ABA # 021000021

Thanks
Jennifer

	Enron North America Corp.  From:  Mechelle Stevens
05/17/2001 07:07 AM

To: Jennifer Blay/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Texaco

Jennifer,

Can you please handle this.

Thanks,
Mechelle
---------------------- Forwarded by Mechelle Stevens/HOU/ECT on 05/17/2001
07:07 AM ---------------------------
From: Darren Vanek/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/16/2001 04:16 PM
To: Mechelle Stevens/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Texaco

Mechelle,
Thanks for helping me earlier. Have you been able to teack down the
wiring/settlement instructions for Texaco Inc and Texaco Natural Co Inc?

Darren Vanek
713-853-1436


Please begin your focus on increasing EOL liquidity as soon as possible.  This is not a long term project.  Lavo will be seeking immediate results.

Thanks,
Mike


Gerald, I have just faxed to you the pages with a few last comments.  They
relate to the change back to Calpine providing a non-renewal notice rather
than a renewal notice, because there were a couple of places where the
reference wasn't caught.

You should have it on your fax now.

Greg


While we were on the phone I sent GE an email about the issue.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 12/08/2000 01:58
PM ---------------------------

"George Kutzschbach" <gkutzschbach@fulbright.com> on 12/08/2000 01:55:51 PM
To: areynaud@coral-energy.com, dwhaley@coral-energy.com,
TSeigler@coral-energy.com, Ben.F.Jacoby@enron.com, Kay.Mann@enron.com,
CCampbell@KSLAW.com, JKeffer@KSLAW.com
cc:

Subject: Section 17.4.4 of Facility Agreement

The second sentence of Section 17.4.1 of the Facility Agreement should
be revised to read as follows:

"If the Maximum Liability Amount (less any unpaid portion of the
Purchase Amount) is greater than the Proper Scope Value the difference
between such amount and the Proper Scope Value (the "Refund Amount")
shall be settled between the parties in accordance with Section 17.4.4
below."


I must agree with Mary, the governance structure in the WIO is fundimentally
flawed and only sets up a board that fights to a stalemate end game.  This
board should had been independent and Marys right.  that's my 2 cents.

cheers  tom


Louise has asked me if you are available to meet with Duke Energy on Friday November 2nd at 3pm.

Please let me know your availability.

Thanks

Sue

TIM: can you make sure that Jeff gets this message. Thanks.

-----------------_________________________________________________

Sue Ford - Executive Assistant
Enron Industrial Market - Office of the Chairman
Tel: 713-853-5176
Fax: 713-646-5930
sue.ford@enron.com


FYI.  I sent this monday 4pm if you hear any rumblings.  Jeff
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 10/23/2000
04:15 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Jeffrey A Shankman                           10/23/2000 04:14 PM

To: John L Nowlan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Don Schroeder/HOU/ECT@ECT, David J
Botchlett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Mahoney/LON/ECT@ECT, Ross Koller/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

It seems to me we are in the middle of no man's land with respect to the
following:  Opec production speculation, Mid east crisis and renewed
tensions, US elections and what looks like a slowing economy  (?),  and no
real weather anywhere in the world.  I think it would be most prudent to play
the markets from a very flat price position and try to day trade more
aggressively.  I have no intentions of outguessing Mr. Greenspan, the US.
electorate, the Opec ministers and their new important roles, The Israeli and
Palestinian leaders, and somewhat importantly, Mother Nature.  Given that,
and that we cannot afford to lose any more money, and that Var seems to be a
problem, let's be as flat as possible. I'm ok with spread risk  (not front to
backs, but commodity spreads).

The morning meetings are not inspiring, and I don't have a real feel for
everyone's passion with respect to the markets.  As such, I'd like to ask
John N. to run the morning meetings on Mon. and Wed.

Thanks.   Jeff


Team,

I have had a few conversations over the past couple of days with Terry
Brownrigg at Twister Gas Services, LLC and Todd Tharp with Sanguine, Ltd..
We transacted with Twister last week and I had sent you a credit worksheet
for the transaction.  Twister is a broker who transacts on behalf of small
E&P companies, and in this case, the E&P agreed to post the L/C we quoted for
the transaction.  After talking to Sara, it sounds like we are going to go
ahead and send a confirmation to Twister for the deal and attach to the
confirmation an assignment of the deal from Twister to Sanguine.  It is my
understanding that both Terry and Todd will need to sign both the
confirmation and the assignment, so I think we will need to carefully
coordinate the steps through the Confirmation Desk (Sheetal Patel).

I have attached a worksheet for the transaction (Sanguine agreed to post
$500K).  Please coordinate with Sara, Sheetal and me in getting this out.

The contact information at Sanguine is:
Todd Tharp
Manager of Gas Contracts
Sanguine, Ltd.
1861 East 71st Street South
Tulsa, Ok 74136

Thanks,

John


Here are the numbers -
Out of the money CP's - 68
In the money CP's - 67
Terminated CP's- 330

PL


6:45 or so works real well for me.  Where do you guys want to feed me?

"Germany Jr, Don (WD)" <WDGERMANYJR@dow.com> on 09/20/2000 10:40:38 AM
To: "'Chris.Germany@enron.com'" <Chris.Germany@enron.com>, "Germany Jr, Don
(WD)" <WDGERMANYJR@dow.com>, germanj@basf-corp.com
cc:
Subject: RE: Thursday Night

What time can we meet?
dg

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris.Germany@enron.com [mailto:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:34 AM
To: WDGERMANYJR@dow.com; germanj@basf-corp.com
Subject: RE: Thursday Night

Where do you guys want to take me?

"Germany Jr, Don (WD)" <WDGERMANYJR@dow.com> on 09/20/2000 10:32:01 AM

To:   "'Chris.Germany@enron.com'" <Chris.Germany@enron.com>, "Germany Jr,
      Don (WD)" <WDGERMANYJR@dow.com>, germanj@basf-corp.com
cc:
Subject:  RE: Thursday Night

It is up to you guys.

dg

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris.Germany@enron.com [mailto:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:23 AM
To: WDGERMANYJR@dow.com; germanj@basf-corp.com
Subject: Re: Thursday Night

What if we did this tonight?  I have a work shindig tomorrow night that I
just found out about.

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 09/20/2000
10:22 AM ---------------------------

Chris Germany
09/20/2000 08:21 AM

To:   "Germany Jr, Don (WD)" <WDGERMANYJR@dow.com> @ ENRON,
      germanj@basf-corp.com
cc:
Subject:  Re: Thursday Night  (Document link: Chris Germany)

Jerry, this may be news to you.  I would like for the 3 of us to have
dinner Thursday evening and you are buying.

Comments - questions?


I just got back in the office today after being out since the 12th.  I have forwarded your email to Patti Sullivan and Jan Sutherland.  Once I hear from them, I will let you know.

Thanks,

Kim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Paxton, AM (Arnold)" <Arnold.M.Paxton@akzo-nobel.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Paxton+2C+20AM+20+28Arnold+29+22+20+3CArnold+2EM+2EPaxton+40akzo-nobel+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:20 PM
To:	Ward, Kim S (Houston)
Cc:	Martinelli, RA (Ray)
Subject:	FW: June Natural Gas Billing

Kim,

Still waiting to hear from you on this?
						Arnold Paxton/323 260-8881

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Paxton, AM (Arnold)
> Sent:	Friday, July 13, 2001 3:01 PM
> To:	'Kim.Ward@enron.com'
> Cc:	Martinelli, RA (Ray)
> Subject:	June Natural Gas Billing
>
> Kim,
>
> We rec'd an invoice for June natural gas usage and note a discrepancy in
> the number of mmbtu billed. Enron billed us for 34,086 mmbtu and The Gas
> Co billed us for 29,750 mmbtu? Doesn't Enron get their information on
> mmbtu used from The Gas Co.
>
>
> please check and advise,
>
> 					Arnold Paxton
> 					323 260-8881


You guys had a busy night last night and did a good job of handling El Paso
and getting the reports done.  However, we were not flat this morning in
Enpower (long 1600 mws in NP, and short 192 in SP), and because we were not
flat in California, the Enpower to Caps report was incorrect.  Variances
listed as explained in the Enpower to CAPS report were not.  Your night note
says however:

CAPS Position Manager:
Flat for both days.

Please make sure you have checked the position manager and updated your night
note.
Thanks,

Bill


Vince:

Here is the resume of Samer's friend in Azurix.
--Stinson

---------------------- Forwarded by Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT on 01/25/2000
10:20 AM ---------------------------
From: Chonawee Supatgiat@AZURIX on 01/11/2000 03:47 PM
To: Stinson Gibner@ECT
cc:
Subject: Candidate

Hi Dr. Gibner, I just called you but you were not there. As you might
remember, I am working with Samer and you was the one who interviewed me for
this position. Samer and I now keep our eyes open for the other job
possibilities. I would like to know if there is a position available in Enron
Research group that I might fit in ? My updated resume and transcript are
attached in Hector's e-mail. I am looking forward to hearing from you.
-Chonawee

---------------------- Forwarded by Chonawee Supatgiat/HOU/AZURIX on
01/11/2000 03:37 PM ---------------------------
   Hector Campos @ ECT                01/11/2000 11:26 AM

To: Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Chonawee Supatgiat/HOU/AZURIX@AZURIX, chonawee@umich.edu

Subject: Candidate

Stinson,

Here's my friend's information. He is looking for other opportunities within
Enron. I think he would be a good candidate for
the Research Group. His extension at Azurix is 6-9654.

-Hector

---------------------- Forwarded by Hector Campos/HOU/ECT on 01/11/2000 11:22
AM ---------------------------

"Chonawee Supatgiat" <chonawee@umich.edu> on 01/10/2000 09:50:36 AM
To: Hector Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: here they are

Thank you, Hector. Attached are my resume and transcript.
-chonawee
 - att1.htm
 - ChonaweeCV.doc
 - AcadRep.txt


now this is funny stuff....
---------------------- Forwarded by Raul Rizo-Patron/HOU/ECT on 11/13/2000
03:31 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Russell T Kelley                           11/13/2000 03:28 PM

To: Raul Rizo-Patron/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Protesters

---------------------- Forwarded by Russell T Kelley/HOU/ECT on 11/13/2000
03:23 PM ---------------------------

Mark Wadlington@ENRON
11/13/2000 03:22 PM
To: Jeff Donahue/HOU/ECT@ECT, Timothy J Detmering/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russell T
Kelley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan Fallon/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Protesters

I normally don't forward this type of stuff but I just though some of the
signs were hysterical.

mark

---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Wadlington/NA/Enron on 11/13/2000
02:20 PM ---------------------------

marissa.reger@ey.com on 11/13/2000 03:08:22 PM
To: sharon.ellington@us.pwcglobal.com, EmilyNewell@yahoo.com,
mranguette@hotmail.com, regermc@mindspring.com, connies@wt.net,
Shelley_Schneider@hotmail.com, ebwaustex@aol.com, Mark.Wadlington@enron.com,
Tamara.Turek@ey.com
cc:

Subject: Protesters

Some of these are pretty funny.

(See attached file: dummies.gif)
(See attached file: protest1.jpg)
(See attached file: protest2.jpg)
(See attached file: protest3.jpg)
(See attached file: protest4.jpg)
(See attached file: protest6.jpg)

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

Note:          The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible
for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.  Thank you.  Ernst & Young LLP
******************************************************************************
*
 - dummies.gif
 - protest1.jpg
 - protest2.jpg
 - protest3.jpg
 - protest4.jpg
 - protest6.jpg


This is good.
-bert-


Fyi

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Enron Announcements/Corp/Enron@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Enron+20Announcements_Corp_Enron+40ENRON@ENRON.com]  On Behalf Of Ken Lay-@ENRON
Sent:	Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:59 PM
To:	All Enron Worldwide@ENRON
Subject:	Organizational Announcement

It is with regret that I have to announce that Jeff Skilling is leaving Enron.  Today, the Board of Directors accepted his resignation as President and CEO of Enron.  Jeff is resigning for personal reasons and his decision is voluntary.  I regret his decision, but I accept and understand it.  I have worked closely with Jeff for more than 15 years, including 11 here at Enron, and have had few, if any, professional relationships that I value more.  I am pleased to say that he has agreed to enter into a consulting arrangement with the company to advise me and the Board of Directors.
Now it's time to look forward.
With Jeff leaving, the Board has asked me to resume the responsibilities of President and CEO in addition to my role as Chairman of the Board.  I have agreed.  I want to assure you that I have never felt better about the prospects for the company.  All of you know that our stock price has suffered substantially over the last few months.  One of my top priorities will be to restore a significant amount of the stock value we have lost as soon as possible.  Our performance has never been stronger; our business model has never been more robust; our growth has never been more certain; and most importantly, we have never had a better nor deeper pool of talent throughout the company.  We have the finest organization in American business today.  Together, we will make Enron the world's leading company.
On Thursday at 10:00 a.m. Houston time, we will hold an all employee meeting at the Hyatt.  We will broadcast the meeting to our employees around the world where technically available, and I look forward to seeing many of you there.


The product long descriptions below will fall under the new product type US
Gas Phy Fwd Secondary Firm.

Credit (Tom Moran) has approved copying the profiles for the new product type
from the following:
 US Gas Phy Fwd Firm

Please respond to Stephanie Sever no later than 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6.

Thank you.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Walker, Chris
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:42 PM
To: Blumenthal, Jeff; Musch, Susan; Hayden, Frank; Taylor, Mark; Dickson,
Stacy; Moran, Tom; Love, Phillip M.; Hunter, Larry Joe
Cc: Lees, Lisa; Sweitzer, Tara; Jones, Tana; Lambert, Karen; Lombardi, Kelly;
Sever, Stephanie; Kenne, Dawn C.; Moorer, Torrey; Cass, Robert B.; Meredith,
Kevin; Lozano, Melba; Alatorre, Carlos
Subject: Product type approval needed (US Gas Phy Fwd Secondary Firm)

Please approve the following product type in Data Manager after 11 A.M.

US Gas Phy Fwd Secondary Firm

 << File: Secondary Firm ANR ML7rev.doc >>

 << File: ENA Natgas Firm GTC.htm >>

STEPS FOR APPROVAL:

click the  START button
select  PROGRAMS
select  TEST APPLICATIONS
select ENRONONLINE CLUSTER(PROD)
 PROCEED WITH USUAL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click the Enron Online Production Cluster "START" button
select EnronOnLine (this is the EOL Datamanager)
 PROCEED WITH EOL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click on the "+" for EnronOnLine
click on the "+" for Product Types
click on the "+" for "Awaiting Approval" (OR  "Partially Approved")
select the product requiring review as stated in e-mail above
Right "mouse" click on "properties" to view product set-up
TO APPROVE:  Right mouse click on "Approved"


Grant,
 I have reviewed your requested changes and have made the changes which do
not require explanation or clarification.  Those changes are reflected in the
above document.  Let me go over your list of items:
 1. I have deleted the word "DRAFT".
 2. I have left a blank for the date within the month of March 2001 when the
contract would be executed by the City.
 3. I have changed the word "may" to "shall".
 4. Maximum Daily Delivery Point Quantity does not fit in a Deficiency
Default, it is just the maximum quantity that can be handled by a party at a
particular point.  I do not think their is an omission.
 5. I have added the word "reasonable".
 6. The procedue for how the Termination Payment is determined is provided,
if the City disagrees with the method and values provided in the statement
and is unable to convince the Company to revise, the statement, then the
issue is to be resolved in arbitration.  At the point that a Termination
Payment calculation is necessary, a long drawn out period should not be
necessary to attain closure.
 7. We need to limit the duration to 30 days,  neither party should be
required to wait 60 days before it could accelerate the other party's
obligations under the Contract.  We might be able to add language to extend
the period if we had some documentation stating the steps that a party was
pursuing to cause the proceeding to be dismissed and the other party was
otherwise kept whole from a credit exposure.
 8. I have kept the 30 days because 5 days is too short a period.  During a
holiday period, one scheduling error could cover the entire period.  Article
3 has language which provides a remedy for a party if a scheduling default
extends for more than 5 days during any month.
 9. The reason is because Enron Corp. is the rated entity and no separate
rating applies to ENA.
 10. I have changed "a" to "the"
 11. I have eliminated the  60 day limitation on the duration of an event of
Force Majeure.
 12. This merely addressed the possibility of a imbalance amount being due
when a pipeline aggregates imbalances using multiple points, and the language
would allocated the payment based on the amount of the imbalance that a
particular party may have caused.  I think the language is clear as written.
 13. The definition of Act was one of the items that I had requested that you
review and complete as necessary so that all appropriate statutes were
referenced.  I am still waiting for your language.  I started filling it in
using language that had been provided by the City.
 14. I added the word "reasonable".
 15. I have made the requested change relating to GAAAP.
 16. This is a late payment provision and as such a believe that the
provision should be more than a party's rating, as such I have kept the 2%
over prime language.
 17. These amounts were determined by the credit group and any change needs
to be discussed with that group.  BBB-  is considered investment grade and I
understand that Enron Corp.'s rating is BBB.  ENA is not a rated entity and
that is why the language relates to Enron Corp.'s rating.
 18. The elimination of the opinion of counsel did not change the
requirements relating to the representations that we expect the City to have
made.  If the City cannot make these representations, then we need to know
that before we execute the Contract.
 19. I have added the word "reasonable".
 20. The party that has the Transport Agreement with the Transporter should
have the legal right to obtain the information based on its contract.
 21. It is our position that any dispute be arbitrated.  We can agree to
meditation if we can make the outcome binding on the parties.  I am willing
to discuss any changed language that you might care to offer.
 22. We have found that personnel of both our Company and that of our
Customers change so rapidily that the list is not workable and merely allows
a party to back out of transactions it does not like on the basis that the
person who agreed to such transaction was not on the list.  Therefore , we
object to any listing of approved parties who can transact.  We believe that
each party should be responsible for the actions of its employees and should
stand behind any transactions that those parties may enter into pursuant to
the terms and provisions of the Contract.

 I will be out of the office on Friday, but will be in all next week if you
care to discuss any of these matters.

	"Kolling, Grant" <grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us>
	03/02/2001 03:43 PM

		 To: "'Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com'" <Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com>, "Kolling, Grant"
<grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us>
		 cc: Kim.Ward@enron.com
		 Subject: RE: Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/Sale Agreement

 <<0071988 RESO Enron.doc>>

Dan:

First, I've attached the proposed resolution which authorizes the City
Manager to execute the Enfolio agreement.

More importantly, I need to inform you that our senior management has
reviewed the referenced contract; I have been asked to present additional
changes to the agreement for Enron's consideration and to raise questions
about certain of its terms and conditions.

Let me start from page 1, top to bottom, and proceed to the end of the
exhibits.

1.  There is the word "DRAFT" above the title of the Enfolio agreement which
should be deleted.

2.  The introductory paragraph, line 5, should not contain the words "1st of
January, 2001."  It should be left blank, until the parties have signed the
contract.  Otherwise, the City will be in breach as of the date it signs the
contract, because Article 2, section 2.1 requires the City to proffer the
to-be-approved-by-Council resolution as of 1/1/01.

3.  Article 2, Section 2.4, line 2.  The City (Customer) wants Enron
(Company) to confirm every recorded telephonic Transaction, as defined.
Therefore, the City requests the word "may" should be changed to "shall."

4.  Article 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, first sentence:   Buyer's Requested
Quantity refers to the DCQ or MaxDQ.  Seller's failure to Schedule the
Buyer's Requested Quantity shall constitute a Seller's Deficiency Default.
How does a Maximum Daily Delivery Point Quantity fit into a Seller's
Deficiency Default if the Buyer's Requested Quantity does not include a
Maximum Daily Delivery Point Quantity?  What is the reason for the omission?

5.  Article 4, Section 4.1, lines 15 and 23:  Line 23 refers to "reasonable
attorneys' fees" yet line 15 refers to "attorneys' fees."  To be internally
consistent, line 15 should say "reasonable attorneys' fees."

6.  Section 4.1, right hand column, lines 3-4.  A statement showing the
determination of the Termination Payment will be prepared.  It's unclear
whether the City is entitled to review and challenge the determination
before a dispute is referred to arbitration.  The City should be entitled to
receive a copy of the determination and to question it before it is
obligated to pay the Termination Payment.  Please clarify, or permit the
City to exercise these rights.

7.  Section 4.2(iv) specifies that a Triggering Event will exist if a
bankruptcy petition is undismissed within 30 days.  Is this (under
bankruptcy laws) the minimum period of time within which one may seek
dismissal of a bankruptcy petition?  Please refer to the 11 USC section that
backs up this provision, or change to 60 days.

8.  Section 4.2(v) and (vi):  Please change "30 days" to "5 days."  The City
is concerned with the number of days that Enron may be permitted to fail to
Schedule before a Triggering Event is triggered by Enron.

9.  Section 4.2(ix):  this language discusses a default by Enron Corp.
(ENA's parent?), but no mention is made of ENA's default in this regard?
Please explain.

10. Section 4.5, line 4:  Is "a Company" supposed to refer to "the Company"
?

11. Article 5.  The City is uncomfortable with the force majeure provision
as drafted.  It states that the parties must perform even if a FM event
(earthquake) would prevent either or both parties from performing with the
60-day period stated therein.  There is no such limitation under California
law in the absence of a contract provision to the contrary.

12.  Article 7, Section 7.2:  Could Enron translate the last sentence?  We
don't understand it.

13.  Appendix "1":  Act:  Please explain why Section 3 is referred to?

14.  Appendix "1", Claims, line 4:  Please add "reasonable" before
"attorneys' fees.

 15.  Appendix "1", GAAP:  This should read: "GAAP means generally accepted
accounting principles, consistently applied, with respect to Company, and
governmental generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied,
with respect to Customer."

16.  Appendix "1", Interest Rate:  Please delete "two percent over".  The
City has a AAA bond rating, therefore, the  City believes the 2% over prime
should not apply to it.

17.  Appendix "1", Material Adverse Change:  What does Enron believe the
City's Net Worth to be?  The $400 million threshold is mentioned.  Also,
what is ENA's bond rating?  Is "BBB-" an investment grade rating?

18.  Representations and Warranties:  Because we have agreed that the
opinion of counsel will not be required, the reps and warranties are being
deleted.  But the "Representations and Warranties" is nevertheless included
in the agreement.  Item (i) should be deleted, because the City has not
undertaken a court search as is our custom and practice whenever we issue an
opinion.  We would like to delete "and (vii) it is not ... Party."

19.  Operational Flow Orders, line 8:  Please add "reasonable" before
"attorneys' fees."

20.  Financial Matters, line 8:  What is meant by "to the extent it has a
legal right of access thereto and/or ...etc."

21.  Arbitration, Disputes to be Arbitrated.  We do not as a matter of legal
policy agree to arbitration, but we will mediate disputes.  Is Enron
amenable to mediation?  This process is less formal and less costly in my
opinion.

22.  Authority for Transactions.  Staff would like the Agreement to include
a list of employees for Company and Customer who are authorized to trade on
behalf of their employers.  Could a statement be added to this section to
this effect?  Then, we could attach the list(s) as an Exhibit C.

Thank you so much for considering these issues.  There are others which I
hope to receive from staff next week and which I will forward to you for
response.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.  I will be out of town after today
until Wednesday, March 7.

Sincerely,

Grant Kolling
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com [mailto:Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 6:16 AM
  To: grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us
  Cc: Kim.Ward@enron.com
  Subject: Re:  Enfolio Master Firm Purchase/Sale
Agreement

   << File: 2001-002ctr.doc >>
  (See attached file: 2001-002ctr.doc)

  Grant,
       I have incorporated the language you provided to me in
the attached
  document.  I have been informed by the Corporate Secretary's
office that
  they will issue a Certificate of Incumbency showing that the
person
  executing the contract for ENA is authorized to execute
contracts for ENA.
  No other party signs as to form or terms, however, the
officer executing
  for ENA will require that the deal person and I initial on
the line next to
  his signature.  I have reviewed the proposed draft
resolution.  ENA will
  accept the enacted resolution and will not require that the
City Attorney
  issue an opinion.  If the attached contract is acceptable,
please print off
  2 originals, have them approved, signed and forward to me
for ENA's
  approval and signature.  Once the contract is fully
executed, I will return
  one fully executed original to you for the City's file.

 - 0071988 RESO Enron.doc


well re write it, i want to know what you said

-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, Michelle
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:01 AM
To: Maggi, Mike
Subject: RE:

I already deleted it.  And I can't turn my phone on.  :)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)