Anything of note from the FERC/ISO/Generator meetings?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:33 PM
To:	Alonso, Tom; Alvarez, Ray; Badeer, Robert; Belden, Tim; Blair, Kit; Calger, Christopher F.; Choi, Paul; Dasovich, Jeff; Driscoll, Michael M.; Fischer, Mark; Foster, Chris H.; Gang, Lisa; Guzman, Mark; Hall, Steve C. (Legal); Heizenrader, Tim; Kaufman, Paul; Mainzer, Elliot; Mallory, Chris; Malowney, John; Mara, Susan; Motley, Matt; Perrino, Dave; Platter, Phillip; Rance, Susan; Rawson, Lester; Richter, Jeff; Rosman, Stewart; Scholtes, Diana; Semperger, Cara; Stokley, Chris; Swain, Steve; Swerzbin, Mike; Symes, Kate; Walton, Steve; Williams III, Bill
Subject:	FW: FERC Meeting Summary
Importance:	High

Today's FERC meeting was a big deal.   Some of the key actions are:

DSTAR and RTO West are to be "married,"  The FERC wants a single western RTO but will wait on making CAISO merge with other western RTOs so that California can "heal its wounds."
Every utility needs to declare which RTO it plans to join by 12/1/01 (or possibly 12/15; not sure of date).  Otherwise the utility will lose market-based rates, will be unable to get a merger approved, and will have its transmission rev req. scrutinized.
The commission favors 1 market structure applied to the four nationwide RTOs.   It plans on holding a week of workshops and issuing a NOPR to determine this structure.  The goal is to essentially re-issue the Order 888 tariff in a form that encompases the new functions of RTOs.  Although consistent business rules applied to large geographic markets are a good thing, expect this new effort and redefining the RTO to delay ultimate implementation.
Although California will be allowed to heal, it is ordering an operational audit of the Calfornia ISO.
Separately the FERC indicated the plan to issue a NOPR on market power and market based rates.   Expect new rules and procedure to determine whether a market is sufficiently competitive to allow for market based rates.

Further summary, prepared by Sarah Novosel in our Govt. Affairs DC office, is provided below:

Alan Comnes

The Commission held its first open meeting with Pat Wood as the new Chairman today and discussed many interesting issues.  The following is a summary of the meeting.  The meeting is still going on, and we will provide an addendum to this email updating you on what was discussed this afternoon (regarding market power).

RTOs

Chairman Wood expressed his desire to finish the RTO transition, and that the Commission needs to provide guidance and leadership in order to speed up the RTO transition.  Chairman Wood considers the RTO effort on two tracks:  1) organizational -- what will the RTO organizations look like, and 2) substantive -- once you set up the organizations, what will they do.

Organizational Effort:  Wood stated that this effort has already begun with the July 12 orders and the Northeast and Southeast mediation efforts.  The Commission will be issuing additional orders in the northeast, southeast and Midwest within the next couple of FERC meetings.  Wood also stated that it is time for RTO West and Desert Star to "marry up," meaning, I suppose, that the two should consolidate.  Wood does not think that California can be included in the western RTO yet since it has lingering problems.

Structural Effort:  The Commission will initiate a section 206 proceeding to address market design and structure issues in order to translate the 8 functions established in Order No. 2000 into RTO structures.  To achieve this goal, the Commission is establishing an "RTO week" of advanced workshops, from October 15-19, in advance of issuing a NOPR, to address structural issues such as:  congestion management; cost recovery; market monitoring; transmission planning; reliability; transmission rights.  Wood also envisions that the Commission will develop a new pro forma tariff to replace the existing Order No. 888 transmission tariff.  The new tariff will apply to all public utilities and RTOs.

Wood also recognized that some "sticks" are needed to entice RTO participation.  Therefore, Wood proposes to have all public utilities come in by December 15, 2001 with a declaration to join an RTO.  If they do not make this declaration, these entities will have their market based rate authority revoked on a prospective basis.  Furthermore, Wood states that if entities do not join RTOs, they should not be authorized to merge their facilities, and that FERC will also look at their rates to determine whether they are still just and reasonable rates compared with rates offered by RTOs.  Wood states that these "sticks" provide incentive, but do not mandate, RTO participation.

With regard to the pending requests for rehearing, Wood asked legal staff to figure out how "FERC can get there."  In other words, I think Wood is telling them to develop the legal analysis for denying rehearing.

While Commissioner Breathitt is skeptical about some of these RTO proposals, because she was not required to vote on anything today, she only expressed her concern.

Upcoming Dates

	October 15-19 --	RTO Workshops
	End of October -- further orders on Northeast, Southeast, Midwest RTOs
	December 15, 2001 -- all public utilities must commit to an RTO or have their market based rates revoked

Proposed Rule for Standards of Conduct

Within the next few days, FERC will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NOPR") on standards of conduct for transmission providers.  As explained at the meeting (we do not have a copy of the NOPR yet), the NOPR will propose to apply standards of conduct uniformly to electric transmission providers and gas pipeline transportation providers similarly.  The NOPR also proposes to broaden the definition of affiliate to include all energy affiliates, not just marketers.  The standards of conduct would not apply to RTOs and transmission providers who are members of an RTO may ask for an exemption from the standards.

The NOPR will also likely include a proposal that the standards apply to transmission-owners' marketing affiliates that are serving native load customers.  As you know, the present standards do not apply to the affiliates of TOs that are only buying and selling power for native load customers.  As the interim general counsel noted, these marketing affiliates can go into the control room and have unrestricted interaction with the TO.

There was some discussion of whether it is necessary to apply the standards to affiliates serving native load.  Staff told the Commissioners that market participants have been complaining for years about this loop hole in the rules.  Pat Wood said they will include the proposal in the NOPR (Breathitt may not support), but if the industry does not support the proposal, FERC will pull it.  We of course will strongly support the proposal.

Provision of Adequate Electrical Capacity (ICAP)

Chairman Wood asked Staff to prepare a presentation on reserves and installed capacity requirements.  Wood noted that the Commission had to issue an order on ICAP in New England during their recess in August, and he is not that familiar with the issues.  Therefore, he asked Staff to prepare a presentation, which they made at the meeting this morning.  The presentation will be made public within the next couple of days.  In sum, Staff seems to believe that some type of ICAP requirement is needed for reliability.

After the presentation, Wood noted that the New England ICAP order has enough wiggle room to allow the Commission to change its mind once the commissioners better understand the issue.  Wood sees that there is a potential conflict between decentralized, competitive markets and the need for sufficient supply (without politically unacceptable, prolonged price spikes).

Commissioner Brownell (from the Pennsylvania PUC) has a better understanding of  ICAP and expressed concerns that ICAP may be an outdated tool that acts as a barrier to entry without any definable benefit to customers.

Realizing that there are many positions on this topic, Chairman Wood said he will publish the Staff report and ask for comments by October 17.  We will definitely submit comments on this and will include everyone in the drafting process.

Sorry this is so long, but a lot happened today.  We will provide a summary of the market power discussion as soon as it is over.  Let us know if you have any questions.

Sarah


---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Neal/HOU/ECT on 05/14/2001 03:36 PM
---------------------------

Kimberly Bates
05/14/2001 03:16 PM
To: Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

---------------------- Forwarded by Kimberly Bates/HOU/ECT on 05/14/2001
03:16 PM ---------------------------

VIKKI ANAYA <vanaya_vitoltvl@yahoo.com> on 05/14/2001 02:31:58 PM
To: KIMBERLY.BATES@ENRON.COM
cc:
Subject:

                                          AGENT JS/VA BOOKING REF
Y6XPFP

                                          NEAL/SCOTT

  ENRON
  1400 SMITH
  HOUSTON TX 77002
  ATTN-RAIN X31560

  DATE:  MAY 14 2001

SERVICE               DATE  FROM           TO             DEPART
ARRIVE

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES TE 16MAY HOUSTON TX     NEW ORL LA     600A    700A
WN 132     Y          WED   HOBBY          NEW ORLEANS IN
                                                          NON STOP
                            RESERVATION CONFIRMED         1:00 DURATION
                  AIRCRAFT: BOEING 737-200/200 ADVANCED

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES TE 18MAY NEW ORL LA     HOUSTON TX     355P    500P
N 1595    Y          FRI   NEW ORLEANS IN HOBBY
                                                          NON STOP
                            RESERVATION CONFIRMED         1:05 DURATION
                  AIRCRAFT: BOEING 737-300

***********************************************
THIS IS A TICKETLESS RESERVATION. PLEASE HAVE A
PICTURE ID AVAILABLE AT THE AIRPORT. THANK YOU
***********************************************
***SOUTHWEST RECORD LOCATOR: ** 7 J 4 O V B **
                  THANK YOU FOR CALLING VITOL TRAVEL

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


This may be of some use, I am still looking

C. Discouraging New Power Supplies
California is not an easy state in which to build a power plant. Licensing
procedures and rules are expensive and time consuming. Environmental
regulations are among the most stringent in the nation, and power plants are
unpopular neighbors, often sparking resistance from local residents. In
California, plants often take three to five years from concept to operation,
while in other Western states the process can be as short as one year.
The long delays in adding capacity in California had set the state on the
road to shortages long before restructuring.
Thanks to these barriers, in 1996, as restructuring was debated, California
had not seen a new power plant built in a decade. Yet the state still had
excess energy generation capacity. Indeed, one reason for restructuring was
to let market incentives determine capacity decisions. The architects of
restructuring assumed that competition and profit opportunity would bring new
power plants to keep electricity supply well ahead of demand in spite of the
difficulties state regulations present. And, despite restructuring,s failure
to allow a competitive market, restructuring did stimulate new capacity*
between March 1998 and the end of 2000 the California Energy Commission had
licensed nine new power plants that will generate over 6,000 MW, about 16
percent of the state,s average daily load.
But these new plants are so slow in coming*the first won,t be online until
mid-2001*they won,t help solve the current shortage. The long delays in
adding capacity in California had set the state on the road to shortages long
before restructuring. Since 1988, the state energy commission has been
predicting that demand would catch up with and surpass supply. But state
leaders did nothing to change the barriers that discouraged new companies
from building new power plants. At first, discussions of deregulation may
have discouraged new investment, since private companies did not know what
kind of law the state would pass. But restructuring ended that uncertainty
and companies saw an opportunity to make money from growing demand in
California. The new plants they are now building will likely assure that the
current shortage will not persist.
The current policy debate over what to do about the shortage has focused on
providing more power plants as soon as possible. Gov. Davis created a "green
team" to streamline regulatory review of some projects, but the new process
applies to only two of the 13 projects undergoing review. Davis has also
proposed a state energy authority to build and operate new power plants, but
state ownership and construction will only speed up projects if the state
does not follow all permitting and environmental rules, the same result could
be accomplished by waiving rules for private power generators and without
consuming tax revenues to pay for the plants.
But waiving the rules is not likely to be politically acceptable and may not
even be wise. A better approach would be to change the regulatory approach
without changing standards. California regulators view their roles as
ensuring that standards are not violated*they don,t care if the power plant
gets built. Thus they make themselves like the troll under the bridge*no one
gets by without meeting their terms. State leaders could speed up the process
of adding new power plants by changing the regulator,s mission so his goal is
to make sure that the power plant gets built without violating any standards*
a subtle but important change in approach.
Indeed, speeding up the review process by taking a constructive approach to
solving problems as they arise, rather than just kicking the problem back to
the developer, could improve the environmental quality of the state,s energy
supply. New generation plants are cleaner and more efficient than older ones
and will displace some of the dirtiest plants in a competitive market. With
the right approach, state policy makers can meld the incentives to invest
that supply constraints and market prices create with a more positive
approach to permitting and environmental reviews to speed up completion of
new plants, shortening the span of the state,s electricity shortage and
helping prevent future shortages


The following additions have been made to this weeks corporate changes....

Mar. 16
From 4:00 - 11:00 p.m., the Corporate Messaging team will take Nahou-msmbx01v Storage group 2 Database 1 (X01SG02A\PRIVX01SG2A01) off-line to run a defrag on the database. This maintenance will result in a total outage for those users whose mail resides on this box.   The Hottap help desk as verified the staff working on Saturday will not be affected by this outage.  If you support systems that use outlook for problem or job notifications, you need to verify the service will not be interrupted.  Contact Cyndi Wulfson with the message team.
Mar. 19
From 5:00 - 6:00 p.m., the Corporate Server team will replace the primary NIC in NAHOU-BPMS01P.  This maintenance will cause a total outage of corporate sysAdmiral Production Batch Scheduling.

ETS Solution Center - Houston, at 713-345-4745
ETS Solution Center - Omaha, at 402-398-7454


Christopher Johnson
803 West Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
chrisolantern@yahoo.com

To Mr. Ken Lay,

I'm writing to urge you to donate the millions of dollars you made from selling Enron stock before the company declared bankruptcy to funds, such as Enron Employee Transition Fund and REACH, that benefit the company's employees, who lost their retirement savings, and provide relief to low-income consumers in California, who can't afford to pay their energy bills.  Enron and you made millions out of the pocketbooks of California consumers and from the efforts of your employees.

Indeed, while you netted well over a $100 million, many of Enron's employees were financially devastated when the company declared bankruptcy and their retirement plans were wiped out.  And Enron made an astronomical profit during the California energy crisis last year.  As a result, there are thousands of consumers who are unable to pay their basic energy bills and the largest utility in the state is bankrupt.

The New York Times reported that you sold $101 million worth of Enron stock while aggressively urging the company's employees to keep buying it.  Please donate this money to the funds set up to help repair the lives of those Americans hurt by Enron's underhanded dealings.

Sincerely,

Christopher Johnson


Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

       Morning Market View(TM) for Tuesday, August 7, 2001
                       as of 11:00AM EDT
           Information provided by Standard & Poor's

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

U.S. INDICES
(11:00 a.m. EDT)

----------------------------------
Market            Value     Change

DJIA          10,449.50    + 48.20
Nasdaq Comp.   2,038.14     + 3.88
S&P 500        1,205.01     + 4.53
----------------------------------
NYSE Advancing Issues        1,460
NYSE Declining Issues        1,233
NYSE Trading Volume        240 mln
NASDAQ Advancing Issues      1,433
NASDAQ Declining Issues      1,571
NASDAQ Trading Volume      374 mln

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

U.S. TREASURIES
----------------------------------
Value             Yield     Change

1-year bill       n/a        n/a
5-year note       4.65%     - 1/32
10-year note      5.16%     - 1/32
30-year bond      5.58%     + 6/32

The tables above look best when viewed in a fixed-width font,
such as "Courier."

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

U.S. TRADING SUMMARY

Stocks started the session mixed as early spillover weakness
from yesterday's losses were offset by better-than-expected
economic data on U.S. productivity. Also weighing on the markets
were jitters over Cisco Systems' earnings, which are due after
today's close. Not surprisingly, the major indices traded within
tight ranges early in the day and have not strayed too far from
unchanged levels. After Monday's slow trade, which was the
lightest volume day of the year, Tuesday has shown much of the
same characteristics as many traders take vacations during the
month of August. By midmorning, the headline indices had bounced
off earlier lows but had not moved too far into the green.

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

JAPAN / EUROPE SUMMARY

European bourses were mostly lower in midafternoon trading as
traders sold technology issues and aerospace stocks on news that
Boeing had some future orders postponed. Leading the decliners
was the French CAC-40 with a 0.4% loss. The London FTSE dropped
0.1% while the German Dax fell 0.3%. In Japan, a surge in buying
of technology shares during the lunch hour boosted the market in
the afternoon session, as chip and related shares regained lost
ground from weakness early in the session. The Nikkei 225 closed
up 0.6% and the broader Topix gained 0.5%.

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

CURRENCY SUMMARY

U.S. productivity data had little effect on the U.S. dollar, as
the greenback remains little changed from morning levels versus
the euro and the yen. The greenback got a boost against the euro
overnight, as disappointing European economic data weighed on
the common currency and pushed the dollar to around 0.876
dollars per euro from around 0.881. The pair managed to hold
around 0.877 dollars at midmorning. Meanwhile, the dollar was
trading about 123.8 yen.

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

MAJOR COMPANY / INDUSTRY NEWS
(All prices as of 11:05 a.m. EDT)

** EBay (EBAY: 64.37, + 0.97) is buying a leading home auction
site called HomesDirect.com in order to expand its real estate
offerings. HomesDirect specializes in the sale of foreclosed
properties and is mostly owned by venture-capital firm Idealab,
based in Southern California. HomesDirect stated that it sold
about 130,000 homes through its Web site in 2000. Financial
terms of the deal were not disclosed.

** Textron (TXT: 56.44, + 1.44) announced on Monday that it
agreed to sell its auto parts division to major rival Collins &
Aikman (CKC: 8.06, - 0.14) in a cash and stock deal valued at
about $1.3 billion. Textron, which owns Cessna Aircraft and Bell
Helicopter, began talks with various companies for its auto
parts division earlier this year. Textron is shifting its
business out of the volatile automobile sector.

** Emerson (EMR: 55.90, - 0.34), a major electronics
manufacturer, reported fiscal third-quarter earnings on Tuesday
that fell due to slow sales in its electronics and
telecommunications sectors. Restructuring costs also impacted.
It also warned that it would experience lower sales in its
fourth quarter as well. Emerson said that its earnings fell to
$330 million, or $0.77 per share, versus almost $374 million, or
$0.87 per share, one year ago. This is in line with current
analyst estimates.

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

ECONOMIC NEWS

** Second-quarter productivity report showed a 2.5% jump, much
higher than the previous increase of 0.1% and above the S&P MMS
consensus estimate of a 1.6% rise.

** WEDNESDAY - June wholesale trade.

** THURSDAY - July trade price indexes, weekly initial jobless
claims.

** FRIDAY - July Producer Price Index.

################################################################

Log in using the links below to:

Access your account:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=CCBodyi&NeedCASelValue=Y

View your Email Alert customization options:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts

Perform research or request a market quote:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=Quotes

Place a trade order:
https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=TradeStock

To visit Schwab's home page, use this link:
http://www.schwab.com/

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

To unsubscribe or modify your Email Alert customization options,
log in using the link below or copy and paste it into your
browser's address window:

https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAMyAlerts

Now you can receive graphics Email Alerts in HTML format, using
helpful, full-color graphics and active Web links that connect
you directly to information you want. Use the link below to log
in and change your email format preference:

https://investing.schwab.com/trading/start?SANC=EAEditEmailAddr

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

Notice: All email sent to or from the Charles Schwab corporate
email system may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed by
Schwab personnel. (1000-8752)

Copyright 2001 Standard & Poor's MMS Inc.  All rights reserved.
Standard & Poor's MMS services are for personal use only.
Commercial use or redistribution in any form, print or
electronic, is prohibited.
Distribution by Quris, Inc.


i'm going to have to keep my eye on you....


Richard:

In the US we have changed our swap agreement forms to provide for arbitration
in order to avoid having to explain the intricacies of derivatives trading to
judges or, God forbid, juries.  In Canada we are continuing to submit to the
jurisdiction of Canadian courts (on the theory that there are no juries in
civil actions and arbitration is rarely used in Canadian contracts
generally).  As we are presently in the process of revising our UK swap
agreement forms, I guess it's time to revisit the issue as it applies to UK
agreements.  Currently we agree to UK law and the jurisdiction of UK courts
(where there are no juries in civil actions).  Should this continue to be our
policy or should we begin going for arbitration in the UK contracts also?  I
would ask Paul and Scott to let Richard and me know if arbitration is widely
enough used in UK agreements that we can get away with asking for it.

Thanks,

Mark


As I stated on the phone, the deal is valid and Enron will honor its terms .  I will get a confirmation sent to you.  Thanks

DG

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Carl Sulzer GRE/ER Fuel/Plant <Csulzer@grenergy.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:20 PM
To:	Giron, Darron C.
Cc:	'Lewis, Mary Jo'
Subject:	Confirmation of Forward Purchase

As we discussed, I never received a confirmation of the May, June and July
forward gas purchase (1,000 per day at Ventura at $2.895/mmBtu).  This
purchase was made through Brian Frihart.  I need to know if Enron plans to
stand behind this purchase.  Without confirmation, I will assume that the
deal is no longer valid.


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/13/2000 12:58 PM -----

	Richard Anderson@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
	12/13/2000 09:07 AM

		 To: Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Conference Call on Interconnection Agreements-Internal

Regrettably, I am tied up in another meeting from 1:45 to 3:30 PST today.
Could we reschedule the second part of this meeting to a later time or date?

Thanks,
Richard D. Anderson
Director of Taxes
Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
713-345-7729 (Houston office through 12/15, no voice mail)
503-886-0335 (Portland office and messages)
503-425-6005 (fax)
richard_anderson@enron.net

	Mona L Petrochko@ENRON
	12/12/00 03:21 PM

		 To: Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Anderson/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
		 cc:
		 Subject: Conference Call on Interconnection Agreements-Internal

It seems that 2 p.m. p.s.t. works best for all for a conference call.  The
call-in number is 888-311-9051 passcode is 60396.

The agenda would be to discuss:

1.  interconnection agreements
2.  tax implications of c-corp vs. llp


Attached are the January numbers.


Hey Melissa,

Are you back from Brazil yet?  Hope they didn't work you too hard down
there.  Drop me a line when you get a chance.


Raymond,

Thank you for your note.  It would be great if you could be ready to roll-out
Korean Weather in the near future.   It would be tough to sell Weather
Derivatives in Korea, but the early move can be positive for us especially
because K-Weather, a local weather forecasting company, is also studying
Weather Derivatives for potential launch.  Regarding the questions you asked,
please find below my answers in blue.  Thanks.

Regards,
Jae-Moo

Raymond Yeow@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
08/25/2000 04:58 PM
To: Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT@ENRON
cc: Jae-Moo Lee/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Christopher B
Hunt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Joseph P Hirl/AP/ENRON@ENRON, David
Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron, John Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Mike Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bruce
Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Mike Brown/ENRON@Gateway@ENRON, Justin
Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Rousseau Anai/AP/Enron@Enron, John
Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Victor Santos/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Li Yin Lim/SIN/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT@ENRON, David
Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jonathan Whitehead/AP/Enron@Enron, Michelle
Lee/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ann Brown/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Matthias
Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT@ENRON, Paul
Smith/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Christian Werner/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Allan
Ford/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Comments & questions re: EOL Korea

To Jae- Moo,
1. Impressive P'point presentation indeed.

2. Friday Sep 1 - 800am TYO time is good for Australia, I will be attending
is there anything that i need to arrange at our end ??

3. After the successful roll-out of W for Japan & Oz thus qtr,
as discussed - we are ready to roll-out Korean W say in Mid October ???
Your email & presenatation thus arrived at a very good time.

4. Just some questions -
You may answer in the conference call or by email -- your choice

(a) why has W derivatives been singled out by FSC for potential review
when there is no regulation of eg LPG , or plastics swaps & fwds  ?  (pg 11
of presentation)

We are just talking about the theoretical possibility of FSC's (Financial
Supervisory Commission) review of Weather Derivatives because of the novelty
in Korea although, according to the Kim & Chang report, there are currently
no laws or regulations in Korea that regulate marketing of OTC derivative
transactions through the internet or otherwise.  When we talked to FSC a
couple of months ago, they confirmed that there is no law or regulation
restricting Weather Derivatives in Korea.  FSC did not indicate any intention
to review Weather Derivatives for regulation, either.   In addition,
according to the Kim & Chang report, Weather Derivatives would not be
considered to be an insurance contract subject to Korean insurance
regulations.  Kim & Chang also believes that Weather Derivatives should not
be considered gambling or wagering but a legitimate method of hedging risks
relating to weather.

(b) How necessary are the meetings with ( pg 5 of presentation)
".. Bank of Korea (BOK)/ Ministry of Finance & Economy (MOFE) for
classification of weather derivatives as commodity derivatives.." ?
Is this meeting to meet
"...except for Foreign Exchange Transaction Regulations (FETR) in case of
foreign currency trades
? Classification of weather derivatives as commodity or financial derivatives
under FETR needs to be resolved..."(pg 15 of presentation)

Can we just do it first with Enron Korea as the counterparty ? If so , if
Korean coy transacts with Enron Korea,
there should be no problem in remitting funds wholly within Korea !
Also we intend to offer product in Won only so no FX involved at all .

According to the Kim & Chang report,   FETR is the only regulation that
regulates OTC derivative transactions, and FETR is applicable only when FX is
involved in a transaction or when a transaction is between a Korean resident
and a non-resident.  Thus, as far as we understand based on the Kim & Chang
report and conversations with FSC and other local lawyers, if a transaction
(Weather derivative or other commodity derivative) is between residents in
Korea (e.g., a Korean customer and Enron Korea) in Korean currency (Won),
neither FETR nor any other regulations are applicable.  No report or approval
would be required.

(c)
pg 18 of presentation
'...All other EnronOnline products with the exception of bandwidth and
emission allowances are classified as commodity derivatives in Korea..."
Why is it bandwidth and emission are classified differently?
Will not Weather fall under same category ?

There is no classification or definition of bandwidth, emission or weather
derivative products in Korea since Korea has no experience in such products
or concepts.  Please refer to my previous e-mail to Matt for definitions of
derivative transactions (commodity and financial).

"...Commodity derivatives require a prior reporting to the Bank of Korea for
each trade .."
Is this only relevant if product is not in Won but foreign currency ?

The reporting requirement is relevant under the FETR only which is applied
for a transaction with FX involved or between a resident and non-resident in
Korea.

5. pg 28 of presentation
Note that Dr Christian Werner - Sydney office will be the person for
"Data system   For weather derivative products, arrange with a weather
forecasting company for the weather data feed - timing depends on the
location"

We will provide relevant information for Christian.

We will be able to assist with (if reqd, see points 4b & c above)  Thanks. It
would be necessary only when we decide to deal with FETR.
"...  For weather derivatives, arrange presentation meetings with BOK/MOFE
for classification of weather derivatives as commodity derivatives
_ May require longer time for their decision making
Korea Office, Mike Dahlke, EOL Weather specialist (?)"

Best wishes
Raymond

Matthias Lee@ECT
08/24/2000 09:22 PM
To: Jae-Moo Lee/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Christopher B Hunt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Joseph P
Hirl/AP/ENRON@ENRON, David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron, John
Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Bruce
Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike Brown/ENRON@Gateway@ENRON, Justin
Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Paul
Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Raymond
Yeow/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, John
Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Rousseau Anai/AP/Enron@Enron, John
Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT, Victor Santos/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON,
Li Yin Lim/SIN/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Jonathan
Whitehead/AP/Enron@Enron, Michelle Lee/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ann
Brown/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON, Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT,
Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: EOL Korea

Jae-Moo

On the section of Regulatory/Legal Environment, it may be useful to note:

1. There is no official rule or regulation that ex post facto reporting for
Commodity Derivatives are acceptable to the Bank of Korea, although your and
Korean external lawyer's (Kim & Chang) informal verbal enquiries with the
Bank of Korea have suggested they have accepted some  7 or 8 reports since
April last year (all from Hyundai Oil).

2. The Bank of Korea take up to two weeks to review the reports and, as Kim &
Chang has advised, there remains a possibility that the Bank of Korea may
reject the report, although they were not able to advise the grounds on which
a report may be rejected.

3. Although, a foreign counterparty need not file a report or seek approval,
the Korean counterparty must still do so for the benefit and interest of the
foreign counterparty. Kim & Chang advised that where reporting or approval is
required but is not made or obtained, the Korean counterparty would not be
able to remit its payments under the transaction. This would clearly impact
on the settlement of the transaction, in particular shorter term deals since
reporting and approval may take several weeks.

4. The Supreme Court of Korea has ruled that a foreign exchange authorization
that was originally required should be obtained in order for a foreign party
to execute any judgment against the Korean party and remit the proceeds.

Regards
Matt

Jae-Moo Lee@ENRON
08/24/2000 04:58 PM
To: Christopher B Hunt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Joseph P
Hirl/AP/ENRON@ENRON, David Forster/Corp/Enron@Enron, John
Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike
Dahlke/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bruce
Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mike Brown/ENRON@Gateway, Justin Timothy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Paul Quilkey/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Raymond
Yeow/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Rousseau Anai/AP/Enron@Enron, John Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT, Victor
Santos/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Li Yin Lim/SIN/ECT@ECT, Mark
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT, David
Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jonathan Whitehead/AP/Enron@Enron
cc: Michelle Lee/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ann
Brown/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: EOL Korea

As many of you are aware, over the past few months we have been investigating
whether or not it would make sense to seriously consider an EOL launch in
Korea from a market, regulatory and legal perspective.  The primary interest
has been on reviewing whether or not we could launch existing products in
Korea (e.g., products already handled by Singapore EOL) as well as new
products (e.g., Seoul weather).

This initial work was directed primarily by the Korea team working within the
APACHI group.  If a launch is to progress much further from this point,
however, substantial attention by the EOL team would be required.  To
facilitate this, the attached presentation summarizes our primary findings to
date and some of our thoughts.  We would appreciate your taking a look at the
attached document.

We would like to arrange a conference call for next Thursday (Aug. 31st) at
6:00 pm by Houston time (Friday at 8:00 am by Tokyo time) to discuss the
attached document and to solicit thoughts as to next steps.  Please let me
know whether you will be able to join this call or, if you have a conflict,
an alternative time.  Your participation will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Jae-Moo


Your changes look fine to me.

>>> "Campbell, Carolyn" <CCampbell@KSLAW.com> 01/11/01 03:26PM >>>
 <<2R6KRED.DOC>>  <<2RSWRED.DOC>>

Kay and George:

We have enclosed revised drafts of the First Amended and Restated
Limited
Liability Company Agreements for each of CA Energy Development I LLC
and CA
Energy Development II LLC, marked to reflect revisions from the forms
initialed for identification by the parties on December 27, 2000.  The
only
revisions are in Section 3.2 (to reflect that SEL is a limited
partnership
rather than a limited liability company) and in the signature block for
SEL
(in light of the fact that SEL now has its own slate of officers to
sign).
Please advise of any further comments.  Thank you.

Carolyn M. Campbell
King & Spalding
713-276-7303 (phone)
713-751-3280 (fax)
ccampbell@kslaw.com <mailto:ccampbell@kslaw.com>

Enclosures: 128540vR14/13
  129344vR5/4

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

 - 2R6KRED_2.DOC
 - 2RSWRED.DOC


Jeff,
Here was my "bullet" to Steve for Horton's staff meeting.  Call if you want
and I'll give you the full poop.

SoCalGas Capacity Forum-
On March 8, SoCalGas convened an industry-wide meeting in Los Angles to
discuss the adequacy of existing LDC infrastructure in Southern California.
SoCalGas,s position is that, at least in the near term (1- 5 yrs.), they have
adequate transmission and storage assets to meet demand, including load
growth from electric generators.  However, they did agree to file with the
CPUC for a small (200 MMcf/d) expansion of takeaway capacity at 4 pipeline
interconnects at a total cost of $14MM.  One of the proposed sites was
Transwestern,s N. Needles.  Through the addition of 1,000 HP of compression,
SoCal Gas proposes to add 50 MMcf/d capacity to N. Needles at a cost of
$2MM.  Transwestern and SoCal Gas will conduct a follow-up meeting on March
22.


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolay, Christi L.
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:09 PM
To: Presto, Kevin M.; Kitchen, Louise; Lavorato, John; Carson, Mike; Will, Lloyd; May, Tom; Davis, Mark Dana; Sturm, Fletcher J.; Herndon, Rogers; Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Guerrero, Janel; Shortridge, Pat; Shelk, John; Novosel, Sarah; Fulton, Donna; Roan, Michael; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Nord, Sue; Lindberg, Susan; Duran, W. David; Kroll, Heather; Fairley, David; Connor, Joe; Maurer, Luiz; Jacoby, Ben; Staines, Dan; Montovano, Steve; Robinson, Marchris; Migden, Janine; Stroup, Kerry; Robertson, Linda; Portz, David; Sager, Elizabeth; Nettelton, Marcus; Acevedo, Rudy; Comeaux, Keith; Forney, John M.; Garcia, Miguel L.; Hernandez, Juan; Lotz, Gretchen; Marshall, Howard; Rorschach, Reagan; Rust, Bill; Meyn, Jim; Walton, Steve; Perrino, Dave; Comnes, Alan; Jafry, Rahil; Forster, David; Baughman, Edward D.
Subject: Judge's Final SE RTO Mediation Report + CN summary

The ALJ submits her report to FERC to obtain FERC review of the Southeast Power Grid platform that resulted from the mediation.

** JUDGE'S FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:  FERC should consider adoption of Grid Model (the one Enron likes best) to fullest extent possible and that remaining unresolved issues be addressed through continued stakeholder process.  However, since complete consensus was not reached, FERC should provide its determination of which of the two models best meets FERC's expectations as a platform for the SE Power Grid RTO.  This should be done by FERC quickly.  There should be no further delay.  Regardless of the model, FERC should encourage the collaborative process.  She thinks that this should be done by the parties without FERC intervention except to the extent to respond to FERC orders. (I think FERC staff should be involved or it will get bogged down).  Parties should reconvene within 15 days after FERC's order adopting a model and the FERC order should direct the participants (like us) to submit a joint proposal within 45 days thereafter.  She recommends to FERC that parties be allowed to file comments to FERC within 20 days (however, she recommends against permitting reply comments since they may prove counterproductive to the collaborative nature of the mediation process.)  The Commission will then issue an order that can adopt her recommendations, may reject her recommendations, or change something.  I would expect that the Commission would adopt many of her recommendations, while allowing further mediated-type discussions on some issues (hopefully, FERC will adopt many of our suggested changes).  Judge McCartney then basically describes both proposals of the Grid Group and the Southern, etal. group, then provides the stakeholder participants' comments (almost verbatim from all submissions to her).  While she states that the process should keep moving quickly, she does not adopt any timeframes (we will comment that FERC should retain its Dec 02 Day 2 start date (for LMP/financial rights congestion model to be implemented).

The attachments below are her report, the Southern, etal proposal and the Grid pricing, congestion management, operating, and planning protocols (without any changes).  Clearly, our response FERC will include our proposed changes to the documents.  Highlights from her report below:

She recommends that SPP pursue an RTO coalition in the Midwest
She encourages FERC to continue to encourage and utilize a collaborative process which accommodates stakeholders and state utility commission input, regardless of the RTO platform ultimately adopted by FERC
Her opinion is that the "Grid (Entergy, GridSouth and GridFlorida utility sponsored) Model" (transco in RTO, LMP/financial rights congestion management) is better developed and more clearly in compliance with the requirements of Order No. 2000 based on a "best practices" analysis of other RTOs and Commission precedent.  This is good because Enron generally favors the Grid model. However, she does provide the Commission information on Southern, etal.'s proposal (independent system administrator--like National Grid-type) in her report, even though she has concerns that the Southern, etal model is not Order No. 2000 compliant.  The Southern, etal. model has a hybrid physical congestion management with day ahead balanced schedule requirements and LMP in real time (with penalties) and significant control area responsibilities.  The significant aspects of the Grid model are discussed below:
Grid Governance: RTO is a for profit transco with an independent board and an enhancement:  the Independent Market Administrator (IMA).  The IMA was added to facilitate public power participation (worried that transmission owner on top, even if divested from generation, would favor its transmission solutions over generation or other transmission solution).  The IMA would administer the markets; exercise operational authority over the transmission system; administer one OASIS (with one process for interconnection and transmission requests); and assume the Security Coordinator function.  She strongly encourages this split.
Good stakeholder advisory Committee (provides majority and minority views) and an independent Market Monitor to monitor the RTO and the markets
Allows for Independent Transmission Companies (Entergy wants to be one), with RTO oversight
Describes that control area operators will initially maintain their control areas for physical operation, such as switching transmission elements, pursuant to operating procedures approved by the RTO/IMA.  Recognizes that consolidation of control areas may occur as RTO matures.  (Protocols should be subject to further discussion)
RTO/transco has primary responsibility for tariff administration, including rate changes and tariff filings
All load under the rates, terms and conditions of OATT (GridSouth group has appealed this part of earlier Commission orders, and, thus, retains their rights should they win on appeal)
4 transmission pricing zones initially: Entergy, Southern, GridSouth, and GridFlorida.  Allows for participant funded, direct assigned, and merchant transmission.  Transmission rates to loads in RTO will be zonal (for existing facilities) and regional charge (for new facilities, other than those above).  There will be one "through and out rate", plus a Grid Management Charge for RTO operation.
Encourages conversion of existing transmission agreements to OATT
Financial Rights/LMP (includes "real time spot market") is clearly the preferred model and represents best practices model (from PJM and SPP) -- many details need to be worked out in continued discussions.  Model allows parties to transact bilaterally and provides financial congestion hedges (FCH).  Stakeholder process needs to be continued for FCH allocation, auction and non-discriminatory release.  The Grid model includes a "balancing resource" requirement that we will provide comments against
Will allow establishment of markets for ancillary services once they can be supported -- control area operators required to provide before such market establishment
RTO runs single OASIS and independently calculates ATC and TTC
RTO/transco is responsible for planning through a participatory stakeholder process
Numerous comments from marketers, IPPs on reduction of control area functions (all of our comments from last week's response are included)
Judge McCartney had numerous meetings with state commissioners.  (1) Many are still concerned that FERC had not conducted a "cost-benefit" analysis and had concerns over the costs.  She responds that extrapolation of costs to the entire SE RTO seems unwarranted because it ignores the "economies of scale" and initial reliance on existing control centers and infrastructure.  In any event, FERC could explore the feasibility of a rate setting process that would involve the state commissions. (2) concerned about cost shifting:  mediation team discussed phase in of rates that the Commission has allowed. (3) Concern that SE RTO would preempt state ability to approve asset transfers to RTO and want state retail customers to receive full value for assets.  (4) concern that SE RTO may prematurely put Southern states into retail open access (concerns with Cal.)  Judge encourages the Commission to utilize a collaborative process that includes input from state commissioners.

I think our message for any press discussions tomorrow should focus on the extremely beneficial aspects of the mediation and the significant "jump start" it gave to the SE RTO process due to the significant role played by Judge McCartney and her team on focusing the discussions.  Furthermore, the initial results after 45 days show the majority of participants favoring a "best practices" PJM/SPP cornerstone type real time spot energy market with LMP pricing and financial congestion hedges and an RTO with an independent board structure that accommodates a for-profit RTO entity with a significant stakeholder advisory process.  The Commission should consider utilize the fundamentals resulting from this mediation for other regions, or, at a minimum, consider similar mediated "jump starts."

 -----Original Message-----
From: Bobbie McCartney [mailto:bobbie.mccartney@ferc.fed.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:05 PM
To: mddesselle@aep.com; john.a.cohen@bakernet.com; mcrosswh@balch.com; dex@bbrslaw.com; FHR@bbrslaw.com; fochsenhirt@bbrslaw.com; mrossi@bdrnet.com; jlphillips@calpine.com; JRegnery@calpine.com; tkaslow@calpine.com; OHaraC@dsmo.com; mary.doyle@dynegy.com; jhughes@elcon.org; Nicolay, Christi L.; JCashin@epsa.org; charles_askey@fpl.com; steved@gdsassoc.com; GHobday@HHLAW.com; jschneid@huberlaw.com; richard.spring@kcpl.com; jpalermo@kemaconsulting.com; RLAMKIN@LLGM.com; relliott@mbolaw.com; beth.bradley@mirant.com; ndaggs@mwe.com; paul.savage@nrgenergy.com; ron_lanclos@oxy.com; billdegrandis@paulhastings.com; MaryCochran@psc.state.ar.us; Pauline.Foley@pseg.com; linxwilerj@safferassoc.com; twoodbury@seminole-electric.com; bobg@sepa.doe.gov; leer@sepa.doe.gov; msmith@sf-firm.com; GLBERNST@skadden.com; gary.newell@spiegelmcd.com; nbrown@spp.org; dacrabtree@tecoenergy.com; jrdalrymple@tva.gov; jpwest@westlawpc.com; Jane.Mudgett@Williams.com; SMALL@wrightlaw.com
Cc: Herbert Tate; Jonathan Siems; Laura Sheppeard
Subject: RE: Final SE RTO Mediation Report

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, service of the attached document is hereby effected on this Restricted Service List, which has been previously approved in this Docket, via this email.

Please  note that there are a total of six attachments, only five of which can be sent via email.  The 6th attachment is a two page copy of the TVA MOU which can be accessed on  RIMS, or will be provided via fax upon request.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the parties once again for their hard work and dedication throughout this arduous and sometimes difficult mediation process.  It was a pleasure to work with you!
                                                     Judge McCartney


Here is the presentation that Don abd I gave to Entergy today.  Thanks
Ben


I understand.  Please make appropriate arrangements with your team members.

Mukesh

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com on 01/29/2001 10:34:46 AM

To:   Mukesh_Bajaj@LECG.com
cc:
Subject:  E234

Greetings Professor.

Regrettably, I'm on travel in New York City today and can't make it to
class this evening.  I don't anticipate having to miss any other classes
this semester.

Regards,
Jeff


Milberg Weiss is the main plaintiffs' counsel. They are a well known (and
good) securities class action plaintiffs firm. The John O'Quinn of LA---Tom
Girardi-- is the plaintiffs' atty in the somewhat related gas cases. These
are not PI types per se, but more commercial litigation plaintiffs firms.

	Jordan Mintz/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/26/2001 01:42 PM

		 To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: California

Richard: What is the makeup of the plaintiffs' bar in all the litigation in
Calif?  Is it attracting PI types?
Jordan


Tana,
Have you heard anything back from Intelligence Press on this amendment?
Dexter Steis from Intelligence Press said that were having their lawyer look
over it, but I haven't heard anything else.  The original agreement expires
on Wednesday.

Thanks.
Julie
---------------------- Forwarded by Julie Ferrara/HOU/ECT on 02/26/2001 01:31
PM ---------------------------
From: Tana Jones on 02/20/2001 11:37 AM
To: dexter@intelligencepress.com
cc: Julie Ferrara/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rahil Jafry/Enron@EnronXGate, Mark
Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Amendment to License Agreement

At the request of Rahil Jafry, I am attaching a copy of our proposed First
Amendent to License Agreement, which extends the term from February 28, 2001
to April 30, 2001.  If the Amendment meets with your approval, please execute
it and return it to me via fax no. (713) 646-3490.  If you have any questions
or comments please call me at (713) 853-3399 or Rahil at (713) 853-3206.  We
look forward to hearing from you.


You might be interested in this discussion.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hall, Steve C.
Sent:	Friday, July 27, 2001 9:16 AM
To:	Perrino, Dave
Cc:	Comnes, Alan
Subject:	RE: Two Major Inconsistencies in FERC's Most Recent Refund Order and the Nov 1 and Dec 15 Orders

Hi Dave,

Of course the decision is politically motivated.  But aren't they all?  It's just that now it's our ox being gored.

In general, review of agency decisions by courts is very deferential, i.e., court's give agencies a lot of discretion---which is why it is often difficult to overturn an agency decision.  But if a court concludes that the agency's action was "arbitrary and capricious" it may overturn the decision.  Our argument would be that FERC is acting arbitrarily in its most recent order because it has disregarded---without explanation---its earlier rulings in this case.  It's no slam dunk, but it's the best argument we have.  We will never win an argument in any court that FERC "could have" or "should have" crafted its order a certain way; a court will almost always say, "the agency can fix the energy crisis in any way it deems fit."  However, courts take a dim view of inconsistent agency decisions because it demonstrates a lack of Constitutional Due Process.

As for the public's opinion of Enron as a profiteer---for better or worse it's already established.  And no matter what action we take, Davis will cast a negative spin on it.  So why not fight for our interests?  The stakes in this order are worth it.  This recent order sets a bad precedent for the future viability of our business model (power marketing); it's hard to run a business when the government can reach back in time and recalculate your selling price with complete disregard of your costs.  The generators get to offset refunds with input costs, we should be able to use our purchased power costs.  I don't see much downside for us to argue that FERC should keep its word that (1) refunds can only be ordered within 60 days, and (2) all sellers are entitled to marginal costs.  We are just holding the Commission to its promise.  At a minimum, the Commission needs to explain why it ignored and reversed itself on its earlier holdings.

These are good questions.  Have a good weekend.

(I copied Alan on this because I thought he might be interested in our colloquoy.)

Steve

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Perrino, Dave
Sent:	Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:18 PM
To:	Hall, Steve C.
Subject:	Re: Two Major Inconsistencies in FERC's Most Recent Refund Order and the Nov 1 and Dec 15 Orders

Steve,

Aside from the fact that the entire play by the FERC in the last 3 months has been purely politically motivated, are we going to challenge the latest rulings in court?  Can we challenge this apparent lack of consistency (memory loss)?

If we were to challenge do you think the general "public" opinion and impression of Enron as a henious profiteer from Houston would negate any potential gains made from making such a challenge?

Just curious about what your thoughts/planned recommendation are.

Thanks for the information,

Dave

From:	Steve C Hall/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/26/2001 07:32 PM CDT
To:	Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/ENRON@enronXgate, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders/Enron@enronXgate, gfergus@brobeck.com@SMTP@enronXgate, Christian Yoder/ENRON@enronXgate, Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Kaufman/ENRON@enronXgate, Tim Belden/ENRON@enronXgate, Jeff Richter/ENRON@enronXgate, Bill Williams III/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:

Subject:	Two Major Inconsistencies in FERC's Most Recent Refund Order and the Nov 1 and Dec 15 Orders

The FERC apparently has a very short memory:

1.	In its Dec. 15, 2000 Order, FERC clarified that liability for refunds would only last for 60 days after the transaction was filed with FERC.   How can FERC now say that transactions from Nov. 1 through April 26 are subject to refund?  The Dec. 15 Order said that only transactions that were identified by Commission staff for further review would be subject to continued refund liability.  Otherwise, refund potential for transactions over $150/MWh would close after 60 days.  Presumably, liability for transactions under $150/MWh would close after 60 days, too.

Here is the excerpt from the Dec. 15 Order:

"We clarify that, unless the Commission issues some form of notification to a seller that its transaction is still under review, refund potential on a particular transaction will close 60 days after the initial report is filed with the Commission.  The institution of a 60-day period for the review of the transactions will provide sellers with the certainty they request and allows a reasonable period for analysis by staff."  Dec. 15 Order at 58.

2.  	In its Nov. 1 Order, FERC said that it would limit refund liability to seller's marginal costs or legitimate and verifiable opportunity costs.  FERC now says that marketers cannot use their purchased power costs---much less opportunity costs---to offset potential refunds.

From the Nov. 1 Order:  "However, should we find it necessary to order refunds, we will limit refund liability to no lower than the seller's marginal costs or legitimate and verifiable opportunity costs."  Nov. 1 Order at 39.

FERC's July 25 Order makes no attempt to explain its departure from its earlier holdings on refunds in this same proceeding.  Arbitrary and capricious, anyone?

Steve

Alan:  Please forward to Dan Watkiss and Ron Carroll.


Per our meeting yesterday, here is the clean version of the redline I sent
to you on Monday. This doesn't incorporate any of the changes we discussed
yesterday. If you have any questions, please call.
 <<Enron Purchase Agreement v.2 Clean.doc>>
Ross Levine

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Levine, Ross
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 6:58 PM
> To: 'Heather.Kroll@enron.com'; 'Kay.Mann@enron.com';
> 'Stephen.Plauche@enron.com'; 'Scott.Healy@enron.com'
> Cc: Nock, Herb; Bentley, Chris; Leitman, Jerry; Leo, Tony; Mahler,
> Joseph
> Subject: purchase contract markup
>
> Heather, Scott, Kay, Stephen:
>
> The attached file is a redlined markup of your draft purchase contract
> prepared by our outside counsel, with a few added comments from our group.
> Please note these comments are intended to be preliminary and non-binding,
> for discussion only. Most of these comments don't address the scope of our
> meeting today, but are more detail oriented. Please call me if you have
> any questions before we meet Wednesday.
>
>  << File: RMLredline version 2.doc >>
>
> Ross M. Levine, Esq.
> Director of Contracts and Contracts Counsel
> FuelCell Energy, Inc.
> 3 Great Pasture Rd.
> Danbury, CT 06813
>
> (203) 825-6057
> (203) 798-2945 (fax)
> rlevine@fce.com (email)
>
> This transmittal and its attached files (if any) may contain proprietary
> or confidential information belonging to FuelCell Energy, Inc. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received
> this transmittal in error. Any review, disclosure, use, dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you
> suspect that you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by telephone at 1-(203) 825-6000, or e-mail at
> jryan@fce.com and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
>

 - Enron Purchase Agreement v.2 Clean.doc


Deniese Palmer Huggins
1000 Louisiana Street
Suite 1095
Houston, TX 77002

Phone: (713) 658 9292
Fax  : (713) 658 9393


Please confirm your assistance to an EOL Argentina meeting to be held on
Friday 21, at 8:00 am, in Houston office.
We will confirm the meeting location soon.
Thank you.

Patrick


Blaine:

Devon Energy's natural gas production reallocated by ANR PL for October 2000
(approx 118698 MMBtu) will be sold for flow on October 31, 2000 at Enron
North America's  weighted average price for ANR Pipeline (Louisiana) gas.

If you have any questions please call me at 713-853-3061.


Matthew,

Our new cost center is cc 269.  This was effective at the beginning of the
year.

Regards,
Hollis

Matthew Meyers
06/07/2002 04:58 PM
To: Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jerry Holt/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Mark V Walker/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Mark
Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Jeff Duff/EWC/Enron@ENRON, John M
Ruiz/EWC/Enron@Enron, Julie Johnson/EWC/Enron@Enron

Subject: Cost Center?

Greetings,

To my best memory, the Systems Performance Group is cost center 267.  I
picked up my American Funds retirement packet tonight from the front desk,
and the sticker on the front states cost center 269.  Have we changed cost
centers or is this a typo?

Matt Meyers


YI

Vince
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 05/30/2000
09:21 AM ---------------------------

Betty J Coneway
05/26/2000 05:43 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joseph Hrgovcic/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vasant
Shanbhogue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mark Tawney/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Meeting

Please plan to attend a meeting Thursday, June 1st @ 3:00pm in Vince
Kaminski's office.  The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss research
support for the Weather Derivatives Group.  If you are unable to attend,
please advise.

thanx !!!!


Let's just say it's an accessory for your winter coat!  The cards are really
easy to do.  Just go into www.hallmark.com and you can view cards for any
occasion. Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane.M.Tholt@enron.com [mailto:Jane.M.Tholt@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 4:29 PM
To: kimberly.soulant@wcom.com
Subject: Re: A Hallmark E-Card from Kim

So you bought me a new winter coat for New York-Thanks-I ned it.  The card
is adorable-how did you do it.  I love it.


Your comments are needed for Janet Dougherty who sat in for Joanne Rozycki.  Please return as soon as possible.
Thank you!-Becky

Ratings: Excellent = 5 Above Average = 4 Average = 3 Below Average = 2 Poor = 1

Initiative:		_________
Cooperation:	_________
Punctuality:	_________
Attendance:		_________
Quality of Work:	_________

Rate the worker's skill level in relation to the job :_________

Would you request this person again? (Y/N) :_________

Comments:


Da link!
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000 05:46 PM -----

	Erin Willis
	08/22/2000 07:37 AM

		 To: Gary Hickerson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elsa Piekielniak/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark
Slaughter/NA/Enron@Enron, Darren Maloney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ted
Noble/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mauricio Mora/NA/Enron@Enron, Rommel
Aganon/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jose Marquez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mike A
Roberts/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Link to mail-in database ag_group

Here is the link for Sparks Company emails.

Double-click on the link (icon) and the mailbox will be added to your Lotus
Notes workspace.  The individuals in the SRRS Request #EWIS-4NAS6W have
editor access.   Just in case, the mail file is located on the Lotus Notes
server NAHOU-LN9/Enron.  The Internet email address is ag_group@enron.com.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 12/22/2000
04:59 PM ---------------------------
   Hector Campos                12/21/2000 10:30 AM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: hocampos@hotmail.com
Subject: Address for Recommendations

Vince,

Please forward the recommendations to the following address:

2569 Windbreak Dr.
Alexandria, VA 22306

Don't forget to label each envelope, e.g. "Columbia", etc., and to sign
each envelope over the adhesive seal. I must receive the package
before the new year in order to meet the submission deadline.

Thank you for your time, and happy holidays.

-Hector


Danielle

FYI. This is the information regarding the best hotel
for the meeting on December the 6th, 9:00 - 12:00.

Vince

http://www.innatpenn.com/contact.html
THE INN AT PENN
                                   Sansom Common, 3600 Sansom Street
                                   Philadelphia, PA. 19104
                                   Phone: 1-800-809-7001
                                   Fax: 215-222-4600

Please, mention that the stay is related to the University business
when making the reservation.
Tom Piazze at Wharton can confirm it.
Tom Piazze
Phone: (215) 898 1615
piazzet@wharton.upenn.edu


Matt,

Justin Boyd, Mark Elliott and Paul Simons already had edit access to the
database.  From London, Nicola Beales, Robert Quick, Tracy Foy  & Robert
McGrory (is he in Legal?) already have edit access (also yourself & Edmund).

Are All the other People you have requesting edit access in Legal?

On read access, Rod Nelson from Credit already has Edit access from his days
in London.  You can send all those other people the Link (if it works) and
they should be able to get in.  If they are in Credit we will want them to
have edit access because they can read the comments so they can see more
detail about the negotiation.  And hopefully, input their comments about
their negotiation to keep Legal apprised (we can always hope!).

	Matthew Dawson
	05/09/2001 12:23 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Edmund Cooper/LON/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: SWAPS DATABASE ACCESS

Hi Tana-as discussed, here are the names of folks who need access to the swap
agreements database (please forgive me if some included already have access.)
 Janet Wood, Michael Slade , Ian Brungs, Robert Quick, Justin Boyd, Michael
Schuh, Martin Rosell, Yumi Takei, Mark Elliot,   Rahaul Saxena, Adam Duguid,
Paul Simons, Marcus Von Bock

Read only access- Debbie Nicolls, William Morely , Chris Sloan, Diana
Higgins, Hamish Skutt, Lindsay Edmunds, Rod Nelson, Anna Reich, Paul Maley,
Minna Tapponen, Oliver Harrison.

Thanks for arranging and if you need any more info please let me know.

Ed- Is there anyone else who you think we should include?


Looks like Enpower is "on the side of the road" with respect to capturing and valuing retail deals.   As we discussed in yesterday's meeting, Plan B is a more robust spreadsheet that unbundles the components and values them separately and creates postions by risk component.

I know this is easier said than done, but we need a tactical solution that gives the group confidence that value and positions are correct, rather than a bundled black box batch value with hard coded assumptions.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cross, Edith
Sent:	Tuesday, June 12, 2001 5:47 PM
To:	Lavorato, John; Belden, Tim; Presto, Kevin M.
Cc:	Herndon, Rogers; Richter, Jeff
Subject:	FYI - Progress Report on testing an EES deal in Enpower

To all,

The following is documentation of a sample EES deal which was tested in the Enpower system.  This is for informational purposes only.  Please let me know if you have any questions, or need clarification on any points.

Over the last few weeks, a few of us have been working to test an EES deal in Enpower (St. Luke's - Roosevelt, part of the Beth Israel deal).  The deal is a fixed price sale in New York City (Zone J) of Energy, Line Losses, Ancillary's, and ICAP.  The T&D is a pass through.  We only tested one site out of the ten.  Needless to say, this is probably one of the simplest structures available.  Obviously, we have worked on a few other things at the same time, so it has taken longer than we expected, but I hope this will help highlight how difficult it is to book EES deals in Enpower in it's current state.

Quick statistics for ONE site:

Each month of hourly data, takes 5-6 minutes to save.  We booked 100 months (approx 8.3 years), therefore each deal type (energy, ancillary, etc.) took 8-9 hours to book.
Since each deal type takes 8-9 hours to book, it takes a total of 25-26 hours to book energy, ancillary's (only 1), line losses, and ICAP (this is not booked hourly, therefore, it only takes 1 hour to book).
Although we booked only one ancillary position, most markets have at least four, therefore the total booking time should be closer to 50 hours.
Once we got a book to run, it took 25 minutes to calculate the value.
All of the above statistics assume there are no errors in entering the deals.

Recommendations:

Work with Anthony Dayao to set up a system that can handle these trades for position management, valuation, reporting, scheduling, settlements, accounting, etc.
In the interim:

Enhance RPS to make the valuation consistent with the batch valuation process.  This includes strengthening information for position and DPR reporting.  As well, create tools to help identify change in valuation due to curve shift, reg switch options, and new deals.
Enhance Intramonth valuation and reporting (East desk does not currently have an intramonth book).
Integrate the Tariff Valuation and Reporting.  Currently, this is done in a stand-alone spreadsheet application.
Support the Curve Database project which will allow the breakdown of curves into its components (as opposed to current bundled curves).
Move all the EPMI hedges to Enpower.  All hedges will become desk to desk instead of being entered in both RPS and Enpower.  Position and P&L reports will have be integrated between Enpower and RPS.

Here is a breakdown of what it took to 'rebook' this trade:

Week 1 (May 14-18)

Read Contract.
Get Batch model, as well as a breakdown of value between Energy, Ancillary's, etc.
Sit with Underwriting to answer questions about Load growth and contractual questions.
Work on Wholesale Full Requirements model (in Excel) to check valuation.

Week 2 (May 21-25)

Continue working on Full Requirements model.
Work with Risk Management (Stacey White's group) to set up delivery points and curves in Enpower.
Begin to book deal in Enpower - Getting access to Enpower took some time.
Discovered that our assumption on hours for the 12x12 was incorrect.   We had gotten about 1/3 of the deal booked by the time we realized this.
At times, the database tables would run out of space, because we have never entered a deal of this size in the test database.  This would keep us from entering any new data.

Week 3 (May 29-June 1)

Finished Excel Full Requirements model.  The EES Batch and the Wholesale model tie out except for some minor differences on discounting and ICAP.  The current ICAP curves are            $/MW-day, and they are not calculated using the correct numbers of days (i.e. June and July have the same MW/day price, even though there are 30 and 31 days, respectively, in each month).  This can be fixed in the curve files.  In the future we should mark the curves as $/Kw-month.
Again, we ran into problems with the test database.
Completed booking in Enpower.

Week 4 (June 4-5)

Took 2 days to get a MTM valuation (portcalc) to work.
Discovered deal entry errors in booking.


Attached is the most recent Termination Log for EPMI counterparties.  We have also received notices from City of Azusa and Bonnevile Power Administration, which are being reviewed by legal.  These counterparties will appear on the next distribution.

Stephanie Panus
Enron Wholesale Services
ph:  713.345.3249
fax:  713.646.3490


Hello brothers,

Beaver football is amazing this year!  Next weekend is Homecoming and
presents a great opportunity for us all to visit the Teke house and all the
new members who we have not yet met.  The house has strong membership
numbers and is very present on campus.  We are definitely on the upswing!
What we can improve on is our Alumni support.  I know that going back and
not knowing anyone at the house is frustrating, but that is more the reason
to get over and learn their names and faces.  After talking with several
Tekes who graduated in the past few years, we decided that instead of
waiting for the house to ask us for support we would like to raise money
ourselves and purchase a new Big Screen TV for the Teke house basement.  The
old TV is just about dead and this is a great way to help out the house (not
to mention a good reason to go over to the house).  We are hoping to
surprise them THIS Saturday morning before the game.  We are asking for a
minimum donation of $50 dollars.  We would need about 30 people to make this
happen, so are you going to step up and support Your house?  I am personally
going to give $100 and I have two other members who have pledged the same.
Please help us make this happen.  You can write a check to ME or to TKE.  We
do not want the house knowing about this until we are sure that it is going
to happen.  So send the checks to me and please write back or call me to let
me know that you will supporting this before FRIDAY at NOON.  Thank you for
all you participate and those of you who do not, let me know how I can get
your support on future efforts!

Yours in the Bond,

Dustin Sievers  T773

4690 SW Mueller Dr. B202
Beaverton, OR 97007

(503) 644-6979  Home
(503) 615-5329  Work
(503) 708-6732  Cell


I don't want to give them anything more than a 5-8 line bio.  Do you have anything prepared?

- R
N.B.  Spoke with Koenig and we'll be chatting with Palmer tomorrow.  Koenig said he'll try and make it, but also thinks Palmer should be involved because of the Fortune angle.  Will fill you in later tomorrow.


Here it comes again,

The market wrap-up for this week.

Monika Causholli


New West called to say it had settled with SCE on the PX Credit.  I asked if they agreed to the reduction in the pX credit going forward.  She said that they have no customers buying commodity from them, so it doesn't apply.  I'm guessing this means that they agreed to Edison's proposal, but it has no affect on them.  I asked if they would be supporting SCE's plan at the CPUC.  She said "no".  We'll see.

New Energy and Krogers met with SCE and had the same kind of meeting that we had.  Krogers (grocery store chain) had a Sr management person fly out for the meeting and was incredulous with what he heard.  So far, they are taking the same position we are.

I'll let you know if I hear more.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:42 PM
To:	Williams, Robert C.; Tribolet, Michael; Mellencamp, Lisa; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Curry, Wanda; Swain, Steve; Huddleson, Diann
Subject:	Follow-up Meeting w/Edison re: Negative CTC

As we anticipated, today's call did not advance the ball from where we left off last week with Edison.
Edison is sticking to its guns, claiming that all customers, DA and bundled alike, should pay for Edison's undercollection, i.e., they don't owe us money, we owe them money.
The call was short and ended with an agreement that:
	1) we'll both continue plodding along in the PUC process with all the other stakeholders who are arguing over these issues,
	2) we'll keep lines of communication open--to the extend that anyone has any new ideas they want to share, contacts will 	be made, and
	3) if nothing has happened at the PUC by the time Edison starts readying itself to pay people in Q1'02, then we'll get together 	to try to get agreement on a number as the PUC process continues to work itself out.

If anyone has any questions, just let us know.

Best,
Jeff


As presented to Causey last Friday.
.

Regards,
Richard


It is going to be really difficult to do the split, eg the EnronOnline patent is moving, can we take all of the history of  concerning that which is on drives etc

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise
Sent:	Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:12 PM
To:	Davis, Angela
Cc:	Cook, Mary; Daniels, Eddy
Subject:	RE: Transfers  to Netco

Unless I am mistaken the estate is a part of this new deal, does this mean we can do without this.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Davis, Angela
Sent:	Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:08 PM
To:	Kitchen, Louise
Cc:	Cook, Mary; Daniels, Eddy
Subject:	RE: Transfers  to Netco

Information regarding specific trades can not be transferred due to (i) confidentiality provisions with counterparties and (ii) with respect to power, the need for FERC approval .  Everyone seems to be comfortable that the identity of counterparties can be disclosed, as well as the counterparties contact information and aggregated trade data not associated with any particular counterparty.  Consequently, the software going to Netco will  be cleansed of the trade data and individual's data bases and files should be similarly cleansed.

Angela D. Davis
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB3817
Houston, Texas 77019
Tel: (713) 345-8347
Fax: (713) 646-3393
e-mail: angela.davis@enron.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise
Sent:	Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:02 PM
To:	Davis, Angela
Cc:	Cook, Mary; Daniels, Eddy; Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:	RE: Transfers  to Netco

Why is this necessary in the first place? I really do not understand why it is necessary.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Davis, Angela
Sent:	Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:51 PM
To:	Kitchen, Louise
Cc:	Cook, Mary; Daniels, Eddy; Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:	Transfers  to Netco

Paula Corey has informed that the IT people say it would be impossible to delete all prior trade data from "to be Netco" employees'
h drive
existing e-mail
home directory

The recommendation is to wipe these clean prior to Netco employees obtaining access to them.  Further, the recommendation was made that people not be warned to avoid cheating.  I do not know if not telling people is fair.  However, absent some other solution, it would appear that deleting this information would be advisable.  Would you be the person to instruct the IT people to delete and/or announce to "to be Netco" employees that this will occur?

Angela D. Davis
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB3817
Houston, Texas 77019
Tel: (713) 345-8347
Fax: (713) 646-3393
e-mail: angela.davis@enron.com


Attached are additional drafts of agreements required in connection with the proposed Second Amendment to Master Netting Agreement, a draft of which I forwarded to you earlier. Please excuse the inconsistent reference to Sections - we are still trying to clean that up.

Elizabeth Sager
713-853-6349


ok i'm refaxing your picks - i didnt know you had two.  i have attached a
link to a website that jason has set up for the tourney.  you can follow your
picks this way too.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:48:16 -0800
From: "JASON WELLS" <jwells@nbsrealtors.com>
To: "ANDY SISAVIC" <asisavic@nbsrealtors.com>, "BLAKE HERING, JR."
<bhering@nbsrealtors.com>, "CHRIS HARTMAN" <chartman@nbsrealtors.com>, "CHRIS
JOHNSON" <cjohnson@nbsrealtors.com>, "DOUG JONES" <djones@nbsrealtors.com>,
"DEBBIE KLUG" <dklug@nbsrealtors.com>, "JEFF BORLAUG"
<jborlaug@nbsrealtors.com>, "CLAYTON HERING" <jchering@nbsrealtors.com>, "JOE
DECARLO" <jdecarlo@nbsrealtors.com>, "JOELLE HOHNSTEIN"
<jhohnstein@nbsrealtors.com>, "JOE VAUGHAN" <jvaughan@nbsrealtors.com>, "JEFF
VINGELEN" <jvingelen@nbsrealtors.com>, "JASON WELLS"
<jwells@nbsrealtors.com>, "JOSEPH WOOD" <jwood@nbsrealtors.com>, "KEN GRIGGS"
<kgriggs@nbsrealtors.com>, "KARA NELSON" <knelson@nbsrealtors.com>, "KEITH
YOUNG" <kyoung@nbsrealtors.com>, "MOLLY BORDONARO"
<mbordonaro@nbsrealtors.com>, "MARK FRIEL" <mfriel@nbsrealtors.com>, "MARYN
LYTLE" <mlytle@nbsrealtors.com>, "MICHAEL MERINO" <mmerino@nbsrealtors.com>,
"MICK SINNERUD" <msinnerud@nbsrealtors.com>, "MIKE THARP"
<mtharp@nbsrealtors.com>, "MARK WINDER" <mwinder@nbsrealtors.com>, "RON
SMITH" <rsmith@nbsrealtors.com>, "STACY HOLDEN" <sholden@nbsrealtors.com>,
"TODD HARDING" <tharding@nbsrealtors.com>, "Maggie Reinerman"
<Margaret_Reinerman@ord.uscourts.gov>
Subject: NCAA Tournament Pool
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello to all Pool Participants!

If you are interested in keeping track of the tournament and how you are
doing compared to other people, you can click on this link to see:

http://www.dslnorthwest.net/~jfwells/ncaa/DEFAULT.HTM

This is an automatic output from the software that we are using to keep track
of the entries this year.  Unfortunately, it does not show the Master
Bracket, or Individual Brackets very well.  If I have time this weekend I
will customize that feature.  You can see your score, the leader board, and
find out how people picked individual teams to do.  I will update the site as
groups of games are completed.

If a friend of your from outside of the company is playing in the pool, feel
free to pass this along to them or send me their e-mail and I will include
them in further messages.

The Assistant Commish,
Jason


Please see the attached Schedule and look at Part 3 (Documents to be
delivered) under the headings for Party B (which is EWEB):


sold 210,000 at 7.568 on 6/5/01...pressing ahead

From:	John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/05/2001 05:47 PM CDT
To:	Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:

If we didn't sell any ELP shares over 7 yet I'm taking over the execution.


Thanks for keeping me posted, Larry!  Good luck, and please let me know what
happens!
I'll look forward to seeing you in class in the spring!

Larry.May@enron.com wrote:

> Hi Dr. Leerburger,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.  I know how busy you must be - I have three kids
> (7,5 and 2) so I realize how precious time off is.  I applyed to DIA, NSA
> and CIA about three weeks ago.  I got letters back stating my application
> had been recieved.  The DIA said I have been put into their applicant pool.
> My company (Enron) has offered me a position in London managing a trading
> desk for crude oil and refined products.  They want me to move over in
> January or Febuary, so hopefully I'll know something before then.  If I'm
> not offered anything by then, I'll probably go and plan on applying to
> Georgetown in one to two years.  I really hope I'm offered a position now -
> London would be interesting - but with everything that is going on now, I'd
> rather start this new career now.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback and I hope to speak with you when time
> permits.  If you are teaching the Threat Assesment course at AMU Spring
> 2002, I'll probably be in your class.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry May
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From:   drmahl@erols.com@ENRON
>    Sent:   Friday, October 05, 2001 7:53 PM
>    To:     May, Larry
>    Subject:  Re: Larry May - AMU Student
>
>    Hi Larry;
>
>    First, I find the work to be exceedingly rewarding, and addictive. I
>    have been working in the
>    community for 17 years, and have found that I am listened to, allowed to
>    speak and take
>    risks, and allowed to provide realtime assistance to the top policy
>    makers in our country.
>    My frustrations are that at times, I would like to enact action quickly,
>    and often have to wait
>    for others to add their pieces to the puzzle, or for a chain of command
>    to look at my ideas (I
>    am a GS-14 in a GS-15/DISL job). For someone like me, that's hard!
>
>    I would think your background WOULD make you a viable candidate, and
>    would recommend that
>    you apply to CIA, DIA, and NSA, among others. Yuo can apply directly
>    through each of their
>    websites. ALL are hiring.
>
>    Georgetown's program is terrific. I went there. JMIC is okay, but I
>    think Georgetown would
>    give you what you really need. Georgetown's National Security Studies
>    Program is TOP.
>
>    I'd be more than happy to speak with you, but recommend waiting a bit.
>    My time is not really
>    my own these days,and I am currently working 7 days a week, literally
>    (my last day off was
>    9 September), often 12-16 hours a day. When I get home, I do my school
>    work, and play with my kids.
>    That doesn't leave much time! Let's see if things calm down in a week or
>    so?
>
>    marian
>
>    "May, Larry" wrote:
>
>    > Dear Dr. Leerburger,
>    >
>    > Thank you for your response.  As I wrote in my earlier note, I am
>    > seeking a career change into intelligence analysis. My work the last
>    > eleven years probably has a similar skill set - I basically process a
>    > great deal of information each day in order to arrive at decisions
>    > positioning a large commodity portfolio for my company.  As you may
>    see
>    > from my resume and cover letter, I also have several years of military
>    > experience in the Navy's aviation and intelligence communities
>    >
>    > Given the serious nature of this career change, I wish to speak to
>    > someone currently working in this field (I read your biography on the
>    > AMU website ).  My questions include:
>    >
>    >  - Do you find the work to be rewarding?  What are the attractions and
>    > frustrations of the work?
>    >  - Does my current background make me an attractive candidate for a
>    > mid-level position in the intelligence community?
>    >  - If my background is currently lacking in some respects, would a
>    > graduate level program (I'm applying to both the DIA JMIC      program
>    > and Georgetown's Security Studies MA program) be a good choice?  How
>    do
>    > these programs rate within the intelligence community?
>    >
>    > If convenient, I would like to speak with you concerning these
>    > questions.  I thank you for any assistance you may provide.
>    >
>    > Sincerely,
>    >
>    > Lawrence May
>    > 14542 Kentley Orchard Ln.
>    > Cypress, Texas 77429
>    > Home: 281 379-1525  email: ljnmay@aol.com
>    > Work: 713 853-6731  email: larry.may@enron.com
>    >
>    >
>    > **********************************************************************
>    > This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant
>    affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the
>    sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or
>    disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>    recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact
>    the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at
>    enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the
>    message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be
>    an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and
>    enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and
>    the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by
>    anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
>    > **********************************************************************


Thanks very much for the update.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tholt, Jane M.
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 1:39 PM
To:	Grigsby, Mike; Allen, Phillip K.; Gay, Randall L.; Sullivan, Patti; Groenewold, Shannon; Smith, Matt; Holst, Keith; Lisk, Daniel; South, Steven P.; Ermis, Frank; Lenhart, Matthew; Kuykendall, Tori; Miller, Stephanie; Tycholiz, Barry; Ward, Kim; Dasovich, Jeff; Cantrell, Rebecca W.; Lawner, Leslie; Reitmeyer, Jay
Cc:	Tholt, Jane M.
Subject:	Socal Window Meeting

\Attached is a summary of my notes at the Socal meeting regarding revised window procedures.  No hand-outs were provided.

Calculation of Receipt Point Capacity
Topock  540 mmcf/d
Ehrenberg 1250 mmcf/d
Needles 800 mmcf/d
Wheeler 800 mmcf/d

New Receipt Points
Kramer Junction 200 mmcf/d
Hector Rd 50 mmcf/d
Both will be available around Feb 1

Basis of Pro-Ration-Current Windows Calculation
Currently, Gas Control provides total receipt point capacity comprised of demand forecast and injection capability and compares to maximum amount of gas that can enter system.  Gas Select prorates interstate's receipt capacity based on prior day's nominations.

New Calculation, Changes and Display
Based on operational maximum with adjustments for maintenance.  SoCal ist aking and applying the current formula for Wheeler Ridge to all the points.  Any changes to operational maximum will probably be due to maintenance and posted on Gas Select.  Customer will choose which points it wants to reduce receipts.  Operating maximums will equal demand forecast plus injections.  Demand forecast will rely on Gas Control weather forecast.  They use Weather Bank as one of their tools.

OFO Declaration
Name changes from overnomination
Can declare before any Cycle
Provide 2 hour notice
Post on Gas Select
Show OFO Calculation on Gas Select

Windows
Reason to set windows was to set limits to prevent too much gas from coming into system
Calculation based on noms which does not work well.  Lots of complaints.   People were complaining that it restricted access to the system.  Eliminating point specific calculation.  Open system to Max Oper. Limits or Contractual Limits.   Will continue to operate Wheeler Ridge under Aug 1 procedures.  No changes to Wheeler Ridge.
Due to the need to maintain operational control, an OFO will be declared when scheduled volumes are greater than the max operating capacity on any cycle.
Replace windows with operational maximum volumes.  If  CPUC approves comprehensive settlement, will post 5 days of information to anticipate OFO's
Now customers will elect which point they will back off instead of using windows.

Scheduling Changes-Nov 1
Gas Select is being rebuilt and will be an internet system in mid-2002 .  No direct dial-up.
Rollover noms-noms will be copied from cycle to cycle
Copy confirmed noms
All noms will be rolled over-will not be at discretion of 3rd party.  However, can still make  changes.  Can still upload new files.

2 Hour Notice
Socal will provide 2 hour notice on  Gas Select of OFO.  Other methods include leaving message on Socal Hotline (213-244-3900) and list of e-mail messages that can go directly to pagers.  Gas Select is official notification.  Courtesy notification is hot line and e mail.  Gas Select is a subscriber- based system mandated by CPUC and must get regulatory change to make free.
OFO's are going to be system wide and not customer specific.  OFO's can be declared intraday.  Once OFO declared, it will be kept for entire day.  Concerned that if call off, will have to put back on.  Don't want to go back and forth.  This decision may be reconsidered once they see how it works.  Many times Socal see an increase of 200 mmcf/day between Cycle 3 and 4 so they are concerned.

Scheduled vs. Capacity-Declare OFO
Nominations may not exceed 110% of expected usage.
Expected Usage is defined as usage for the same day for the prior week.  Can revise expected usage.
No interruptible storage injections allowed during OFO.
Use Elapsed Pro-Rata Rules
Expected Usage-cut nominations to 110% of expected usage so will use same day  of the prior week as proxy.  Generators need to revise expected usage.  Acceptance of changes are at the discretion of SoCal.
Flow Day Diversions don't go into effect until after Cycle 4.  Gas Control will determine if flow day diversion will be allowed.
If call OFO after cycle 3 or 4 and have interruptible storage injections, such storage will be prorationed back under the elapsed prorata rules.
Many people were concerned that interruptible storage will be severely compromised.
If OFO called , Interruptible Storage could be cut under the elapsed prorata rules as follows:

Cycle 1    Nom 1000  ; 0 cut
Cycle 2 Nom 1000; 666 cut
Cylce 3 Nom 1000; 500 cut
Windows will only be implemented during cycle 4 if OFO callled after cycle 3 and no improvement is realized.  Will allocate prorata.  Will use latest scheduled volume and will pro rate by receipt point.  In other words, if OFO declared during Cycle 1 and no relief after 3 cycles, Socal will window Cycle 4 and prorata cut. Parties will determine what gets cut on all the other cycles. For penalty purposes, actual burn from 12 o'clock to 12 o'clock will be used to calculate penalties or MAXDQ if not metered.
For OFO, assume supply delivereis day before and burn is the same day for the prior week.  Declare OFO on prior day's scheduled volume.

For an evening declaration-will use most recent available scheduled volumes.  For example:

         Flow Day 10/4                10/3 Scheduled Volumes
Cycle 1                                    Cycle 2
Cycle 2                                     Intraday 1
Cycle 3				evening cyle 2 on 10/4
Cycle 4                                     Intraday 1 on 10/4

In other words, will look at evening cycle 2 scheduled volumes on the 3rd for declaring OFO on cycle 1 for the 4th.; look at intra day 1 for the 3rd in declaring OFO for cycle 2 on the 4th;  look at evening cycle 2 on 10/4 in declaraing OFO for Cycle 3 on the 4th;  look at intraday 1 on the 4th in declaraing OFO on cycle 4 for the 4th.

Winter Balancing Rules
Effective Nov 1-March 31
No changes.
All customers must comply.
Minimum delivery requirements
50% of daily usage over 5 day period; (Nov 1-5;6-10;)
70% of daily usage depending on storage level
70% daily usage implemented when storage levels equal 20 bcf above peak day min
90% of daily usage depending on storage level
90% rule implemented when storage levels equal 5 bcf  plus peak day min.
Look at storage graph on Gas Select.  Posted 24 hours in advance if the minimum daily is changed.  If go to 70% , current 5 day cycle must end completely, before new % goes into effect.
Must increase storage inventory by 1 bcf above the 70% before going back to 50% rule.
Once 90% rule implemented, will return to 70% as soon as operationally feasible,

Contracted Marketer's customer usage and delivereies are aggregated in one balancing account.

Core Aggregation-subject to 50% daily throughout entire winter period based on DCQ.
Core-50% of daily throughput for the enitre period,; (Patrick Brown group)
Not subject to 70% and 90% rules.

2 types of gas count toward daily obligation- firm storage withdrawal and flowing gas.  As-available storage and imbalance trading do not count.

Burn=measured daily usage thru electronic measurement,
Min DQ-used if customer does not have electronic measurement.

Customer assessed  GIMB charge if total deliveries is less than 50% of total burn over 5 day period.  Customer purchases gas at daily balancing stand-by rate under  G IMB Rate Schedule which is 150% of highest Socal Border price per NGI Gas Daily plus franchise fees and other charges.  Rate is posted at end of every month.

OFO can be declared during undernom season (winter season)


So did I. It seems Jim by-passed Presto.

I would really like her on the ground by early July - when I have 2 weeks
back here to collect my family & vacate.

Also - she seemed to think that she could spend time 50/50 in the interim.

I'm completely aware of how difficult it is to extract ones-self from a job -
I'm there.

Thoughts?

B.

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  Sally Beck                           09/05/2000 00:56

To: Barry Pearce/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: Heads Up

I made the assumption when you said that Jim Fallon had said that Kristin's
name was "in play", that he and Kristin had coordinated a transition with
Kevin Presto that made him comfortable.  At an ENA offsite meeting on
Wednesday and Thursday last week, I talked with Kevin during a break to see
if was comfortable with Kristin's number two as his risk lead.
Unfortunately, Kevin knew nothing about this.  So rather than discuss the
transition, Kevin had to react to and absorb this as a possibility.  He had
some very valid business reasons as to why Kristin's movement over the summer
months would be risky for ENA.  You and I can discuss those if you would
like.  His reaction was not "never", but instead was "not now".  He and
Kristin talked on Friday and agreed to a transition in mid August.  Let's
discuss.  --Sally

Barry Pearce
05/08/2000 11:14 AM
To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Heads Up

I heard Kristen was the topic of a discussion between Jim and Presto -
re:timing.

Kristen was going to meet with you.

Jim wants real soon - Presto wants never - you know - the regular story.

Let me know if you hear anything.

B.


Stacey,
 I am sorry that you got involved.  The HPL group had already indicated that
they did not have the documents.


Ditto Happy Birthday From Me Too!  Was I the first D-In-Law to wish you Happy Birthday?

-----Original Message-----
From: Erb, Kim [mailto:KErb@houston.deepwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:22 AM
To: Arliene Erb (E-mail)
Subject: Happy Birthday

Mom,

Happy Birthday.  Was I the first?  Can't what to see you this weekend.
Think about where you want to go to dinner.

Love

Your Favorite Son..........(Not Ryan) Kim


I almost forget about your debt, but then your BMW 315ia reminded me of it.


Sasha:

Thanks very much for adding me to the database.  If I could impose upon you
once again, would you please also arrange access for Tana Jones?  She is
going to assist me with the database project you and I discussed and I think
your database will be a big help.

Thanks again!

Mark


Hi Sara,
Let me know if this works:

(d) Conditions Precedent and Secured Party's Rights and Remedies.  The
following Termination Event(s) will be a "Specified Condition" for the party
specified (that party being the Affected Party if the Termination Event
occurs with respect to that party); provided however, for purposes of
Paragraph 4(a) the words "or Specified Condition" in Paragraph 4(a)(i) shall
be deleted:

Specified Condition Party A Party B
Illegality  [X] [X]
Tax Event  [X] [X]
Tax Event Upon Merger  [X] [X]
Credit Event Upon Merger  [X] [X]
Additional Termination Event(s):  None None

Delene M. Travella
Vice President
Capital Markets, Derivatives
Telephone: (704) 383-8778
Facsimile: (704) 383-0575
email: delene.travella@funb.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sara.Shackleton@enron.com [SMTP:Sara.Shackleton@enron.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:23 PM
> To: delene.travella@funb.com
> Subject: language
>
> Dee:   I'm in the midst of a closing; can you email language to me?
>
> 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


Updates
Jennifer Burns - new cell phone number
Kathy McMahon - new executive committee assistant


All,

Attached please find the current TAGG/ERMS project list for the user meeting tomorrow at 10 a.m. in ECN-49c3.

Thanks & regards,

Karima Husain
Project Manager, Gas Tactical
(713) 345-7252


Maureen - please forward on to Barry when you get his e-mail address.

Barry - I don't know Humberto personally, but looking over his resume, I
thought he might be a fit in your organization.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 05/24/2001
03:00 PM ---------------------------

"Humberto Kuhn" <BetoKuhn@msn.com> on 05/21/2001 11:17:21 AM
To: <skean@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Humberto (Beto) Kuhn, resume

Dear Steve:? With sincere and advance thanks, and pursuant to your recent
conversation with my brother, George, I attach a copy of?the short version?of
my resume.? I have a longer detailed version, as well as numerous references,
that I will be pleased to furnish you.? In addition, I am at your disposal at
any time that?you or any others at ENRON should wish to meet with me.?
Again,?my thanks for your assistance and guidance.
?
Kind regards,
?
?
Beto Kuhn
Cell:? 713/ 906-8463
Res:? 713/ 467-3974
 - RESUME HGK,Short Form 05-01.doc


Steve,

Attached is my listing of 2000 accomplishments and goals achieved.  Please
let me know if you need additional information or explanation.

John


Sold 5,000 @ 33.03

David L. Shine
Vice President-Investments
UBS PaineWebber
1111 Bagby, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 654-0396  Direct
(800) 553-3119  Toll Free
(713) 654-4723  Fax