Charity gets a time at bat from Enron
Houston Chronicle, 10/03/01
States protest federal involvement in electricity competition, deregulation
Associated Press Newswires, 10/03/01
USA: Enron stock extends recovery with 10 pct jump.
Reuters English News Service, 10/03/01
Nigeria LNG Signs MOUs With Enron, Iberdrola
Dow Jones Energy Service, 10/03/01
Supreme Court Hears Case With High Import For Pwr Mkts
Dow Jones Energy Service, 10/03/01
INDIA: Enron's Indian unit again defaults on interest dues.
Reuters English News Service, 10/03/01
USA: Energy merchant stocks up after Calif. settlement.
Reuters English News Service, 10/03/01
BG India Hopes To Be Operator Of Enron Fields By Oct 31
Dow Jones Energy Service, 10/03/01
Enron sells Indian oil and gas assets to British operator
Associated Press Newswires, 10/03/01
Enron Confirms India Oil, Gas Assets Sale To BG Grp
Dow Jones Energy Service, 10/03/01
BG Group to Buy Enron India Assets for $388 Million (Update4)
Bloomberg, 10/03/01

U.S. Supreme Court Questions Reach of Federal Energy Regulators
Bloomberg, 10/03/01

Enron to Sell Oil, Gas Fields in India to BG Group (Update1)
Bloomberg, 10/03/01

Oct. 3, 2001
Houston Chronicle
Charity gets a time at bat from Enron
By GREG HASSELL
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle
When Houstonians gather at Enron Field this week, Barry Bonds' attempt to rack up 71 homers in a single season won't be the only unprecedented feat on display.
Just above the scoreboard that will record any homers Bonds might send screaming out of the ballyard is a sign bearing the United Way logo. It looks ordinary enough, like the dozens of other ads that dot the stadium.
But the last time the Astros played at home, the sign bore Enron Corp. logo. Late last week Enron donated the sign to United Way, which will get the space through the 2002 season. It's the first time a naming rights sponsor of a modern U.S. stadium has donated a major sign to charity.
According to advertisers familiar with rates at Enron Field, the sign is worth about $500,000 a year. Since Enron maintains a small logo on the sign, the actual value of the gift would be less.
"This tells the world that, as powerful as Enron is, they put a lot of stock in what we do," said Jackie Martin, president of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast. "That's beyond the power of dollars. It's priceless."
Enron decided to make the gift because it had two signs in the park, including one that reads ENRON FIELD in huge blue letters.
"I looked up there and thought, `This might be a little bit of overkill,' " said Mark Palmer, vice president of Enron's corporate communications. "We could really help one of our community partners if we shared that space up there. For all the great work the United Way does, it makes sense to partner with them."
Name gets a lot of play
Since Enron agreed to pay $100 million for the naming rights, it has reaped a public-relations bonanza.
"When people say they are going to a game here, they say, `I'm going to Enron,' " Palmer said. "That is tremendous for our company."
Because of the stadium's odd dimensions and the tremendous number of home runs hit there, the name Enron Field is famous in sporting circles.
"I was in London, and I overheard a television announcer say, `Big news at Enron!' "Palmer said. "My head just about snapped off, I turned around so fast. Then I realized it was CNN Sports, and they were talking about the stadium."
While Enron's experience shows naming rights deals can give a mighty boost to a corporation's name, the wider world of naming rights deals is embroiled in turmoil these days.
A number of companies that shelled out millions for naming rights are in financial trouble. That includes PSINet Stadium in Baltimore, named for a dot-com turned dot-bomb. It includes Pro Player Stadium in Miami, named for a troubled maker of sports apparel.
The St. Louis Rams play in a dome named after TWA, but the financially trouble airline has been bought out and the dome's name is for sale.
In past naming-rights deals, the heaviest buyers have been high-tech outfits and airlines. Both of those industries are in the toilet now, and it seems unlikely we'll see any big deals coming from those quarters anytime soon.
"It is a period of uncertainty," said Todd Gruen, managing editor of a publication called Naming Rights Deals. "Once we get a handle on where the economy is going, the naming rights industry can find its place as well."
Some deals go sour
But the situation is more serious than merely dollars and cents. In some cities, there has been a backlash against selling names to the highest bidder.
The mayor of Chicago threatened to scuttle a deal to refurbish Soldier Field unless the Bears relented on their demands for naming-rights revenues. The team backed down last week.
In Denver, the Denver Post is refusing to call the new stadium there Invesco Field at Mile High. Instead, it will call it Mile High Stadium -- the name of the legendary abandoned stadium next door. Denver's mayor, who lobbied hard against selling the name to a corporation, applauded the snub.
Does this mean the golden days of naming rights are over? Will the Rockets find a dry well when they go courtin' for a naming-rights partner for their new downtown arena?
"We've seen a leveling off of prices and we'll continue to see a leveling off for the next few years," said Dean Bonham, president of the Bonham Group, which negotiates naming rights deals. "But contrary to some reports, the sky isn't falling. These deals will continue to be sought by corporations, just not with the sense of urgency we've seen in the past."

States protest federal involvement in electricity competition, deregulation
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer

10/03/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Several states told the Supreme Court the government went too far when it ordered electric utilities to open their power lines to competitors and spurred a movement toward deregulation.
But one of the country's largest power marketers, Enron, argued before the court Wednesday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have gone even further to help companies like Enron get equal access to power grids.
During the hourlong hearing, the justices gave little indication of how they will decide on a case that could dramatically affect management of the nation's power grids and the future of electricity competition.
At one point, Justice Stephen Breyer said FERC, which regulates wholesale power markets and interstate transmission of power, was being "whipsawed" from both directions.
The commission's 1996 decision, which for the first time required traditional utilities to open their transmission lines to competing power merchants, triggered a movement toward wholesale electricity competition and led numerous states to end monopolies in retail power markets.
But utility regulators in nine states, led by New York, filed suit arguing that the FERC order amounts to a federal agency attempting to regulate retail sales, usurping a traditional state function.
At the same time, Enron's lawsuit charged that FERC violated federal law because it did not require access to transmission lines when utilities continued to keep transmission and retail sales as one operation - as remains the case in many states that have yet to allow competition.
In June 2000, an appellate court essentially upheld FERC's regulation, prompting appeals from both Enron and the state regulators.
"It's an example of where an agency has overstepped its bounds," Lawrence Malone, general counsel for the New York State Public Service Commission, told the justices at Wednesday's hearing. The other states party to the suit are Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Vermont and Wyoming.
Malone, appearing on behalf of all nine states, argued that FERC's order pre-empts state authority to regulate retail sales and set rates.
"This case isn't about rates," countered Louis Cohen, representing Enron Power Marketing Inc. before the court. "What we're concerned about is getting onto the (grid) system."
Cohen said that under the current access rules a dominant utility in a state that has not moved to competition may still "hog" the lines and keep Enron and similar marketers from moving power across a region.
The Justice Department, representing FERC before the court, argued that the commission only sought to strike a balance between the need to give competitors equal access to power lines and leaving retail market issues to the states.
Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, told the court that FERC, in his view, could have gone further, as Enron has argued. But, he said, to do so it would first have had to order all utilities to separate retail sales and transmission, something it chose to leave to the states.
The case, which is not expected to be decided until sometime next year, comes at a time of growing concern about electricity competition and power grid reliability in light of recent power problems in California.
About half of the states have taken some steps toward retail electricity competition.
Many power industry experts as well as the FERC commissioners have emphasized that a truly competitive electricity market will be difficult to achieve without smooth and efficient flow of electricity across large regions, if not nationally. And that, argue companies like Enron who want to compete with traditional utilities, will require more open access to transmission.
In an attempt to smooth the flow of power, FERC has embarked on a campaign to establish four large, regional transmission organizations to manage the national power grid. A court decision rolling back some of FERC's authority over open access to transmission lines could affect that effort.
Uncertainty over how far the federal government will be allowed to go in requiring transmission access also could affect state decisions on whether to embrace electricity competition, according to some industry experts.
---
On the Net:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: http://www.ferc.fed.us/
Enron: http://www.enron.com/corp/

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

USA: Enron stock extends recovery with 10 pct jump.

10/03/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

HOUSTON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Shares of Houston-based energy marketing and trading giant Enron Corp. extended their recent recovery from 3-year lows with a 10 percent gain on Wednesday amid improving investor sentiment toward companies that operate in U.S. wholesale natural gas and electricity markets.
In afternoon trading Enron's stock was up $3.17 at $33.78, in a fifth straight day of gains since closing just above $25 on Sept. 26, its lowest close since October 1998.
However, Enron's stock still shows a loss for the year-to-date of some 59 percent, compared with a decline of about 19 percent for the S&P 500 index, and Enron is trading well below highs of around $90 set in August and September of last year.
"Enron was really beaten up because of several issues and was really oversold, so that's why it continues to recover," said Banc of America Securities analyst William Maze.
The Houston-based company's stock fell sharply in August after the surprise resignation of Jeff Skilling as chief executive officer but the stock had already come under pressure as a result of a disappointing performance by its fledgling broadband business and a stalled power plant project in India.
Maze said Enron was currently benefiting from a realization among investors that wholesale natural gas and power companies would probably suffer less than other sectors if the United States enters a protracted economic downturn.
"It's one of the few sectors that offers some visibility to (earnings) numbers both this year and next year, so there is quite a bit of interest coming back into the group," he said.
Maze said Enron and its peers also got a boost on Wednesday from Edison International unit Southern California Edison's plan to pay its creditors and avoid bankruptcy, even though Enron is not one of SoCal Ed's biggest creditors.
Enron and its peers should also benefit from new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pat Wood's commitment to opening up the national power transmission grid, Maze said, while Enron's sale of its Indian oil and gas assets, announced on Wednesday, underscores its commitment to its "asset-light" doctrine.

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

Nigeria LNG Signs MOUs With Enron, Iberdrola

10/03/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LAGOS -(Dow Jones)- Nigeria LNG Ltd has signed memoranda of understanding with Enron Corp. and Spanish power company Iberdrola for the sale of LNG volumes from the 4th and 5th production units of its expansion program, NLNG said in a statement released here Wednesday.
Nigeria LNG plans to commence production from the two new units in 2005. However, it needs firm sales agreements accounting for all the production from those units before it will finalize the invesment.
The latest deals bring to 6.5 BCM/year the LNG volume from units four and five already committed. Each of the new production units will have capacity of 4 BCM/year.
Nigeria LNG and Enron had earlier signed an MOU for 1 billion cubic meters per year for the expansion program, also known as NLNG Plus volumes. The second agreement raises Enron's share of NLNG Plus volumes from 1 BCM/year to 4 BCM/year.
Spanish and North American receiving facilities are the primary destinations for LNG shipments to Enron under the new agreement, the statement said.
Iberdrola, which signed an MOU for 1.5 BCM/Year, will receive its shipments at the Spanish receiving terminal of Huelva.
Jean-Francois Capelle, General Manager, Commercial, of Nigeria LNG Limited, said MOUs will soon be signed for the remaining volumes of LNG from these units, and that work had already started on sales and purchase agreements to firm up these contracts. These may be signed by the last quarter of the year.
NLNG commenced commercial operation in October 1999 with its two-unit, 5.9 -million tons per annum Base Project. A third unit of similar design and capacity as the Base Project unit is currently under construction and is scheduled for completion in late 2002.
On completion of the NLNG Plus Project, NLNG will have an overall production capacity of 17 million tons per annum of LNG and 2 million tons per annum of LPG.
NLNG is a Nigerian Joint Venture company whose shareholders are the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (49%), Shell (25.6%), TotalFinaElf (15%) and Agip (10.4%).
-By Vincent Nwanma; +234-1-585-0849/775-6185; vinwanma@beta.linkserve.com

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

Supreme Court Hears Case With High Import For Pwr Mkts
By Bryan Lee
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

10/03/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday wrestled with how to interpret the 1935 Federal Power Act in the wake of competitive changes that have swept the $220 billion U.S. electricity sector over the past decade.
The justices heard oral arguments in competing challenges to rules the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adopted in 1996 requiring utilities to open their transmission lines to competing wholesale power providers.
The case has great ramifications for congressional debate of electric industry restructuring legislation and FERC's ongoing efforts to promote competition as a surrogate for regulation.
"If you pull the rug out from under (FERC's rulemaking), the implications are enormous," said Vicky Bailey, the U.S. Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs. Bailey was a FERC commissioner in 1996 when the rules were imposed.
State regulators argued the commission preempted their authority to regulate power sales at retail, while Enron Power Marketing Inc. (ENE), the nation's largest competitive power provider, maintained FERC failed to assert all the jurisdiction it could under the 66-year-old statute.
FERC's open-access mandate, called Order No. 888, paved the way for competitive wholesale power markets. It also set the stage for a 1999 rulemaking carrying that mandate even further to require utilities to turn control of their power lines over to independent management by regional transmission organizations, or RTOs.
But that sweeping effort to reshape the nation's interconnected power grid under control of a handful of RTOs would be hampered if the court agrees with the arguments of state utility regulators that FERC's rules supplanted authority Congress intended the states to have.
If the court agrees with Enron, FERC would have a much freer hand in carrying out its RTO rulemaking.
At issue is the arcane concept of "bundled" versus "unbundled" retail electricity sales. Congress in 1935 never envisioned that half the states today would have moved to open retail electricity service to competition among utilities and alternative providers.
Until the onset of retail power competition, states regulated wholesale power transmission services "bundled" into the retail transaction as an intrastate transaction. FERC regulated interstate transmission services in support of wholesale sales.
But FERC in Order No. 888 determined that once a state opens its power market to retail competition, then wholesale transmission services in support of the retail sales have been "unbundled," and regulation would shift from the states to the federal government.
FERC's policy call usurped state control of retail power sales that Congress intended in 1935, Lawrence G. Malone, general counsel for the New York Public Utility Commission, told the court.
FERC's assertion of authority over wholesale transmission services in support of unbundled retail sales should be struck down in order to preserve the "bright line" between retail and wholesale power sales Congress established in 1935, he said.
"We now have two hands on the retail wheel and it doesn't work," Malone said, accusing FERC of "overreaching" and "rewriting the law."
But Enron argued that FERC should have asserted authority over all wholesale transmission services, whether retail sales are bundled or unbundled. Allowing states to regulate wholesale transmission associated with retail sales violates the interstate commerce clause and disrupts sales in wholesale power markets, said Louis R. Cohen, the attorney representing Enron.
"Utilities hog these (transmission) facilities for their own use and keep us off the road," Cohen said, employing a highway analogy.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler argued on behalf of FERC for the court to uphold Order No. 888, which a lower court last year found was a permissible interpretation of FERC's authority under the law.
In its June 2000 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said FERC's open-access transmission mandate represented a reasonable assumption of authority to remedy "a persistent barrier to the development of a competitive wholesale power sale market."
Nevertheless, Kneedler supported Enron's position by stating that FERC has jurisdiction over transmission in bundled retail rates. Any electricity transmitted on the power grid "is necessarily in interstate commerce," Kneedler said.
The justices actively questioned the three attorneys about the language in the Federal Power Act addressing state and federal jurisdiction over electricity sales.
The questioning seemed designed to determine if FERC erred, as Enron argued, in not asserting authority over all transmission services, or if the commission properly exercised discretion in asserting its authority, as the lower court ruled.
But the questioning didn't provide a clear indication as to how the court will ultimately decide the case.
Justice Antonin Scalia, renowned as being a strict constructionist of statutory language, appeared to argue both sides on the case, depending upon whether he was challenging arguments by Malone for New York or Cohen for Enron.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's statements appeared to support Enron's position.
"In 1935, we didn't have these interstate grids," O'Connor said. "Today, with a multi-state grid, it's hard to know how any transmission across the grid is anything but interstate commerce," she said.
At another point, O'Connor asked: "What difference does it make if transmission is bundled or unbundled?"
Lynne Church, president of the Electric Power Supply Association, which represents competitive power providers and supported Enron's case before the court, was optimistic that the court will rule that FERC's authority is expansive.
"I think Enron won," Church said.
"I'm cautiously optimistic we'll get a good result," said Cohen, Enron's attorney.
But Charles Gray, executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, called the arguments and the probing by the justices "inconclusive."
No matter which way the court rules, Congress will need to pass electricity legislation to address the divide between state and federal jurisdiction, said Gray, who represents state utility regulators.
"I've learned the hard way not to make judgments based on oral arguments," said Elizabeth Moler, who was FERC's chairman in 1996.
Moler, who now heads the Washington office of Exelon Corp. (EXC), called for the court to side with Enron's argument.
"The world has changed since Order No. 888," Moler said, calling the commission's 1996 jurisdictional call a "fair reading" of the law at the time. "If I was there today, I'd go much further," she said.
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; 202 862-6647; bryan.lee@dowjones.com

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

INDIA: Enron's Indian unit again defaults on interest dues.

10/03/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Dabhol Power Co, the troubled Indian unit of U.S. energy giant Enron Corp , said on Wednesday it has defaulted on interest payments totalling $24 million, the company's second interest default in the past two weeks.
"We have not made interest payments due on September 30 to Indian lenders," a Dabhol spokesman told Reuters.
He said the lenders belonged to a consortium of Indian banks and financial institutions led by the country's largest term lender, Industrial Development Bank of India .
Enron's spokesman told Reuters on September 21 that Dabhol defaulted on interest owed to international lenders, but had not specified the amount.
Some of these payments were also to be made by September 30.
Dabhol's power plant on the western coast of India, built at a cost of $2.9 billion, has been shut since June after its sole buyer, a loss-making local utility, stopped purchasing power and defaulted on payments.
In addition to shutting down the 740 MW first phase of the plant, Dabhol ended work on the almost-completed second phase, which would have increased the capacity to 2,184 MW.
The utility, the state-owned Maharashtra State Electricity Board, had contracted to buy all the plant's output, but later said it didn't need all the power, which it said was too expensive.
Dabhol and the utility are now locked in a legal dispute.
Dabhol has not been earning any revenue since June, and last month requested an unspecified amount from lenders to meet its monthly interest payments.
The Dabhol spokesman said the lenders have still not responded to its request for assistance.
Almost 70 percent of the power plant was funded by debt. Indian lenders, including banks and financial institutions, have lent about $1.4 billion and foreign lenders have contributed the rest.
Of the 30 percent equity, Enron owns 65 percent, the state utility owns 15 percent, with General Electric and Bechtel owning 10 percent each.

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

USA: Energy merchant stocks up after Calif. settlement.

10/03/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

NEW YORK, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Shares of energy merchant firms rose sharply Wednesday in early trade after California's second largest utility reached a deal which will allow it to pay off the debt incurred to them for buying power.
Late Tuesday, Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International , said it reached a deal with state utility regulators that will enable it to develop a plan to pay off creditors. SCE amassed $3.9 billion in debt over the past year buying power, mostly from merchant energy companies.
"I would imagine they are going up on the probability they are going to get paid," said Raymond Moore, an analyst with with Weatherly Securities.
Gainers included Mirant Corp. , which was up 8.63 percent or $1.96 to $24.66; Enron Corp. , up 6.11 percent or $1.87 to $32.48; and Calpine Corp. , up 8.69 percent or $2.15 to $26.90.
The fact that energy merchants are trading at historical lows relative to the Standard & Poor's 500 increase their attractiveness to investors, wrote Salomon Smith Barney analyst Raymond Niles in a research note.
Niles recommends the entire group, which also includes Dynegy Inc. , Duke Energy Corp. , El Paso Corp. , Williams Cos. Inc. and Aquila Inc. . With the exception of Duke, the group was up between 1 and 4 percent.
. (C) Reuters Limited 2001.

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

BG India Hopes To Be Operator Of Enron Fields By Oct 31

10/03/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

NEW DELHI -(Dow Jones)- British Gas India Pvt. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the U.K.-based oil and natural gas company BG Group PLC (BRG), hopes to become the operator of the Pannna-Mukta oil and gas field and the Tapti gas field located offshore India's western coast by Oct. 31, BG India's Chief Executive Nigel Shaw said Wednesday.
As reported, BG Group earlier Wednesday announced a conditional acquisition of U.S. energy company Enron Corp.'s (ENE) 30% stake in the Tapti and Panna-Mukta fields subject to getting the operatorship of the fields. The acquistion, worth $388 million, will be for Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd.'s entire offshore interests.
"It's clear. If we don't get the operatorship, we will walk away. We are currently in talks with both ONGC and Reliance, the two other partners in Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields," Shaw told reporters at a press conference in New Delhi.
India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (P.ONG) holds a 40% stake in Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields while Reliance Industries Ltd. (P.REL) owns the remaining 30%.
Shaw said the commercially recoverable reserves from Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields have been estimated at 783 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 43 million barrels of crude oil.
The natural gas from Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields will continue to be sold to the state-owned Gas Authority of India Ltd. (P.GAI) if BG becomes the operator.
"The contract with Gas Authority of India will remain for the life of the fields. There won't be any change in the original sales contract," Shaw said.
He added that BG India will try to double the current output from Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields by 2004.
"That will be the best case scenario depending upon the overall domestic demand for oil and gas," Shaw said.
Production from Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields totalled an average of 70 million standard cubic feet of natural gas a day and 8,200 barrels of crude a day in the year to March 31, Shaw added.
-By Himendra Kumar, Dow Jones Newswires; 91-11-461-9426; himendra.kumar@dowjones.com

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

Enron sells Indian oil and gas assets to British operator

10/03/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

SINGAPORE (AP) - Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. said Wednesday that it has sold its Indian oil and gas assets to the United Kingdom's BG Group PLC for dlrs 388 million.
Enron Oil and Gas India - a subsidiary of U.S. energy giant Enron Corp. - held a 30 percent stake in the Tapti gas field and Panna-Mukta oil and gas field.
It also held a 62.64 percent interest in a major gas and oil exploration license.
"The sale is subject to completion of arrangement with joint-venture partners," an Enron spokesman said.
He said BG is making arrangements with Enron "to continue as operator."
State-owned Oil & Natural Gas Corp. holds a 40 percent stake in the Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields, while the other 30 percent is owned by Reliance Industries Ltd.
Energy analysts have said Enron Oil and Gas India is likely to have undersold its oil and gas assets.
Earlier this year, the state reportedly bid dlrs 400 million for Enron's Indian oil and gas assets, only to have the bid rejected. Analysts said Enron was unlikely to settle for anything less than dlrs 600 million for its 30 percent stake in the venture.
Analysts say the sale may herald Enron Corp.'s departure from the controversial Dabhol Power Project - India's largest private power plant - of which Enron Corp. has a 65 percent controlling stake.
The dlrs 3 billion Dabhol project has been mired in financial disputes when its main customer, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, failed to pay several of its bills.
"This is unrelated to Dabhol," the spokesman said, however. "We had expressed an interest (in selling the oil and gas assets) before the Dabhol problems had begun."
(dj/hp-ep)

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

Enron Confirms India Oil, Gas Assets Sale To BG Grp

10/03/2001
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

SINGAPORE -(Dow Jones)- Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd., a subsidiary of U.S. energy major Enron Corp. (ENE), confirmed Wednesday that it has sold its Indian oil and gas assets to the U.K.'s BG Group PLC (BRG) for US$388 million.
EOGIL held a total 30% stake in the Tapti gas field and Panna-Mukta oil and gas field and a 62.64% interest in the CB-OS/1 exploration license.
"The sale is subject to completion of arrangement with joint-venture partners," an EOGIL spokesman said. "BG is making arrangements with EOGIL to continue as operator."
State-owned Oil & Natural Gas Corp. (P.ONG) holds a 40% stake in the Panna-Mukta and Tapti fields, while the other 30% is owned by Reliance Industries Ltd. (P.REL).
Energy analysts have said EOGIL is likely to have undersold its oil and gas assets.
Earlier this year, ONGC reportedly bid US$400 million for Enron's Indian oil and gas assets, only to have its bid rejected. Analysts said Enron was unlikely to settle for anything less than US$600 million for its 30% stake in the venture.
The EOGIL spokesman declined to comment on the issue, saying the size of bids reported in the press were "speculative."
The spokesman also declined to comment on reports that ONGC was positioning itself to be operator.
Analysts have said EOGIL's offloading of its oil and gas assets in India may herald Enron Corp.'s departure from the controversial Dabhol Power Project - India's largest private power plant - of which Enron Corp. has a 65% controlling stake.
The US$3 billion Dabhol project has been mired in financial disputes when its main customer, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, failed to pay several of its bills.
"This is unrelated to Dabhol," the spokesman said. "We had expressed an interest (in selling the oil and gas assets) before the Dabhol problems had begun."
-By Sri Jegarajah, Dow Jones Newswires; 65-415-4066; sri.jegarajah@dowjones.com -0- 03/10/01 09-20G

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

BG Group to Buy Enron India Assets for $388 Million (Update4)
2001-10-03 12:30 (New York)

BG Group to Buy Enron India Assets for $388 Million (Update4)

     (Adds BG closing share price in the fifth paragraph, Enron
shares in the sixth, BG comment in the 15th.)

     London, Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- BG Group Plc, the onetime U.K.
natural gas monopoly, agreed to buy Enron Corp.'s oil and natural
gas fields in India for $388 million, its biggest purchase to date
in a bid to fill the nation's growing energy shortage.

     India's gas production fell 11 percent to 1999 from 1997 as
Oil & Natural Gas Corp., the state explorer, made no significant
discoveries in 15 years. Insufficient supplies of gas have hurt
growth in the country's fertilizer and chemicals industries and
hampered upgrading of its power plants, still mostly coal-fed.

     Domestic bureaucracy has already thwarted efforts in India by
Electricite de France and Cogetrix Energy Inc., which have pulled
out, while Enron is locked in a price dispute with authorities.
The government is the sole buyer of gas and power from producers
and the sole seller to distributors.

     ``BG has gotten assets in an undersupplied market for a
reasonable price,'' said Roger Richards, who helps manage $12
billion at Prudential Bache in London. ``True, there's general
concern about the state involvement. But if you get your foot in
the door, stay and work hard, you'll enjoy returns.''

     BG shares fell 2.5p, or 1 percent, to 261p in London. BG
shares over the past year have risen 1.1 percent, while the 11-
member FT-SE All-Share Oil & Gas Index has fallen 9.6 percent.

     Enron shares rose as much as $2.84, or 9.3 percent, to $33.45
in New York.

     The government expects a gas deficit to triple in the next
six years unless new wells are drilled or existing fields expand
sales. BG, with 70 percent of its reserves as gas, is pushing to
sell the fuel in markets from the U.S. to Asia. At Enron, the sale
is part of a drive to end pumping oil and gas and focus on energy
trading.

                       Core Area

     ``The deal crystallizes India as a new core area of
operations,'' said David McManus, a BG executive vice president,
in an interview. ``India's gas demand is expected to grow by half
over the next 10 years, while its gas production is falling. We
aim to bridge this huge gap in some part.''

     The operations include a 30 percent stake in the Tapti gas
field and the Panna/Mukhta oil and gas field, as well as 63
percent of an untapped deposit on the west coast of India. The
assets hold more than 170 million barrels of oil and gas, BG said.

     ``They're supplementing their existing gas business in India
with new reserves,'' said Anthony Eccles, an analyst at Dresdner
Kleinwort Wasserstein in London. ``That justifies the price they
agreed to pay.''

     BG controls Gujarat Gas Co., which supplies gas to customers
in the Gujarat state, and owns half of Mahanagar Gas Ltd., which
serves Mumbai. It also is building a liquefied natural gas plant
in Gujarat.

     The Gas Authority of India is the monopoly buyer of gas from
the fields and the seller of the fuel to BG's ventures. While the
fields' existing output has been fully contracted to the Gas
Authority, the company will negotiate a right to bypass it with
additional production, McManus said.

                        Commitment

    ``They must be committed to getting additional gas out of the
ground'' to make the investment pay off, said Iain Reid, an
analyst at UBS Warburg. ``This is the rationale for the deal.''

     The acquisition is conditional on whether BG will be approved
as the fields' operator, the company said.

     BG will invest ``hundreds of millions'' of dollars to double
production in the Tapti field by 2004 if the other two partners in
the venture, Reliance Industries Ltd. and ONGC Ltd., contribute as
well, said Nigel Shaw, chief executive officer of BG India Pvt.
     ``BG is ready to play its part,'' he said.

     Lehman Brothers advised BG on the acquisition, McManus said.
     The agreement ``represents a significant step for Enron in
selling assets not integrated into our wholesale or retail energy
businesses,'' Enron president for exploration and production Jeff
Sherrick said in a statement.

     The assets being sold to BG exclude Enron's Dabhol Power Co.
project in India, a $3 billion venture entangled in a nine-month
payment dispute with its state-run buyer. Enron has said it wants
to sell its 65 percent share of Dabhol, which is owed $64 million
by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.

     Both Enron and BG said the sale of gas fields are unrelated
to Dabhol's troubles. McManus declined to say whether BG would be
interested in buying Dabhol.

     Before agreeing with BG, Enron rejected bids from its Indian
venture partners, ONGS and Reliance, as well as from the nation's
biggest refiner, Indian Oil Corp.

                         Competition

     BG faces competition from other companies eager to set foot
in the Indian gas market.

     Both Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Europe's largest oil company,
and Indian state-owned energy companies are developing LNG
terminals in Gujarat, whose coast faces Oman across the Arabian
Sea.

U.S. Supreme Court Questions Reach of Federal Energy Regulators
2001-10-03 16:37 (New York)

U.S. Supreme Court Questions Reach of Federal Energy Regulators

     Washington, Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court
considered how far federal energy regulators can push electric
utilities to make their power lines available to competitors.

     The nine justices heard oral arguments today on a landmark
1996 federal order requiring utilities to provide equal access to
their power transmission networks. Regulators say giving
competitors access to the power grid formerly run by utilities is
key to opening the power business to competition.

     New York and other states say the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission order infringed on state authority and could prevent
states from making sure power goes to their neediest customers
during shortages. Power trader Enron Corp. takes the opposite
view, saying the order didn't go far enough to ensure competition.

     ``We're trying to protect the rates and services for the 127
million customers in this country,'' Lawrence Malone, New York
State Public Service Commission general counsel, told the court.

     The justices offered no clear indication of how they will
rule, and several struggled to understand the technical issues of
grid mechanics.

     ``I don't even know how this works, all this blocking,
scheduling business,'' Justice Stephen G. Breyer said during a
discussion of ways utilities can discriminate against competing
power suppliers.

     The question is whether a 1935 law gives FERC authority to
enact the rule, which is targeted at states that have opened their
energy markets to competition, or about half the nation.
     The court is expected to rule by the end of June.

                       Protecting Hospitals

     A ruling against the commission could halt the nation's
advance toward opening to competition the electricity business,
which had $226.5 billion in U.S. sales in 2000, experts said.

     ``If the court enshrines some limitations on FERC's
authority, it will create confusion and it will, at least for a
while, slow change in the industry,'' said James Hoecker,
commission chairman from 1997 until early this year.

     Government lawyers dismissed concerns that the transmission
rule might prevent states from ensuring that customers such as
hospitals receive power if the system gets crowded.

     The rule says utilities can discriminate based on the need
for power, while they can't favor transmission to their own
customers over that of a competitor.

     ``They could protect hospitals, that sort of thing,'' said
Edwin Kneedler, the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general.

                          Enron Argument

     Enron lawyer Louis Cohen argued that the commission issued
the transmission order in 1996 after finding ``endemic, undue
discrimination'' by traditional utilities. Because not all
utilities must open their lines, FERC still is exempting about 60
percent of traffic from the rule, he said.

     Houston-based Enron, the nation's largest energy trader,
needs to be able to send power through lines in states that aren't
open to competition so it can deliver power to customers in
neighboring states that have open markets, Cohen said.

     ``This is a problem only FERC can solve,'' Cohen said. He
asked the justices to tell the commission it has authority to
order these utilities to provide equal line access.

     The commission can address claims of discrimination by
utilities in states without open markets on a case-by-case basis,
Kneedler said in response to questions from the court.

                      Regional Organizations

     The commission has moved further since the 1996 order to
ensure that power-sellers have equal access to transmission lines
and that utilities aren't protecting the market for their own
power plants.

     Recognizing that competitive power suppliers and marketers
won't get into the business if they're not sure they can fairly
sell power through utility lines, the commission has told
utilities to join regional transmission organizations, or RTOs.
The RTOs would independently control the grid even in states that
haven't opened their energy markets to competition.

     Last week the commission told utilities to join an RTO by
Dec. 15 or risk losing the authority to set their own rates based
on market conditions, or having merger approvals delayed.

     Commission Chairman Pat Wood said recently he hopes Congress
will step in if the high court rules against FERC.

Enron to Sell Oil, Gas Fields in India to BG Group (Update1)
2001-10-03 16:13 (New York)

Enron to Sell Oil, Gas Fields in India to BG Group (Update1)

     (Adds closing share price.)

     Houston, Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp., which has been
fighting with India's Maharashtra state for nine months over power
payments, agreed to sell oil and natural-gas fields in the South
Asian country to the U.K.'s BG Group Plc for $388 million.

     Houston-based Enron, the biggest energy trader, has been
selling assets, including infrastructure projects such as
pipelines and power plants, to focus on trading and brokering
energy and other commodities. Enron wants to sell its Dabhol Power
project in India, a $3 billion venture it says is owed $64 million
by the state's electricity board.

     The agreement ``represents a significant step for Enron in
selling assets not integrated into our wholesale or retail energy
businesses,'' Jeff Sherrick, Enron president for exploration and
production said in a statement.

     Shares of Enron jumped $2.88, or 9.4 percent, to $33.49,
paring this year's decline to 60 percent. BG fell 2.5p to 261p in
London.

     BG, the U.K.'s former natural-gas monopoly, got a 30 percent
stake in a gas field and an oil and gas field, as well as 63
percent of an untapped deposit on the west coast of India. They
hold more than 170 million barrels of oil and gas, BG said.

     ``BG has gotten assets in an undersupplied market for a
reasonable price,'' said Roger Richards, who helps manage $12
billion at Prudential Bache in London. ``True, there's general
concern about the state involvement. But if you get your foot in
the door, stay and work hard, you'll enjoy returns.''

     Both Enron and BG said the sale is unrelated to Dabhol's
troubles. McManus declined to say whether BG would be interested
in buying Dabhol.

     Before agreeing with BG, Enron had rejected bids from its
Indian venture partners, ONGS and Reliance Industries Ltd., as
well as from the nation's biggest refiner, Indian Oil Corp.

     BG controls Gujarat Gas Co., which supplies gas to customers
in the Gujarat state, and owns half of Mahanagar Gas Ltd., which
serves Mumbai. It also is building a liquefied natural gas plant
in Gujarat.


Tana:
Mark said that he has already approved these.  Do I need to do anything?

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com

	Tana Jones
	03/23/2001 05:33 PM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: EOL PRODUCT TYPE APPROVAL for 5 Financial product types
(Clickpaper to EOL migration)

----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 03/23/2001 05:33 PM -----

	Harry M Collins
	03/23/2001 10:05 AM

		 To: Kevin Meredith/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Bjorn Hagelmann/Enron@EnronXGate, Charlie Hoang/Enron@EnronXGate, Chris
Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dawn C Kenne/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Blumenthal/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kelly
Lombardi/NA/Enron@Enron, Laurie Lee/Enron@EnronXGate, Lisa Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Shari Mao/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan
Musch/Enron@EnronXGate, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tara Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Tom Moran/Enron@EnronXGate, Torrey Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: EOL PRODUCT TYPE APPROVAL for 5 Financial product types
(Clickpaper to EOL migration)

Carol St. Clair is the appropriate attorney to review these financial
products.

	Kevin Meredith@ENRON
	03/23/2001 08:24 AM

		 To: Jeff Blumenthal/HOU/ECT, Susan Musch/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bjorn
Hagelmann/HOU/ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
Moran/HOU/ECT, Shari Mao/HOU/ECT@ECT, Charlie Hoang/HOU/ECT, Laurie
Lee/NA/Enron
		 cc: Lisa Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana
Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kelly Lombardi/NA/Enron@Enron,
Tara Sweitzer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dawn C Kenne/HOU/ECT@ECT, Torrey
Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: EOL PRODUCT TYPE APPROVAL for 5 Financial product types (Clickpaper
to EOL migration)

Your review and approval of the following 5 product types in the EOL
Datamanager is needed (for directions on approval , please see steps for
approval at the bottom of this e-mail). If you have any questions please call
me at ext. 39555.

US Newsprint Fin Swap      USD/MT/M

A US Newsprint Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North America Corp.
under which the Seller pays a Floating Price and the Buyer pays the price
submitted by Counterparty on the Website (the Fixed Price) in respect of the
Notional Quantity per Determination Period. The Notional Quantity per
Determination Period shall be the volume submitted by Counterparty on the
Website. Each calendar month during the term of the Transaction will be a
Determination Period. The Payment Date(s) will be 5 business days after the
Floating Price is determinable. The Floating Price shall be the Index for the
relevant Determination Period.

US Packaging Fin Swap      USD/ST/M

A US Packaging Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North America Corp.
under which the Seller pays a Floating Price and the Buyer pays the price
submitted by Counterparty on the Website (the Fixed Price) in respect of the
Notional Quantity per Determination Period. The Notional Quantity per
Determination Period shall be the volume submitted by Counterparty on the
Website. Each calendar month during the term of the Transaction will be a
Determination Period. The Payment Date(s) will be 5 business days after the
Floating Price is determinable. The Floating Price shall be the Index for the
relevant Determination Period.

US Recycled ONP #8 Fin Swap     USD/ST/M

A US Recycled Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North America Corp. under
which the Seller pays a Floating Price and the Buyer pays the price submitted
by Counterparty on the Website (the Fixed Price) in respect of the Notional
Quantity per Determination Period. The Notional Quantity per Determination
Period shall be the volume submitted by Counterparty on the Website. Each
calendar month during the term of the Transaction will be a Determination
Period. The Payment Date(s) will be 5 business days after the Floating Price
is determinable. The Floating Price shall be the Index for the relevant
Determination Period.

US Recycled OCC #11 Fin Swap     USD/ST/M

A US Recycled Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North America Corp. under
which the Seller pays a Floating Price and the Buyer pays the price submitted
by Counterparty on the Website (the Fixed Price) in respect of the Notional
Quantity per Determination Period. The Notional Quantity per Determination
Period shall be the volume submitted by Counterparty on the Website. Each
calendar month during the term of the Transaction will be a Determination
Period. The Payment Date(s) will be 5 business days after the Floating Price
is determinable. The Floating Price shall be the Index for the relevant
Determination Period.

US OSB Fin Swap       USD/MSF

A US OSB Financial Swap Transaction with Enron North America Corp. under
which the Seller pays a Floating Price and the Buyer pays the price submitted
by Counterparty on the Website (the Fixed Price) in respect of the Notional
Quantity per Determination Period. The Notional Quantity per Determination
Period shall be the volume submitted by Counterparty on the Website. Each
calendar month during the term of the Transaction will be a Determination
Period. The Payment Date(s) will be 5 business days after the Floating Price
is determinable. The Floating Price shall be the Index for the relevant
Determination Period.
==============================================================================
=====

STEPS FOR APPROVAL:

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


FYI.

Congrats on your new baby!

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 10:25
AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Kay Mann                           06/06/2000 03:58 AM

To: Steve Irvin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peggy Banczak/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Blumenthal/HOU/ECT@ECT, rstevens@bracepatt.com
cc:

Subject: RE: Letter agreement

Here's the latest from GE.

When I spoke to Rob Stevens, he had a question about whether Mitsui needed to
review the final drafts of the GE agreements. I don't know the resolution of
that issue.

As you know, the current arrangement with GE requires payment within 3 days
of signing of the contracts, which means we have to be prepared to assign the
contract, then wire the money from EEIM to Mitsui immediately so that Mitsui
can pay GE, and GE can refund ENA.  Has EEIM been funded yet and has Mitsui
bought in on the payment plan?

I do not know the status of the tax issues raised by Jeff. I would also like
to make sure that Jeff agrees with the mechanism of superseding the prior
agreement with GE.

Kay

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 09:54
AM ---------------------------

jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com on 06/06/2000 09:47:54 AM
To: Kay.Mann@enron.com
cc: jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com, Brian.D.Barto@enron.com,
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com, David.K.Bargainer@enron.com,
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com

Subject: RE: Letter agreement

Kay,
I'm faxing to you the documents highlighted in RED, below.
So, it looks like we need to supercede these documents, along with the
assignment and assumption agreement.
I believe the entities I mentioned yesterday are still applicable.
If you have a different opinion, let me know.
Give me a call at 518-385-7722, and let's get the documents in condition to
be signed today or tomorrow.
Regards,
Jeff Smith

-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:44 AM
To:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com
Cc:   Kay.Mann@enron.com; jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com;
Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; john.schroeder@ps.ge.com
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

Thank you.  That would be helpful.
Kay

karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com>  on 06/06/2000
07:28:24 AM
To:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
   David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

The "MOU" consists of the GE proposal #80518 w/ offer letter of August 12,
1998, and J.M. Bollinger's (President, Cogen Tech) acceptance letter of
August 14, 1998.  These letters set the framework of the agreement,
including payment / termination schedule.  Invoicing & payments began in
September, 1998..and have continued on that basis until each of the
individual contracts for Linden & "Midwest" were consummated.  In Dec., 99,
at Enron's request,we allocated  funds paid to date to Linden and the "third
unit".  We'll forward copies of above.
Karl Siverling
-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com>
[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] <mailto:[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]>
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 6:27 PM
To:   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com;>
Kay.Mann@enron.com; <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com;>
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com;>
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

The collective memory at ENA is that there wasn't an MOU per se, just the
assignment and assumption agreement.
Kay

jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>  on 06/05/2000
03:51:46 PM
To:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
   john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

Brian,
I spoke to Karl today, and we tried to find the "MOU".  All we have found
was the "Assignment & Assumption Letter" you mention.  In that document, the
Enron and GE entities were; Enron Capitol & Trade Resources Corp. and
General Electric Company, respectively.
Regards,
Jeff Smith

-----Original Message-----
From:   Brian D Barto [mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]
<mailto:[mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]>
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 12:45 PM
To:   Kay Mann
Cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>  David
K Bargainer;
John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

I have a copy of the "Assignment and Assumption Letter"  where GE agreed
that Cogen Technologies could assign the rights to purchase the Units to
Enron Capital and Trade Resources, Corp.
The initials at the ECT signature block is Doug Pedigo's.
I have always been a little confused when Karl Siverling talks about
voiding
an
MOU, because I do not remember ever seeing an MOU for the Cogen Tech units.
Perhaps we could ask Karl to send us a copy of the document he intends to
void to make the process easier.


Helyette,

I shall be glad to join you.

Vince

GemanIX@aol.com on 02/12/2000 11:27:56 AM
To: Vkamins@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Workshop

Dear Vince,
I would be delighted if you agreed to share with me
a one-day workshop before a major ICBI conference
in Berlin,on June 19.The topics would be similar;we
may add real options.Could you answer me BEFORE
Tuesday?
KInd regards
Helyette


Sara:  Please approve on the attached language for the FX Product.

William:  There is a gap between hour ending 3:00 and 4:00 .  Do you want to
go ahead and set up Central time to trade until Hour Ending 4:00?  Please let
me know.

Thank you,

Melba


I haven't actually done anything yet, but my model is built, I just need to add the inputs (vol, price, correl...).  I will call you when I do.  Thanks.

John

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cramer, Chris
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 8:57 AM
To:	Griffith, John
Subject:	spread option pricing

Hi John,

I'm the one who's working with eric on the spread option price. Jared indicated you'd get him something today....could you tell me what your using for you vols (FGT/MKTAREA and correlations (between Z2/Z3, and between (Z2/Z3) and FGT/MKTAREA)? Also, once I've plugged in the numbers if you'd like to see my results, let me know.

thanks,

cjc


FYI

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Haedicke, Mark
Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 4:36 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Cc:	Murray, Julia
Subject:	Topics for General Counsel Meeting

Per your request.  Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT on 04/16/2001 04:34 PM -----

	Julia Murray 04/12/2001 06:37 PM 	   To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT  cc:   Subject: Topics for General Counsel Meeting

Mark   Attached is a memo to Jim Derrick suggesting topics for discussion at the upcoming General Counsel meeting in May.   Please either give me your comments and I will send or you can forward on to Jim.  Thanks.  Julia

Julia Heintz Murray
Enron Wholesale Services
Enron Industrial Markets LLC
1400 Smith Street, EB3838
Houston, TX  77002
(713) 853-4794
Fax:  (713) 646-3393
julia.murray@enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 03/30/2001
05:51 PM ---------------------------

"Btu" <subs@btu.net> on 03/30/2001 05:42:52 PM
To: "Btu Weekly" <>
cc:
Subject: Btu Weekly

Attached is the latest issue of Btu Weekly.

e-mail: info@Btu.net
phone: 732-758-8222
fax: 732-758-8286

 - wg040201.pdf


? Sources report that SoCal Chairman, John Bryson, and Governor Davis were
roommates together at Stanford in the early 60's.  This longstanding
relationship may provide some explanation for SoCal's willingness to
negotiate with the governor and the governor's determination to reach a
solution with SoCal.

? Voluntary bankruptcy reportedly is "not an option" for SoCal.  However, the
possibility remains that SoCal's creditors will take them into involuntary
bankruptcy.  If the state's purchase of the transmission assets is delayed,
it appears that the possibility of this occurring will increase.

? However, the agreement by the state to purchase SoCal's transmission assets
is actually a Memorandum of Understanding. The agreement reportedly was
rushed for "political purposes," but the details still remain to be decided.
It is possible, the 60-day deadline stated in the memorandum may have to be
extended.

? PG&E reportedly refused to part with its transmission assets in its
negotiations with the governor.  PG&E makes more money on transmission than
distribution of power, the opposite is true for SoCal.


here's a second email. Another to come.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 04/19/2001 11:32
AM ---------------------------

"PARKER, Isabel" <isabel.parker@freshfields.com> on 04/18/2001 05:54:50 PM
To: "Kent Shoemaker (E-mail)" <kent.shoemaker@ae.ge.com>
cc: "Kay Mann (E-mail)" <kay.mann@enron.com>, "Carolyn Campbell (E-mail)"
<CCampbell@KSLAW.com>, "John Tisdale (E-mail)" <jtisdale@jhancock.com>, "Jack
Wallace (E-mail)" <jwallace@jhancock.com>, "O'BRIEN, Lisa"
<lisa.obrien@freshfields.com>, "Gregory F. Lang (E-mail)"
<gregorylang@paulhastings.com>, "Rick Vicens (E-mail)"
<rvicens@deltapower.com>

Subject: Pegasus - GE Documentation

This e-mail is confidential and may well also be legally privileged. If you
have received it in error, you are on notice of its status.  Please notify us
immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system.
Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to
any other person:  to do so could be a breach of confidence.  Thank you for
your co-operation.  Please contact our
IT Helpdesk on +44 (0) 20 7936 4000 Ext.2000 or email ITHelp@freshfields.com
if you need assistance.

Kent

Please find attached the following:
(a) a clean and blacklined copy of the GE Consent, showing the changes from
the version last circulated to you;
(b) a clean and blacklined copy of the GE legal opinion to be issued by
Daniel Rowley, reflecting the changes requested by you; and
(c) a form of letter to be signed by GE, attaching the agreed forms of the
Turbine Contract, GE Consent and GE legal opinion.

The lenders are to fund on Friday.  As they are funding into escrow without
an executed Turbine Contract or Consent from GE, the GE letter attaching the
agreed documents is a condition precedent to funding.  We would be grateful
for any comments on the letter, and if you could confirm that a signatory
will be available on Friday to sign the letter by fax.

The lenders will fund into an escrow account and the funds in that escrow
account will be released to GE when all the relevant documentation is
signed.  For that reason, we will draft and send to you for your review a
simple form of receipt to be signed by GE, acknowledging  that it has
received payment in full from the escrow account.  This receipt will be
signed when the Turbine Contract and Consent are signed, but not released
until GE has actually received its money.

I appreciate that the timing of this structure is complicated.  Please do
give me a call with any comments on the documents or with any queries
regarding timing.  My telephone number is 212 277 4025.

Kind regards
Isabel

 - COMPARE002.DOC
 - NY003700033.DOC
 - NY003700961.DOC
 - COMPARE001.DOC
 - NY003699615.DOC


Start Date: 1/9/02; HourAhead hour: 23;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002010923.txt


Brad,

With your success in automation of the testing, we can go ahead to test
storage cycles as follows

April 95 - March 96
April 96 - March 97
April 97 - March 98
April 98 - March 99
April 99 - March 00

This way we can collect 5 years data for further analysis.

Zimin


Kevin,

There have been several things change as of late in my life.
One ,  we are not buying a townhouse anymore, we still have to sell our lot.
Kay is going to stay at a townhouse near downtown and as of today i am looking for an apartment.
I came to the realization that I got way off track , as I usually do , with the plan of both of us
getting a place on our own for six months and going from there. I can not tell you how grateful I
have been for the support both you and Nancy have given me during this time in my life.
I know i have not been at your house as of late and that is due to being off track of the plan.
Is it ok for me to be at your house on and off for the next couple of weeks as i get an apartment set up ?
I will be working on renting a place that starts the 1st of the month.

Let me know

dq


Here is the info about the FERC conf. call today.
----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 02/07/2001 11:09 AM -----

	"Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
	02/06/2001 07:28 PM

		 To: "A. William Urquhart (E-mail)" <awu@qeuo.com>, "Alan Z. Yudkowsky
(E-mail)" <ayudkowsky@strook.com>, "Andrzej Kabarowski (E-mail)"
<andrzej_kabarowski@cargill.com>, "Antoine P. Cobb (E-mail)"
<antoine.cobb@troutmansanders.com>, "Arlen Orchard (E-mail)"
<aorchar@smud.org>, "Blair R. Strong (E-mail)" <rbstrong@painehamblen.com>,
"Brian Currey (E-mail)" <bcurrey@omm.com>, "Cheryl Feik Ryan (E-mail)"
<cfr@vnf.com>, "Cliff Gunter (E-mail)" <cgunter@bracepatt.com>, "D. Russo
(E-mail)" <drusso@reliantenergy.com>, "David Perlman (E-mail)"
<dmperlman@powersrc.com>, "Davis Smith (E-mail)" <wdsmith@sempra.com>,
"Dennis Vermillion (E-mail)" <dvermillion@avistaenergy.com>, "Don Garber
(E-mail)" <dgarber@sempra.com>, "Donn Pickett (E-mail)" <dpickett@mdbe.com>,
"Douglas Butz (E-mail)" <dmbutz@butzdunn.com>, "Douglas Thorpe (E-mail)"
<thord@perkinscoie.com>, "Elizabeth Sager (E-mail)"
<elizabeth.sager@enron.com>, "Fred Yanney (E-mail)" <Fyanney@fulbright.com>,
"Gary D. Bachman (E-mail)" <gdb@vnf.com>, "Gary Keltner (E-mail)"
<gkeltner@jsslaw.com>, "Gordon P. Erspamer (E-mail)" <gerspamer@mofo.com>,
"Harry A. Olivar Jr. (E-mail)" <hao@quinnemanuel.com>, "Howard E. Shapiro
(E-mail)" <hes@vnf.com>, "J. Matthew Derstine (E-mail)"
<mderstine@rhd-law.com>, "Jane Alfano (E-mail)" <jdalfano@srpnet.com>, "Jean
Frizzell (E-mail)" <jfrizzell@gibbs-bruns.com>, "Jeffrey D. (Dan) Watkiss
(E-mail)" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>, "Joe Paul (E-mail)" <jmpa@dynegy.com>,
"Joel Newton (E-mail)" <jdne@dynegy.com>, "John Fryer (E-mail)"
<john.fryer@pacificorp.com>, "John Heath (E-mail)" <jheath@fulbright.com>,
"John W. Stamper (E-mail)" <jstamper@omm.com>, "Joseph R. Tiffany (E-mail)"
<jtiffany@pillsburywinthrop.com>, "Katalin Kiss (E-mail)"
<katalin_kiss@transalta.com>, "Ken Irvin (E-mail)" <kirvin@mofo.com>, "Kjehl
Johansen (E-mail)" <kjohan@dwp.ci.la.ca.us>, "Marvin Goldstein (E-mail)"
<mgoldstein@stroock.com>, "Mary C. Hain (E-mail)" <mary.hain@enron.com>, "Mel
Brosterman (E-mail)" <mbrosterman@stroock.com>, "Michael Helms (E-mail)"
<mghelms@jsslaw.com>, "Nancy Loftin (E-mail)"
<nancy.loftin@pinnaclewest.com>, "Nolan Steiner (E-mail)"
<nolan.steiner@avistacorp.com>, "Paul Fox (E-mail)" <pfox@bracepatt.com>,
"Per J. Ramfjord (E-mail)" <paramfjord@stoel.com>, "Perry L. Steele (E-mail)"
<psteele@coral-energy.com>, "Peter Jazayeri (E-mail)"
<pjazayeri@stroock.com>, "Phillip Fantle (E-mail)"
<phillip_fantle@cargill.com>, "Randy McManus (E-mail)"
<rmcmanus@bakerbotts.com>, "Randy Osteen (E-mail)" <rosteen@powersrc.com>,
"Raymond Heyman (E-mail)" <rheyman@rhd-law.com>, "Richard B. Sanders Esq.
(E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>, "Richard Beitler (E-mail)"
<rbeitler@sempratrading.com>, "Richard Josephson (E-mail)"
<rcjosephson@stoel.com>, "Robert Loeffler (E-mail)" <rloeffler@mofo.com>,
"Ronald Carroll (E-mail)" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>, "Shari Stack (E-mail)"
<sstack@enron.com>, "Sterling Koch (E-mail)" <sterling_koch@transalta.com>,
"Susan Bishop (E-mail)" <sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com>, "Thomas Heftler (E-mail)"
<theftler@stroock.com>, "Tim Bolden (E-mail)"
<Timothy.Bolden@pinnaclewest.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: FERC and TRO Informational Meeting

Here is the dial in number and access number for the 10:00 a.m. PST call set
for Wednesday February 7, 2001:

Dial In:  1 (800) 403-2004
Access No. 321383

Thanks
Gary

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

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


Jackie,

I didn't pay any attention to the date on this message.  We should be able to
handle this on our side with out involving the East Desk.  If the OBA can be
used, apply the volume there.  If nothing else, we can write it off.

D
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000
02:47 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Victor Lamadrid                           11/01/2000 06:34 PM

To: Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clem
Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Mitchell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beverly
Beaty/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO

Is this date really June of 1999?  Hopefully we're not just finding out about
this?

I don't think we can even process this request.  The East Desk was not up and
running on Unify in June of 1999.  All of our pathing for June of 1999 was in
Autonoms and it's not y2K compatabile. With the volumes involved being so
small and the accuracy of the data at Enerfin in question, why don't we let
this volume hit the new OBA at Enerfin as a PPA???

I welcome your thoughts.
Victor

	From:  Cynthia Franklin @ ENRON                           11/01/2000 02:50 PM

To: Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO

Victor,
Can we go this far back? Please advise.
Cindy
---------------------- Forwarded by Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron on 11/01/2000
02:54 PM ---------------------------

Jackie Young@ECT
11/01/2000 11:25 AM
To: Cynthia Franklin/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith Mitchell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO

Cynthia/Meredith,

Can you please scroll below to my request to Daren regarding 98-0439 and see
if you can assist me w/this request?

Thanks
-Jackie-
3-9497
---------------------- Forwarded by Jackie Young/HOU/ECT on 11/01/2000 11:23
AM ---------------------------

Daren J Farmer
11/01/2000 10:16 AM
To: Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO

Jackie,

Please get with the East Desk on this.  If they agree, we can roll the deal.

D

Jackie Young
11/01/2000 10:03 AM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sherlyn Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: 6/4/99 and 6/9/99 (98-0439) Enerfin TETCO

Daren,

On the above mentioned dates, there was no nomination at the Enerfin meter.

6/3/99 and 6/8/99 revealed activity for ENA (202K).  Can the deal be extended
for 6/4 (548 dec.) and 6/9 (40 dec.) to cover this flow so that Volume
Management can create an accounting arrangement for these two days?

Thanks
-Jackie-
3-9497


Yesterday the PUC defeated (3-2) on a party line vote the proposed decision
of Commissioner Bilas re interim policy on standby charges.? Instead, the
Commission approved Commissioner Wood's alternate, which several parties
(State Consumers, ORA, New Energy, Capstone, et al) had protested.? My
understanding is that Commr. Wood's alternate was approved with no changes.?
It agreed with utilities that standby charges should not reflect diversity
benefits of DG in distribution because none currently exist.

This decision may have negative implications for the sharing of grid benefits
of DG with end use consumers and other distributed generators who may provide
them.

Best,

Jay Morse, ORA


Larry,

Please take a look at the 2nd resume and let mew know what you think ( -
JPBresume2.doc.)

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 11/21/2000
11:49 AM ---------------------------

"pj" <pj@austingrp.com> on 11/15/2000 01:58:46 PM
To: "Vince J Kaminski" <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: TAGE Resume Submittal

Vince,
Two candidates for your review. Please call  me.
?
Paul Johnson, CPC
President
(281)  497-8595
?
Please visit our website
? www.austingrp.com
 - Wood, Shelly.doc
 - JPBresume2.doc


Your Ameritrade Electronic Confirmation is now available for viewing - click on the link below
or copy and paste it into your browser to access your confirmation.

http://documents.advancedclearing.com/405416.3211.0.118


Reminder:  The deadline for 2001 flexible spending account reimbursements is rapidly approaching.  All 2001 flexible spending account reimbursements must be received in Aon Consulting's office by the close of business Tuesday, April 30, 2002.  Their contact information is:

	Aon Consulting
	Flex Administration #00741-83
	P. O. Box 2845
	Winston-Salem, NC  27102-2845
	Phone:  1-800-726-3221

You may also fax your reimburement request to:  1-336-728-2981 or 1-336-728-2983.

You can access forms and instructions at:  https://pweb.synhrgy.com/enron/.  Input your User ID (your SSN without dashes) and your password.  (If you have never signed in to the Benefits webpage, the password is the last 4 digits of your social security number.)  Then click on Resources and Forms and scroll down to Aon Consulting.  Simply click on the forms and instructions you need.

For more information contact the Benefits Service Center at 1-800-332-7979.


We should be getting gas fax.


Enron Tiger Team:

We are pleased to tell you that Professors Howard Kunreuther and Paul
Kleindorfer, OPIM Dept, University of Penn, will be consultants for the
Enron Tiger Project 2001. Please feel free to contact them with any
questions or concerns: kunreuth@wharton.upenn.edu  and
kleindorfer@wharton.upenn.edu

Sincerely,
Donna Piazze
Program Director
Field Application Project
The Wharton School
Univ. of Pennsylvania
(215) 573-8394
(215) 573-5727 fax
fap@management.wharton.upenn.edu
piazze@wharton.upenn.edu


are you there right now b/c i do not have your work phone
713.3503.1860


where you been bra?


In my summer update about the acquisition of MG Plc and the integration of
the metals business into Enron, I reported that we were aiming to complete
the integration by the end of the year. I am pleased to report that we are
well on the way to meeting this target.

September was a busy month for the metals business as it brought with it both
the co-location of the London and Tokyo-based metals staff with Enron,s
offices and the first quarter of combined reporting under Enron Europe.
Ensuring a smooth transition for both the metals staff and the metals systems
into our London headquarters took a tremendous amount of co-ordination by
teams across the company on the part of the former MG team and the
integration team at Enron Europe.  Nevertheless, &D-Day8 arrived with minimal
problems and the metals team open for business as usual on the morning of
September 18th.

Another key initiative that commenced during September was the re-positioning
of the MG worldwide metals business as Enron Metals. With the exception of
the Henry Bath & Son Limited warehousing division, which will remain as
currently named, the re-branding initiative was kicked off in the UK and
followed by Japan and the US.  The re-branding initiative is on going with
all other remaining regions set to undergo completion of the name change by
the end of November.

Enron Metals is represented throughout the world.  I have attached a regional
office summary that depicts Enron Metals, locations (Appendix I).

In light of the progress that has been made since the summer, I thought it
would be helpful to provide you with a brief recap of Enron Metals, core
business areas and identify those members of the metals team who will be
leading commercial efforts moving forward.

Merchanting Division

The Merchanting Division, led by Michael Farmer (+44 (0)20 7783 2049), is a
worldwide copper merchant, one of the top three independent merchants of
copper concentrates and nickel and the leading European merchant of recycled
non-ferrous metals.  Core activities of the merchanting division are:

? Merchanting of Non-ferrous Metals ) Enron Metals trades as a principal with
producers and consumers, buying and selling non-ferrous metals and
concentrates (particularly copper, aluminum and nickel), exchanging qualities
and locations and lending and borrowing metals.
? Global Stockholding ) Through its affiliate, Henry Bath & Son Limited,
Enron Metals holds stocks of non-ferrous metals at warehouses around the
world.
? Merchanting of Recycled Metal ) Enron Metals trades as a principal with
suppliers and consumers of non-ferrous metal for recycling.  Enron has
augmented its European recycling platform through the acquisition of assets
of W&O Bergmann, the leading German Recycling Business.

Financial Services Division

The Financial Services Division, led by Michael Hutchinson (+44 (0)20 7783
2079), provides market-making and trading services to Enron Metal,s physical
metals trading business through futures trading as a member of the London
Metal Exchange and as a member of COMEX in New York.  The Financial Services
Division will continue to be comprised of brokerage activities for LME and
COMEX contracts and be a market-maker for both futures and options contracts
on the LME and COMEX and in OTC metals contracts.

With much of the metals business moving to online trading, significant effort
has been put into getting metals contracts incorporated into EnronOnline,s
portfolio of product offerings since the metals business, integration into
Enron this summer.  Today on EnronOnline we are trading six metals (Copper,
Aluminium, Nickel, Zinc, Lead and Tin) with over 150 products available.

Enron Metals now has almost 800 financial counterparties on the books, with
300 of these having EnronOnline accounts.  Trading volumes have increased
from a couple of trades per day in September to a high of 300 in October. The
attached charts depict the established metals results compared to the start
up of US natgas (Appendix II).

Origination

Enron Metals established a London-based commercial unit under the direction
of Eric Gadd, Vice President-Global Metals Origination which is focused on
completing highly structured and long-dated transactions.  It will integrate
with existing merchanting and financial service competencies to lever up
earnings creation.  Currently, the origination team is working on a number of
Q4 transactions in Australia and the Americas.  The deal pipeline for Q2 has
prospects in not only these regions but also Europe/Africa and the Middle/Far
East.   Close and regular communication between the metal origination team
and other business units inside Enron is essential if we are to succeed in
building a new capability to achieve earnings targets and deliver shareholder
value through Enron Metals.  Your active involvement and close co-operation
here is appreciated.

Warehousing (Henry Bath & Son Limited)

The Warehousing operations, led by Ed Dablin, operate under the name of Henry
Bath & Son Limited.  Henry Bath has been in business for more than 200 years
and maintains a global operation for the physical handling and storage of
non-ferrous metals, including zinc, tin, copper, nickel, lead and aluminum.
Henry Bath provides support to both the Merchanting and Financial Services
Divisions, and also engages in independent warehousing operations.  Its core
activities include worldwide storage of metals and other products such as
cocoa, general goods and worldwide shipping services.

Presently, Henry Bath maintains over three million square feet of storage
worldwide (most of which is leased), with the largest facilities located in
the United Kingdom (Liverpool, London, Bristol, Immingham), the Netherlands
(Rotterdam), Spain (Bilbao, Barcelona), Singapore, and the United States (New
Haven, New Orleans and Los Angeles).

Rob Soeldner is managing the integration efforts for me.   Please feel free
to contact him at +44 (0)20 7783 7169 with any questions regarding the
business.

Regards
John Sherriff


Brent will be in a little late today.


Please approve of offer comments:

Dale
3-9746


No gifts, thank you -- just a social hour.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nelson, Cheryl
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:33 PM
To:	Farrell, Keegan; Bailey, Susan; Boyd, Samantha; Cook, Mary; Gonzalez, Esmeralda; Gray, Barbara N.; Greenberg, Mark; Griffin, Vanessa; Heard, Marie; Hendry, Brent; Jacobson, Kimberley; Jones, Tana; Keiser, Holly; Koehler, Anne C.; Leite, Francisco Pinto; Panus, Stephanie; Sayre, Frank; Shackleton, Sara; Spencer, Becky; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Zucha, Theresa
Subject:	RE: On Behalf of Mark Taylor and Barbara Gray

should we (or can we) bring a gift.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Farrell, Keegan
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:12 PM
To:	Bailey, Susan; Boyd, Samantha; Cook, Mary; Farrell, Keegan; Gonzalez, Esmeralda; Gray, Barbara N.; Greenberg, Mark; Griffin, Vanessa; Heard, Marie; Hendry, Brent; Jacobson, Kimberley; Jones, Tana; Keiser, Holly; Koehler, Anne C.; Leite, Francisco Pinto; Nelson, Cheryl; Panus, Stephanie; Sayre, Frank; Shackleton, Sara; Spencer, Becky; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Zucha, Theresa
Subject:	On Behalf of Mark Taylor and Barbara Gray

Please see the attached message:

 << File: You Are Invited.doc >>

Keegan
Enron Wholesale Services
713-345-3317


Enron Law Conference

San Antonio, Texas    May 2-4, 2001    Westin Riverwalk

                   See attached memo for more details!!

? Registration for the law conference this year will be handled through an
Online RSVP Form on the Enron Law Conference Website at
http://lawconference.corp.enron.com.  The website is still under construction
and will not be available until Thursday, March 15, 2001.

? We will send you another e-mail to confirm when the Law Conference Website
is operational.

? Please complete the Online RSVP Form as soon as it is available  and submit
it no later than Friday, March 30th.


This is cool stuff. I'll talk to you this afternoon.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ring, Richard
Sent:	Monday, October 01, 2001 10:50 AM
To:	Mainzer, Elliot; Bolton, Stacey; Bryson, Jesse; Thome, Jennifer
Subject:	FW: NEW! Energy Efficiency Management for Texas

FYI

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Pope-Sance, Kathleen   On Behalf Of EES Product Announcement,
Sent:	Monday, October 01, 2001 11:24 AM
To:	All EES@ENRON
Subject:	NEW! Energy Efficiency Management for Texas

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>

Introducing products that help our Texas customers cut their energy usage--
and lets Enron share in the savings.

Enron's Energy Efficiency Management services improve the efficiency of our customers' equipment, systems,
and operations. Light industrial and commercial customers can save up to 22% when Enron implements the
conservation projects we propose. There's a standard list of projects that we offer and deliver on a scaleable
delivery platform. The customer uses less energy, shares the savings with Enron, and everybody wins.

Want to learn more? Click here.


In a message dated 11/25/01 1:45:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, Michelle.Cash@enron.com writes:
I think this works.  What is the best way to incorporate this into the
plan?
Michelle, I don't know if I have the final restated plan document.  I'm not sure what changes anyone made after my last draft.  I don't even know what the design decision  was regarding the formula.  I think that Kriste has it or Mary Joyce should have it.
The best way to incorporate the revised paragraph into the plan would be to cut and paste the revised paragraph over the existing paragraph B.
Pat


---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 03/28/2000 09:07
PM ---------------------------

Jerry W Germany <germanj@basf-corp.com> on 03/20/2000 08:33:23 AM
To: Chris Germany <Chris.Germany@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: Hey

979-415-6314

New area code plus our prefix is also changing.

Chris Germany <Chris.Germany@enron.com> on 03/20/2000 06:48:12 AM
To:   Jerry W Germany
cc:
Subject:  Hey

What's your work number?  I'm updating my Lotus Notes Database and I left my
day
planner at home - too much weight in the backpack.


[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
ADVANCED SEARCH

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]
	[IMAGE]
	[IMAGE]

	Thursday June  7th 2001

	Subscribe | E-mail & Mobile Editions | Screensaver

	[IMAGE]
	[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

OPINION

WORLD

BUSINESS

FINANCESCIENCE

PEOPLE

BOOKS & ARTS

MARKETS

DIVERSIONS

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE][IMAGE]
[IMAGE] Global Agenda alerts

 An e-mail service, delivered to your desktop on Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays, providing a snapshot of new Global Agenda stories. Keep up-to-date
by signing up today. Keep up-to-date by signing up today.

    [IMAGE]

PRINT EDITION
THE ECONOMIST
  [IMAGE]Full contents[IMAGE]Subscriptions
 [IMAGE]

[IMAGE]
Customer  service

As a registered user of Economist.com, you can sign up for or cancel the text
and HTML versions of this newsletter or change your e-mail address by
amending your details.

To  stop receiving this newsletter, please visit http://economist.com/
members/email.cfm, log in and complete the form.

If you received this newsletter from a friend and you would like to have your
own free subscription, please go to the Economist.com registration page and
fill out the  registration form.
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
 [IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	Business this week
				June 7th 2001
				From The Economist print edition

				Steel resolve

				George Bush announced that America would investigate unfair trade practices
in the global steel industry with the intent of imposing new anti-dumping
duties.

				See article: George Bush's new plan for the steel industry E+

				In response to the United Nations Security Council,s decision on sanctions,
Iraq cut off its oil exports of about 2.1m barrels a day. Saudi Arabia said
it would make up the difference.

				See article: OPEC needs to keep Iraq from destabilising the world's oil
marketE+

				Economy measures

				Consumer confidence in the euro area fell more heavily than expected in May,
after a fall of business confidence had suggested that, although Europe,s
economy has weathered the global downturn better than most, it is now
slowing. But euro-area unemployment fell slightly in April, to 8.3%.

				[IMAGE]

				The productivity of workers in the United States fell in the first quarter by
1.2% at an annual rate, according to revised figures. This is the first time
that labour productivity has fallen since 1995.

				In an effort to stave off fears of a debt default and to buy time for the
country,s economy to pull out of a three-year recession, Argentina announced
that it had swapped $29.5 billion of bonds falling due before 2005 for new,
longer-dated bonds.

				See article: Argentina's bond swap buys time at a high price

				Legal matters

				A jury in California ordered Philip Morris to pay damages of $3 billion for a
smoker with lung cancer*by far the biggest such award against a tobacco
company. Philip Morris will appeal.

				See article: Another blow against Big Tobacco E+

				Flight details

				Orbitz, an online travel agency set up by five American airlines, was
launched with a bang, and promptly went down after being deluged by
customers. United, American, Delta, Continental and Northwest expect to take
a chunk of business from their two main rivals, Expedia and Travelocity.

				America,s Federal Aviation Administration outlined a ten-year plan to
overhaul the country,s airline industry. Greater passenger capacity, more
runways and new routes will be introduced to reduce delays and improve
safety.

				See article: How to improve America's airtraffic control E+

				General Electric is poised to sell Honeywell International,s regional
jet-engine business in an effort to persuade the European Commission to
approve GE,s $40 billion bid for Honeywell.

				Shares in Railtrack, operators of Britain,s rail network, dipped 17% in one
day as the beleaguered company was due to drop out of Britain,s FTSE 100
share index. It will be replaced in the index by Next, a purveyor of
mid-market clothing.

				See article: More trouble for Railtrack E+

				Swiss bank accounts

				Moody,s, a credit-rating agency, downgraded UBS, after the Swiss bank had
failed to make big advances in onshore private banking for the world,s very
rich. Domestic banks have grabbed much of this business in their own
countries.

				CSFB was deemed to have broken New Zealand stock-exchange rules in a takeover
scrap for Montana, a big winemaker. Indian regulators have also banned it
from stockbroking after a price-fixing investigation. Its now defunct
Japanese derivatives business broke securities laws and, in America, it is
undergoing investigations linked to rigged initial public offerings.

				Business in Europe

				After 12 years of tortuous negotiation, the European Union at last reached a
provisional agreement on a takeover directive. The directive still has to be
formally approved, however, and the European Parliament may yet decide to
block it.

				See article: The EU takeover directive may yet pass E+

				Germany,s telecoms regulator ruled that companies that have acquired the six
third-generation mobile-phone licences will be able to share the costs of
building new infrastructure. The money- saving scheme is likely to be
challenged by Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom, both incumbents with upgradable
networks already in place.

				See article: Sharing 3G networks

				EPA
				EPA

				Cadbury Schweppes, a British drinks firm, said it was close to an agreement
to buy Orangina, a soft-drinks company, from Pernod Ricard, a French
counterpart, for euro700m ($826m).

				Italy,s government called on EDF, a French power giant, to reduce its
recently acquired 20% stake in Montedison, Italy,s largest power company, to
under 2%. Italy objects to EDF,s involvement in its newly opened power
markets because France has been slow to deregulate its own market. EDF said
&non8.

				Saudi Arabia,s government signed three deals worth $25 billion to develop
natural gas reserves, two headed by ExxonMobil and one by Royal Dutch/Shell.
The Saudis hope that the use of foreign private capital will help to revive
the kingdom,s state-dominated economy which has not grown fast enough.

				See article: Investment in Saudi Arabia E+

				Martin Ebner,s BZ Group took a 10% voting stake in Investor, a Swedish
holding company controlled by the Wallenberg family. Mr Ebner wants a share
buyback, spin-offs and a loosening of the grip of the Wallenbergs on the
company.

				See article: Ebner v the Wallenbergs E+

				Pick an Economist Survey

				The Economist's renowned surveys are here, organised by category: countries
and regions, finance and economics, business, science and technology and
other. Forthcoming surveys are also listed. Click here to pick your survey.

				[IMAGE]

				SEARCH

				The EconomistEconomist.comGlobal LibraryThe webThe EIU Advanced search

				[IMAGE]
					[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]
					[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]
				 [IMAGE] 	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]
						[IMAGE]

						GO TO ECONOMIST.COM
						 , Copyright 2001 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights
reserved.
						Legal disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
						[IMAGE]
						[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]


Can get that number.  You want it pre "Blue Book" or pre AB 1890, or both.

Steven J Kean@ENRON
09/01/2000 08:27 AM
Sent by: Steven J Kean@ENRON
To: Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Sandra
McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Gavin Dillingham/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Harry
Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: California Lawmakers Vote to Limit Power Costs - WSJ

Look at this.  Baum finally speaks up  -- way too late.
Can somebody tell me what SDG&E's energy rate was pre-dereg?
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 09/01/2000
08:24 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Ann M Schmidt                           09/01/2000 07:57 AM

To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Meredith Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: California Lawmakers Vote to Limit Power Costs - WSJ

F.Y.I.

  California Lawmakers Vote to Limit Power Costs
  By Rebecca Smith

  09/01/2000
  The Wall Street Journal
  Page A4
  (Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

  California lawmakers voted to extend modest relief to San Diego residents
burdened with
  high electricity bills and set the groundwork for faster construction of
badly needed power
  plants. They stopped short, however, of passing legislation that would roll
back retail power
  rates to levels seen prior to deregulation .

  Late Wednesday, lawmakers sent a bill to Gov. Gray Davis that limits to 6.5
cents per
  kilowatt hour the amount that small customers of San Diego Gas & Electric
Co. can be
  charged. The utility is allowed to add power-delivery and other reasonable
costs to that
  commodity price.

  The price, equivalent to a bulk power cost of $65 per megawatt hour, is far
higher than the
  average price of power for 27 of the 31 months in which California's market
has been
  deregulated. But in June and July, the average price of power obtained by
the utility from a
  state-sanctioned energy auction rose to 12 cents and 10.5 cents,
respectively, compared
  with the 2.3 cents and 2.8 cents charged in those months a year earlier.

  Passed directly through to customers,the resulting bills sparked a near
mutiny. The
  rate-cap measure applies to residential and small commercial customers, as
well as to
  schools and hospitals.

  In addition to the rate cap, which can be adjusted upward or downward by
the California
  Public Utilities Commission until December 2002, the legislature earmarked
$150 million of
  general-fund revenue, which can be used to subsidize San Diego power costs
if they greatly
  exceed the 6.5-cents-per-kilowatt-hour rate. For now, the utility would be
expected to make
  up any difference between revenue collected and the actual cost.

  Steve Baum, chairman of Sempra Energy, parent of San Diego Gas & Electric
Co., said the
  rate-cap measure is "deeply flawed" because it limits the amount prices can
rise but sets
  no floor. That means any shortfall could grow -- without a mechanism for
customers to pay
  it down -- until the end of the rate-cap period, which could last until
December 2002 or
  December 2003.

  Mr. Baum said Sempra stands to suffer an undercollection of perhaps $664
million, provided
  future prices approximate the New York Mercantile Exchange forward prices
through
  December 2002. "It's irreparably damaging to Sempra," he said because it
"creates
  tremendous uncertainty" that makes it hard for the San Diego energy company
to finance
  new projects such as a new transmission line.

  The legislature also appeared likely to approve a bill speeding up the
permit process for the
  construction of new power plants, in part by beefing up staffs of
regulatory agencies that
  review the plans.

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


Gerald,

We have been unofficially informed that the bids are due back on February
9 - I was hoping to be ready one week earlier than that.  I am trying to get
the total package to ENA mid next week.  I have not yet even looked at the
package.  TBI mentioned that mark-ups to the PSA and the gathering agreement
for TBI reserves (you should also have a copy of it from Audrey) would be
considered heavily in the bid evaluation process. Therefore, I would like to
keep the changes to those required and not "cosmetic" or "druthers".  We
will need to review both contracts.  I will try to get the TBI gas gathering
agreement as an electronic file today.

Thx

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald.Nemec@enron.com [mailto:Gerald.Nemec@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:35 PM
To: kckrisa@apex2000.net
Subject: Re: Gathering System PSA

What is the time frame? This agreement looks to need significant revisions.

                    "Ken"
                    <kckrisa@apex        To:     "Audrey O'Neil \(E-mail\)"
<Audrey.ONeil@enron.com>, "Gerald R.
                    2000.net>            Nemec \(E-mail\)"
<Gerald.Nemec@enron.com>, "Mark Castiglione \(E-mail\)"
                                         <Mark.Castiglione@enron.com>
                    01/23/2001           cc:
                    03:52 PM             Subject:     Gathering System PSA
                    Please
                    respond to
                    kckrisa

I received the proposed PSA for the Wildhorse acquisition from Petrie
Parkman today.  I have attached for everyone's review.  We are required to
send back to TBI with proposed changes with our proposal.

Mark, would you please forward to those who need to see it besides Audrey
and Gerald.
Thx

Ken Krisa

(See attached file: PSA.DOC)


I just wanted to make sure this was clear Brian.  Call me if you have any
questions.

Happy New Year!

Mark

	Gerald Nemec@ECT
	12/29/2000 03:10 PM

		 To: htebs@huber.com
		 cc: Mark Whitt/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Trailblazer Assignment

Brian,  Mark forward the executed docs. to me.  The Trailblazer Assignment
was not included.  I have attached the assignment in case you don't have the
one I forwarded earlier.  Please execute and return.   Also the Amended and
Restated Transaction No. 2 was initialled, but was not executed.  I am
forwarding those back to you for execution.  Thanks for your cooperation.


Good Afternoon,

Any GCP Adjustments will be highlighted in blue.  Please feel free to give me a call, if you have any questions.

Amber N Ebow x5-8331
Global Counterparty_Enron Net Works

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Monterrey, Maribel
Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:55 PM
To:	Lambert, Karen; Jones, Tana; Schott, Samuel; Brackett, Debbie R.; Clark, Cynthia; Enron Europe Global CounterParty,; Sever, Stephanie; Moran, Tom; Clark, Claudia; Bradford, William S.; Lees, Lisa; Fayett, Juana; Morse, Jana; Le, Trang; Maley, Paul; O'day, Karen; Rohauer, Tanya; Lombardi, Kelly; Lindsay, Brian; EOL Call Center; Hare, Bill D.; Heffernan, Amy; Lafuze, Molly; Clark, Danny; Panus, Stephanie; Mandola, Teresa; Ebow, Amber; Coleman, Tandra; Campbell, Lesli; Lebrocq, Wendi; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Lauer, Kara; Banner, Kimberly; Mcquade, Jennifer; George, Fraisy; Guillory, Michael; Rajaram, Aparna; Monterrey, Maribel; Lebeau, Maria; Escamilla, Albert; Curry, Ken; Lebrocq, Wendi
Subject:	EOL and Clickpaper Approvals for 10-18-01

 << File: EOL 10-18-01.xls >>

Maribel M Monterrey
Office: (713) 853-9048
Fax: (713) 853-9476
Maribel.Monterrey@enron.com


Bill told us last night the true up payments run to PGET