Here is today's copy of Bloomberg Power Lines. Adobe Acrobat Reader is
required to view the attached pdf file. You can download a free version
of Acrobat Reader at
   http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

If you have trouble downloading the attached file it is also located at
   http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/daily.pdf

Don't forget to check out the Bloomberg PowerMatch West Coast indices, the
most accurate indices anywhere. Index values are calculated from actual trades
and can be audited by all PowerMatch customers.

Our aim is to bring you the most timely electricity market coverage in the
industry and we welcome your feedback on how we can improve the product
further.

Bloomberg Energy Department

05/16 Bloomberg Daily Power Report

Table

                      Bloomberg U.S. Regional Electricity Prices
      ($/MWh for 25-50 MWh pre-scheduled packages, excluding transmission
costs)

                            On-Peak
West Coast                   Index       Change       Low         High
 Mid-Columbia                128.78     -107.65      135.00      150.00
 Ca-Or Border                140.00     -106.67      135.00      145.00
 NP15                        153.42      -87.75      144.00      163.00
 SP15                        139.67      -73.33      135.00      145.00
 Ault Colorado               125.00      -70.00      135.00      145.00
 Mead                        150.00      -82.50      149.00      151.00
 Palo Verde                  150.92      -72.20      133.00      180.00
 Four Corners                147.50      -72.50      140.00      155.00

Mid-Continent
 ECAR                        45.44       +4.28       41.86       49.00
  East                       44.50       +4.50       43.00       46.00
  AEP                        47.00       +5.80       42.00       50.00
  West                       44.50       +3.50       42.00       46.00
  Central                    46.25       +6.11       42.00       50.00
  Cinergy                    46.25       +6.11       42.00       50.00
  South                      44.57       +0.24       40.00       53.00
  North                      45.00       +3.67       42.00       48.00
 Main                        46.21       +2.63       43.00       49.00
  Com-Ed                     43.75       +2.46       40.00       46.00
  Lower                      48.67       +2.79       46.00       52.00
 MAPP                        52.50       +0.67       50.00       55.00
  North                      52.00       +1.00       50.00       55.00
  Lower                      53.00       +0.33       50.00       55.00

Gulf Coast
 SPP                         50.13       +0.13       46.75       53.50
  Northern                   51.00       +0.00       46.00       56.00
 ERCOT                       53.50       -4.13       52.00       55.00
 SERC                        47.77       +0.39       43.95       52.51
  Va Power                   42.00       -1.50       41.50       42.50
  VACAR                      48.33       +2.08       45.00       50.00
  Into TVA                   44.57       +0.24       40.00       53.00
  Out of TVA                 48.28       -0.57       43.64       57.04
  Entergy                    49.73       -0.02       45.00       55.00
  Southern                   47.75       +1.25       45.00       50.00
  Fla/Ga Border              53.75       +1.25       47.50       60.00
 FRCC                        57.50       +0.07       50.00       65.00

East Coast
 NEPOOL                      50.50       -0.25       50.00       51.00
 New York Zone J             56.00       +0.25       55.00       57.00
 New York Zone G             49.25       -0.55       48.00       50.50
 New York Zone A             37.25       -1.25       36.50       38.00
 PJM                         38.80       +0.65       38.00       40.00
  East                       38.80       +0.65       38.00       40.00
  West                       38.80       +0.65       38.00       40.00
  Seller's Choice            38.30       +0.65       37.50       39.50
End Table

Western Spot Power Prices Sink Amid River Runoff, Mild Weather

     Portland, Oregon, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- Western U.S.
peak spot power prices for delivery tomorrow plummeted as
hydroelectric operators were forced to generate power, traders
said.
     At the Mid-Columbia trading point in Washington, peak power
declined 38.4 percent from yesterday to a Bloomberg index of
$140.55 a megawatt hour, with executed trades between $135.00-
$150.00.
     "Run-off is increasing hydroelectric supplies," said one
Northwest trader.
     Traders said that smaller dams in the Portland area don't
have the capability to store excess water from mountain snowmelt,
so they have to generate power or spill water.
     "The weather is mild in the Northwest, causing snow melt to
run off into the reservoirs," said one Northwest trader.
     According to Weather Services Corp., of Lexington,
Massachusetts, temperatures in Portland, Oregon were expected to
reach 63 degrees Fahrenheit today, increasing tomorrow 2 degrees
to 65 degrees.
     At the California Oregon Border, day-ahead peak power sank
$106.67 to a Bloomberg index of $140.00. Traders completed trades
in the $135.00-$145.00 range.
     In the Pacific Northwest, federal power marketer Bonneville
Power Administration offered up to 200 megawatts of delivered
energy for tomorrow at the Dow Jones Mid-Columbia and California-
Oregon Border firm electricity index price.
     At the Palo Verde switchyard in Arizona, peak power slipped
$72.20, to a Bloomberg index of $150.92 as traders executed
transactions in the $140.50-$150.00 range. Traders said they sold
off-peak power as low as $21.00 and as high as $40.00.
     Traders said that Arizona Public Service Co.'s 1,270-
megawatt Palo Verde 1 nuclear plant in Wintersburg, Arizona,
increased production 20 percent from yesterday to 70 percent of
capacity following the completion of a scheduled refueling outage
that began March 31.
     At the SP-15 delivery point in Southern California, peak
power slumped $73.33 to a Bloomberg index of $139.67 amid trades
in the $135.00-$145.00 range.

-Robert Scalabrino

Northeast Spot Power Prices Steady Amid Idle Market Conditions

     Philadelphia, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- Spot power prices
in the Northeast U.S. were little changed this morning, amid
expectations for continued increases in available generation and
stagnant cooling loads, traders said.
     According to Weather Derivatives Corp. of Belton, Missouri,
temperatures in the Northeast will average within one degree
Fahrenheit of normal over the next seven days, keeping heating and
cooling demands 89 and 97 percent below normal, respectively.
     In the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, peak
power scheduled for Thursday delivery was assessed 65 cents
higher, at a Bloomberg volume-weighted index of $33.80 per
megawatt hour.
     Traders said tomorrow's projected load requirements and
generation outages were virtually unchanged, leaving little room
for movement in the day-ahead market.
     The Interconnection projected loads for the first six on-peak
hours of tomorrow to average just 100 megawatts greater than
today, and increases in available generation were estimated at
only 23 megawatts.
     The next-week market was volatile however, as revised weather
forecasts, calling for cooler temperatures, left many marketers
scrambling to readjust positions.
     "The weather forecast for next-week has been drastically
revised," said one PJM-based trader. "Anyone holding excess power
for that period was looking to unload it this morning, and the
market just fell out of bed from there."
     Traders said early morning trades topped out at $48.00,
before trailing off to lows in the $40.00-$41.00 range.
     In the New England Power Pool, day-ahead power sold 25 cents
lower amid trades in the $51.50-$52.50 range, with most deals
executed at $52.00.
     Entergy Corp. said it began the process of restarting its
670-megawatt Pilgrim 1 nuclear reactor at 3:07 a.m., although
traders agreed the additional megawatts didn't affect tomorrow's
market.
     "It's not a very big unit, so a minimal increase in
production isn't going to make a noticeable difference," said one
Northeast trader. "I'm sure it will be reflected in tomorrow's
day-ahead market, when output will be closer to capacity."
     Next-week packages traded heavily in New England, as they did
in PJM, though prices for the 5-day block there remained firm at
$55.00. Traders said heavy purchases from one of the region's load
serving entities might have helped support the market, by
offsetting forecasts for cooler temperatures.
     Temperatures in Boston, one of New England's primary load
centers, are forecast to average less than 60 degrees through the
early part of next week.

-Karyn Rispoli

Southeast Demand Again Drives Mid-Continent Power Prices Up

     Cincinnati, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- Continued high
weather-related demand from the Southeast and a combination of
unit outages and transmission problems in the Midwest drove Mid-
Continent peak power prices up again today, traders said.
     East Central Area Reliability Council prices rose for the
fourth consecutive day as heavy weather-related demand from the
Tennessee Valley Authority grid continued, traders said.
     The Bloomberg index price for day-ahead power delivered into
the Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corp. transmission system rose $6.11
to $46.25 a megawatt-hour and has gained almost $19.00 this week.
Trades ranged from $44.50 up to $50.00 after options expiration.
     Cinergy traders said the late price rise came as marketers
oversold to TVA and had to buy power back from there to cover
short positions.
     In contrast to the daily market, short-term over-the-counter
prices dropped, with power for Friday delivery offered $2.00 less
than yesterday's price for Thursday-Friday parcels at $41.00 and
power for delivery from May 21-25 offered $7.00 less at $40.50.
     "There's a new weather forecast out, and it's going to be a
lot cooler next week now than we originally thought," one trader
said. "I wish I'd sold myself way short on the next week package
yesterday, but what can you do?"
     In Mid-America Interconnected Network trading, peak power at
the Chicago-based Commonwealth Edison hub sold $2.46 higher on
average at $40.00-$46.00 and power in the lower half of the
region $2.79 higher on average at $46.00-$52.00.
     MAIN traders said transmission constraints all but
eliminated the ability to sell power west into the Mid-Continent
Area Power Pool, causing market focus to shift to the South and
East.
     With several unit outages and transmission problems,
continued hot weather and imports from MAIN unavailable, day-
ahead power prices in MAPP were the highest in the region again
today, traders said.
     Next-day power sold $1.00 higher on average in northern MAPP
at $50.00-$55.00 and 33 cents higher in the southern half of the
region at $50.00-$55.00. Traders said activity was limited, as
most utilities had no excess power available.
     "It's still in the 80s (degrees) here, which is much hotter
than we're used to this early in the year," one trader said. "Add
to that these unit outages, and you get what we have right now; a
pretty big mess."

-Ken Fahnestock

Southeast Power Prices Mixed as Recent Heat Moderates

     Atlanta, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- U.S. Southeast spot
electricity prices were mixed today as several major regional
population centers expected cooler weather tomorrow, while
others expected weather to remain hot, utility traders said.
     The Bloomberg Southeast Electric Reliability Council
regional index price rose an average of 39 cents a megawatt-
hour from equivalent trades made yesterday for delivery today,
to $47.77, amid trades in the $36.50-$60.00 range.
     Forecasters from Lexington, Massachusetts-based Weather
Services Corp. predicted daily high temperatures in the Atlanta
vicinity would peak tomorrow at 87 degrees Fahrenheit,
unchanged from today's projected high.
     In sections of the Southwest Power Pool, tomorrow's
projected highs for Topeka, Kansas, were expected to decline to
the high-70s to low-80s tomorrow, utility traders said.
     "There was not a lot of trading done in the next-day
markets because we expect to see a break in the weather," said
one SPP-based utility trader. "Our temperatures, which are
expected to hit the 92-94 degree mark today, will decline to
about 10 degrees below normal tomorrow."
     According to Belton, Missouri-based Weather Derivatives
Inc., cooling demand across the Southeast was expected to
average about normal over the next week.
     Over the next 6-10 days, temperatures in the Southeast are
expected to average 3.1 degrees below normal, the forecaster
said.
     On the Tennessee Valley Authority grid, power for tomorrow
traded in a "broad" range of $40.00-$53.00, though the majority
of energy trades were reported at a Bloomberg index of $44.57,
24 cents more than yesterday.
     Expectations for continued warm weather on the U.S. Gulf
Coast and troubling transmission line loading relief measures
between sections of southern Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and
the northern SPP, kept Entergy Corp. prices from falling,
traders said.
     The Bloomberg day-ahead peak Entergy index fell 2 cents
from yesterday to $49.73 amid trades in the $45.00-$55.00
range.
     Traders said prices could dip tomorrow in the Gulf Coast
region because natural gas futures for June delivery on the New
York Mercantile Exchange were slipping. June futures declined
28.3 cents per million British thermal units to $4.38 per
million Btu.

-Brian Whary

U.K. Winter Power Contracts Little Changed in Heavy Trade

     London, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- Winter 2001 power prices
in the U.K. closed little changed today, although the contract was
unusually active, traders said.
     Winter 2001 baseload was last assessed 10 pence lower at
21.30-21.40 pounds a megawatt-hour.
     Although Winter 2001 traded over 60 times, one trader said
the contract traded "range-bound'' throughout the day, as
participants purchased and sold the contract in an effort to
create liquidity in the market.
     "Its unprecedented for over 800 megawatts to have traded and
we've seen little change. It's evident a player out there is very
keen to get liquidity going in the market,'' another trader said.
     Traders said the two major trading houses that have been
trading the contract aggressively over the past week were the main
market participants again today.
     Day-ahead prices tumbled today even though reports of outage
problems persisted, traders said.
     British Energy's Sizewell B nuclear plant was reported to
have shut for maintenance last Friday because of an acid leak,
although this couldn't be confirmed.
     "The spot market continued to be volatile. We are still
seeing a lot of panic buying and selling,'' one trader said. "It
seems people must have overbought in preparation for these planned
outages and now need to sell.''
     Day-ahead baseload started trade at 23.50 pounds a megawatt-
hour, before plummeting to trade at 18.00 pounds a megawatt-hour,
5.00 pounds lower than yesterday.

-Amal Halawi

Nordic Electricity Prices Close Higher on Elevated Spot Value

     Lysaker, Norway, May 16 (Bloomberg Energy) -- Electricity
prices on the Nordic Power Exchange in Lysaker, Norway, rose in
active afternoon trade after generators set tomorrow's spot price
above expectations, traders said.
Participants rushed to close positions ahead of a Norwegian
holiday tomorrow that will keep the market closed. Nordpool is
scheduled to re-open on Friday.
     Winter-2, 2001 jumped 1.75 kroner a megawatt-hour to close at
a record high of 218.25 kroner a megawatt-hour with 449.00
megawatts exchanged. Winter-1, 2002 gained 2.10 kroner after
166.00 megawatts traded between 216.00-218.75 kroner a megawatt-
hour.
     Although industrial end-user demand was anticipated to drop
tomorrow as Norway celebrates Constitution Day, Thursday's system
area average price was set at 195.41 kroner a megawatt-hour, more
than 10 kroner above traders' expectations of 185.00 kroner a
megawatt-hour and down 2.97 kroner from today's price.
     Producers in western Norway retained control over inflowing
molten snow, pushing prices higher, an Oslo-based trader said. The
minimum hourly spot price in Trondheim, Norway was set at 190.88
kroner a megawatt-hour, only 4.53 kroner lower than the system
area average price.
     Nordpool reported an expected 2.5 percent increase in
Norwegian reservoirs to 34.7 percent of total capacity at the end
of week 19 from the previous week, compared to 49.9 percent of
total capacity a year ago. In Sweden, reservoirs were up 7.9
percent to 33.2 percent of total capacity, beating expectations of
a 5.2 percent gain.
     Snowmelt in Norway was likely to peak in the next ten days,
delaying water tank refilling, while in Sweden it peaked last
week, traders said.
     Limited snow accumulation in the important hydro-producing
region of western Norway has also minimized the effect of
anticipated supply increases.
     In the shorter-term, week 21 closed 1.50 kroner higher at
195.00 kroner a megawatt-hour after a total 286.00 megawatts
traded as low as 190.75 kroner a megawatt-hour. Week 22 jumped
5.00 kroner a megawatt-hour to 204.00 kroner a megawatt-hour.
     Total volumes more-than-quadrupled in afternoon trade to
3,717 gigawatt-hours generation compared to this morning's 738
gigawatt-hours.

-Alejandro Barbajosa
-0- (BES) May/16/2001 19:32 GMT
$

 - daily.pdf


Fyi - Mike
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron on 03/14/2000
07:22 AM ---------------------------

"Terry D. Boss" <tboss@INGAA.org> on 03/14/2000 09:56:15 AM
To: "Dave Johnson (E-mail)" <David.L.Johnson@enron.com>, ""Mike Terraso
(E-mail)" <mterras@enron.com>, ""Tilford Vik (E-mail)" <tvik@enron.com>
cc: " "Max Brown (E-mail)" <mbrown@enron.com>,

Subject: As Predicted, the USA Today Article on Pipelines

	03/13/00- Updated 11:56 PM ET

	?

	When pipelines  are time bombs

	2 million miles of them deliver potential catastrophe every  day

	By Patrick McMahon, USA TODAY

	BELLINGHAM, Wash. - Last summer, an underground pipeline ruptured in a  city
park here and sent a torrent of gasoline along a wooded streambed  toward two
10-year-olds playing with a barbecue lighter.

	After the  16-inch pipeline had been hemorrhaging for an hour and 34 minutes,
an  explosion sent a fireball racing through the park. A plume of smoke rose
30,000 feet.

	Authorities say the blast probably was triggered by a  spark from the lighter.

	"There was a spark and the sky turned  orange, the boys both told me
afterward," says Frank King, whose son,  Wade, was one of the boys in the
park. Wade and his friend, Stephen  Tsiorvas, were burned over 90% of their
bodies. They died the next  day.

	Also killed was 18-year-old Liam Wood, who had graduated from  high school
five days before. The college-bound Wood was fly-fishing in  the park when he
was overcome by fumes, fell into the creek and  drowned.

	"To many people, the boys were considered heroes," says  Mark Asmundson, the
mayor of this seaside city north of Seattle. In  sparking the explosion, the
boys kept the most extensive damage confined  to the 241-acre park, he says.
"The river of gasoline was heading right  for the center of the city."

	On Monday, the Senate Commerce  Committee held a one-day hearing here, about
five minutes from where the  incident occurred, on legislation to improve
safety and government  oversight of pipelines and the companies that operate
them. The hearing  included gripping, sometimes tearful, testimony from the
boys' parents as  well as statements from state and federal officials.

	"My baby died  because of inaction. His death was preventable," said
Katherine Dalen,  Stephen's mother.

	More than 2 million miles of iron, steel and  plastic pipes - some as large
as 5 feet in diameter - snake beneath the  earth and deliver oil, gasoline,
natural gas and potential disaster across  America every day. They range from
the trans-Alaskan pipeline to tiny  pipes carrying natural gas to people's
homes. Safer than gasoline trucks  or ocean-going tankers by most measures,
once-remote pipelines are  prompting new worries as sprawling metropolitan
areas grow into their  paths.

	U.S. pipeline accidents have fluctuated in the past 10  years. In the 1990s,
there were 3,917 liquid fuel spills and natural gas  leaks, roughly one a
day. The incidents, most involving local lines  carrying natural gas,
resulted in 201 deaths, 2,826 injuries and $778  million in property damage
from 1990 through 1999.

	There also are  environmental costs. In January, one of the nation's largest
pipeline  companies, Koch Industries of Wichita, Kan., paid a $30 million
civil fine  to settle Environmental Protection Agency water-pollution
charges  involving 300 oil spills from 1990 to 1997. The EPA said Koch failed
to  inspect its pipelines and waited for leaks before making  repairs.

	Liam Wood's mother, Marlene Robinson, is focused on  stronger regulations
nationwide, including more and better inspections,  and regional watchdog
committees.

	"I don't have any children left  to protect," she said in an interview and
repeated at the hearing. "This  didn't have to happen to Liam, and it doesn't
have to happen to other  people's children."

	Although the cause of the Bellingham incident  remains under investigation,
one factor might have been damage to the  pipeline from a backhoe when a
water line was being installed in 1995. But  investigators also have many
questions about the role of Olympic Pipeline  Co., which operates a network
of pipelines along a 299-mile corridor from  north of Bellingham to Portland,
Ore.

	Investigators for the  National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) want to
know whether Olympic  ignored warning signs and whether it could have acted
more swiftly after  the leak. But the inquiry has been delayed by a parallel
investigation by  the U.S. Attorney's Office. Several Olympic employees have
declined to  testify and have invoked their constitutional rights against
self-incrimination.

	Pipeline owners and government regulators  defend the safety of transporting
two-thirds of the nation's fuels by  pipeline, and they warn that more rules
could boost energy prices. Critics  say pipelines are too loosely regulated,
not fully inspected and, in some  cases, deteriorating.

	The U.S. Transportation Department oversees  pipelines. Its Office of
Pipeline Safety sets standards for design,  operation, maintenance and
emergency response. Richard Felder, who heads  the office, testified at
Monday's hearing. "Our goal is to prevent  incidents like Bellingham from
ever happening again," he said.

	In  an earlier interview, he defended his office's performance and the
industry: "It's a good record. It's the safest form of transporting fuel,
far and away."

	The office has extensive rules on pipeline safety,  including requirements
for signs along the route and programs to alert  potential diggers, but
"there's no such thing as risk elimination," Felder  says. "All you can do is
manage it."

	But the chairman of the  federal government's transportation safety watchdog
agency is unimpressed  with Felder's office and says it deserves a grade of
F. "It's been the  most frustrating area I've had to deal with as chairman,"
says Jim Hall,  NTSB chairman since 1994. He says no agency has a worse
record of  responding to NTSB recommendations.

	In a recent speech, he said  there's no indication that the Office of
Pipeline Safety "is in charge or  that its regulations, its inspections, its
assets, its staffing and its  spirit are adequate to the task."

	Felder takes issue with much of  the criticism, but he endorses calls for
more research into pipeline  safety. He said his office is in the final
stages of preparing new safety  standards for heavily populated and
environmentally sensitive  areas.

	He emphasized that the leading cause of pipeline failure is  "third-party
damage" from road, utility and construction work. The agency  has worked to
enhance a system to alert pipeline companies of digging with  one telephone
call.

	Felder is critical of local authorities who  ignore pipelines when making
decisions on housing and commercial  development. "Local planning has not
kept people away from pipelines," he  says. "It's astounding to me."

	Felder bristles at critics'  suggestions that his agency is a tool of the oil
and gas industry. "I  can't agree with that one iota," he says. "We try to
balance the safety  issue and the economic issue."

	The Senate Commerce Committee will  consider a bipartisan bill sponsored by
Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and  Slade Gorton, R-Wash.; Rep. Jack Metcalf,
the Republican who represents  Bellingham; and Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat
whose district includes an  operating section of the pipeline.

	The bill would require periodic  internal inspections of pipelines, boost
federal spending on research,  increase the number of federal pipeline
inspectors nationwide - there now  are 55 - and expand states' regulatory
authority. On Monday, the Office of  Pipeline Safety gave the state of
Washington the temporary right to do  more inspections.

	The Murray-Gorton bill also would require federal  certification of pipeline
workers and expand the public's right to know  about spills and leaks.

	"I was totally shocked and amazed when  this happened," Murray says. "You
always assume that your neighborhood is  safe and somebody has taken care of
this."

	The Bellingham rupture  not only dumped 278,000 gallons of gasoline into this
city of 63,000 near  the Canadian border but also unleashed civic furor at
Olympic Pipeline.  "It's hard for people to get interested in things they
can't see. Out of  sight is out of mind," Mayor Asmundson says. He has
visited the boys'  grieving families and lobbied Congress. The blast "has
dominated my life  since June 10."

	Pipeline operators portray accidents as isolated to  escape national
scrutiny, he says. "The whole focus of the industry is  containment. Do
whatever you have to do locally, but don't stir things up  nationally."

	Last week, Murray released a report she requested from  the Transportation
Department's inspector general. It faults the Office of  Pipeline Safety for
ignoring enhanced safety requirements, including  increased inspections
inside pipes, in highly populated and  environmentally sensitive areas as
Congress required in 1992 and 1996.

	A U.S. General Accounting Office audit of operations is due in  May. Also
pending is a decision from Felder and the pipeline safety office  on whether
to restart the 39-mile section shut down since the Bellingham  accident.
Olympic Pipeline has repaired the line and is eager to reopen  it.

	People living along the route and officials are pushing for  more extensive
testing of the still-operating section of the line south of  Bellingham.
Felder says he has not decided whether it should be shut down.

	Last week, Felder's office ordered a new round of testing along  the entire
line, but critics such as Inslee are not convinced it will be  enough. The
tests must be conducted on the closed section of the pipeline  before a
decision is made on reopening it.

	Contributing: Scott  Hillkirk

Confidential: INGAA Member Use  only

Terry D. Boss
VP Environment Safety and Operations
INGAA
tboss@ingaa.org
?


It will cost us another month's revenue credit.  MK

	From:  Drew Fossum                           11/08/2000 08:23 AM

To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: dave.neubauer@enron.com, Lee Huber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: SSL Abandonment - Sale to El Paso

The easiest way would be to delay the closing until January.  Is there a
reason we can't do that?  DF

	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           11/08/2000 07:28 AM

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, dave.neubauer@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Re: SSL Abandonment - Sale to El Paso

We need to make sure this upside doesn't get taken in 2000.  It is part of
the 2001 plan.  What ideas do we have for reserving equivlaent dollars?  the
TC swap? depending on the outcome of the Carlton order, we may have a couple
hundred thousand there?  we need to discuss how we want this treated for when
it gets to Rod-  MK
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron on 11/08/2000
07:24 AM ---------------------------

Bob Burleson
11/07/2000 05:03 PM
To: Michele Winckowski/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rockey Storie/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: SSL Abandonment - Sale to El Paso

I had a meeting with El Paso the afternoon of Nov. 6th to discuss the
abandonment, and the "next steps"

El Paso agrees to shoot for a November 30, 2000 close, with them assuming
commercial and revenue responsibility on December 1st.  I requested funds
transfer to NNG on the first business day of Jan 2001.

All exhibits to the P&SA are collected and being made available to legal for
incorporation into closing documents.  These include MMS ROW's, space lease
agreements on  three platforms, and a surviving NNG/Sea Gull transport
agreement.

Robert Newman with EGC has contacted El Paso field operations and they have
developed a list of information operations will transfer to El Paso regarding
pipeline Ass Builts, maintenance information,. metering activity, MMS safety
inspections, corrosion control, leak histories, etc.

Preliminary worksheet showing the "Adjusted Price" was developed and agreed
to with El Paso.  Estimate of proceeds at the time of closing will be
$1,357,107.00.  This was developed using estimates for the last three months
revenue stream, and four month of O&M.  The final number will be developed
and routed internally once actual variable are known.  Due to the transition
to SAP, queries be expense code are more difficult to obtain.

If you should have any questions or need any information please let me know.

Thanks, Bob


Here is an initial draft from our attorneys in California on the state
processes that could be required.  In my experience, the single biggest issue
the utilities have is the transfer of the rights of way -- there are
thousands of these -- each like an individual contract.  If the state tried
eminent domain, it seems like it could face a long-time in the courts to
finish that process.

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


>From: "Monardi, Marino G" <Marino.Monardi@pse.com>
>To: "'susan_m_scott@hotmail.com'" <susan_m_scott@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Job description
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:28:01 -0800
>
>Susan,
>
>I'm glad that you are interested.  Attached is the job description.  Please
>review and I will call you next Tue/Wed to talk about it.
>
>Thank you.
>
>  <<Energy Risk Management Analyst fundamental analysis.doc>>
>Marino Monardi
>Puget Sound Energy
>Marino.Monardi@pse.com
>Phone: 425/462-3111
>Cell: 206/604-5023
>Fax: 425/462-3175
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

 - Energy Risk Management Analyst fundamental analysis.doc


Well unfortunately, Ladd managed to confuse the judge as to the Upstream
capacity into the Socal system. In doing so he has potentially opened up a
"real" danger for TW at Hector Rd. and again completely left out of his
testimony S.Needles aka Topock capacity of 200 mmcfd. Now Socal will try to
poll the parties so as to prepare a consensus Exhibit that will put "fact"
to the upstream capacities into the Socal system. Well, I fear that the
other pipeline lines will shape the facts to their agendas and we will have
a distorted landscape into the Socal system. The downside I perceive is that
the judge will 1) want to Let the Market decide via increasing the maximum
receipt point capacity allowed  or 2) want further comments on the entire
Socal receipt point capacity structure. These two onerous outcomes can be
avoided if the judge receives a consensus Exhibit(at least from the
Settlement parties) that is explained in a consistent manner  and with
common terms. For example, if we look at just FERC capacities in lieu of
perfect design capacities we might calm down these issues.

We will likely lead this process for the CSA parties, Lets discuss Monday
morning. Hope everything went well in Florida, especially you Jeff . I hope
you just banged up your pride and not your body to badly.

Mark, IGS


see below.

Federal price limits backfire
Some generators withhold power rather than abide by rate caps
David Lazarus, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 4, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/04/M
N186091.DTL
Officials in California and Nevada, after months of lobbying for federal
regulators to cap Western power prices, warned yesterday that the newly
imposed limits have had the unintended consequence of increasing a threat of
blackouts in the two states.
The warnings were issued as California came within minutes of rolling
blackouts yesterday afternoon, and one day after the first-ever rolling
blackouts in Las Vegas forced energy-hungry casinos to shut off fountains and
reduce air conditioning.
The two states are asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take a
closer look at the so-called price mitigation plan and come up with revisions
that would deter power companies from withholding electricity during
shortages.
"We need some clarity to this order," said Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the
California Department of Water Resources, which is spending billions of
dollars to keep the state's lights on.
"Generators need to be held accountable," he said.
The crux of the problem is that price limits kick in during shortages, yet
power companies say these caps force them to sell power at below-market rates
during periods of high demand.
Some companies have responded by holding back power rather than face the
expense of shipping electricity from state to state. Each mile that
electricity must be transmitted adds to the overall cost.
"No one's going to pay for transmission if the cost is near the caps," said
Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, an
energy-industry association in Menlo Park.
Ackerman said several companies in his organization decided that there was no
economic advantage to offering power in regional markets when price controls
are in effect.
"This means individual regions like California or Las Vegas could end up not
having enough," Ackerman said. "It increases the threat of blackouts."
BLACKOUT ALERT CANCELED
California authorities issued a blackout alert at 1:45 p.m. yesterday when
power reserves dipped to dangerously low levels. They canceled the alert
about an hour later, after finding additional supplies.
"Everyone in the West is fighting for megawatts," said Stephanie McCorkle, a
spokeswoman for the California Independent System Operator, which oversees
the state's power network.
The Golden State's latest brush with lights-out conditions came a day after
Nevada experienced its own rolling blackouts for the first time, prompting
heavy power users such as the MGM Grand and Caesars Palace to dim their
lights.
Don Soderberg, chairman of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, said that
the sudden power emergency took state authorities by surprise and that they
are investigating to see what role the federal price limits may have had in
exacerbating Monday's shortage.
"We're looking very closely at this," he said. "There seems to be a potential
for unintended consequences."
Specifically, Soderberg said Nevada is focusing on operators of older, less-
efficient plants who would find profit margins shrinking, if not vanishing,
under capped prices.
"We're going to see how the caps might have played into this," he said.
The federal ceiling in 10 Western states, excluding California, is about $92
per megawatt hour. In California, a 10 percent surcharge is added because of
the state's credit risk, bringing the price to just over $101.
Ackerman at the Western Power Trading Forum said regional price controls have
extended California's power crisis to neighboring states.
"California sneezed and the rest of the region caught the virus," he said.
'LAWYERS LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES'
California and Nevada officials, however, said that they still have faith
that price limits can stabilize Western electricity markets but that federal
regulators may have to tweak the system so that power companies cannot
withhold output.
"The generators have banks of lawyers looking for loopholes (in the plan),"
said Hidalgo at the Department of Water Resources.
Unfortunately, it may take some time for the regulators to revisit an issue
that they took up only with the greatest reluctance. For months, federal
regulators refused to impose price controls, preferring instead to let supply
and demand determine costs.
Hidalgo said that when it appeared that power companies were throttling back
on output Monday, California officials immediately dialed the hot line number
provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in case of emergencies.
"No one answered," he said. "They were closed."
State officials tried again yesterday, and this time were told that the
commission would look into the matter. They were not given a time frame for
when the commission might come up with a response.
E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 1

Out-of-state generators pull plug over uncertainty on price controls
By Dale Kasler
Bee Staff Writer
(Published July 3, 2001)
Confused by the federal government's new controls on electricity prices,
generators withheld so much power from California on Monday that the state
was nearly plunged into rolling blackouts, state officials said.
The confusion began when the state's electric grid operators declared a Stage
1 power alert in the early afternoon, triggering the price caps for the first
time since they went into effect June 21.
Out-of-state generators pulled about 1,500 megawatts of electricity off the
table at midafternoon, enough to power about 1.1 million homes, because of
uncertainty about how much they could charge under the new Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission pricing system, said Oscar Hidalgo, spokesperson for
the state Department of Water Resources. The department buys electricity for
the state's financially distressed utilities.
"They didn't understand what they were going to be paid; there was confusion
over the FERC order," Hidalgo said. "We saw 1,500 megawatts disappear."
The problem was exacerbated by a heat wave across the West, which forced
California to compete with other states for scarce electricity, he said.
Rolling blackouts hit southern Nevada.
Most California officials credit the FERC system, which is based on a
variable price cap, with reining in what had been a runaway wholesale power
market. But power generators have complained that the price caps, by limiting
profits, could discourage the production of critically needed electricity.
And as Monday's episode suggested, even the uncertainty about where the cap
will fall could lead to unexpected shortages.
"That's the risk that you run (with price controls)," said Arthur O'Donnell,
editor of the newsletter California Energy Markets. "People want any kind of
certainty at all."
Hidalgo said the state avoided blackouts only because of last-minute imports
from the Bonne'ville Power Administration, the federal agency that markets
government-produced hydroelectric power in the Pacific Northwest. The state
went into a Stage 2 power alert, the next-to-last level before blackouts are
ordered. The alert was canceled in late afternoon.
The blackouts would have been the first in California since May 8.
FERC imposed a round-the-clock ceiling on power throughout the West. The
price fluctuates and is tied to the production costs of the least-efficient
plant operating in California during a "power alert" declared by the
Independent System Operator, which runs the state's power-transmission grid.
When there's no alert, prices can't exceed 85 percent of the cap that was
established during the latest alert.
Until Monday, the maximum price held steady at about $101 a megawatt-hour in
California. But when the ISO declared a Stage 1 power alert in early
afternoon, signifying that reserve supplies had dwindled to less than 7
percent of demand, confusion set in, Hidalgo and others said.
Because of a steep drop in the price of natural gas, which fuels many
California power plants, suppliers knew the cap would fall. But no one knew
by how much until the price was posted by the ISO.
The ceiling for California fell to about $77 at 3 p.m. but was back up to $98
in two hours, according to the ISO. Those prices include the 10 percent
premium that sellers can charge California because FERC said there's a credit
risk in selling to the state.
O'Donnell said it's likely suppliers will pull back from the market every
time the ISO declares a power alert.
In-state generators have to operate their plants if summoned by the ISO. But
out-of-state suppliers can withhold supplies, and on Monday it was the
out-of-staters that were pulling back, Hidalgo said.

The Bee's Dale Kasler can be reached at (916) 321-1066 or dkasler@sacbee.com.

Power Sales Halted by New Pricing Curbs
Electricity: Confused suppliers, unsure what they will be paid, refuse to
sell to state, which asks FERC for a ruling but doesn't get it.

By NANCY VOGEL, Times Staff Writer

?????SACRAMENTO--Confusion over new federal price restrictions prompted
several electricity sellers to back away from sales to California on Monday
afternoon, pushing the state closer to blackouts, energy officials said.
?????The state lost sales that would have provided enough electricity to
supply more than 1 million homes, said Ray Hart, deputy director of the
California Department of Water Resources, which has been buying much of the
state's electricity since January.
?????At least five companies producing or marketing power "are telling us
that since they don't know what they're going to get paid, they're not going
to take the risk, and so they're not going to sell the energy," Hart said.
?????The electricity sales fell through after power consumption soared in
summer heat and grid operators were forced to declare a Stage 1 emergency,
meaning reserves had dipped below 7%. It was the first such emergency since
May 31.
?????Under a June 19 order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
intended to bring down wholesale electricity markets across the West, a power
emergency in California triggers the setting of a new price limit that
applies to power plant owners from Washington to Arizona.
?????The new price is supposed to be based upon whatever it costs to run the
most inefficient, expensive power plant selling electricity to California
grid operators during the first full hour of a Stage 1 emergency.
?????But much uncertainty remains about exactly how and when the new price is
supposed to be established under the commission's order, and that apparently
drove away sellers, Hart said.
?????Shortly after the state issued the Stage 1 alert at 1:30 p.m., putting
the old price limit of $90 per megawatt-hour in question, companies that had
committed to provide the state electricity hour by hour Monday afternoon
backed out, Hart said. The companies include TransAlta Energy Marketing of
Oregon, Constellation Power of Baltimore and Sempra Energy Trading, a unit of
the San Diego-based energy conglomerate.
?????Forced to dip even deeper into the state's power reserves and declare a
Stage 2 emergency, water agency officials called the federal energy
commission's hotline for clarification about what the new price should be and
when it should take effect. They got no answer.
?????Hart said commission officials reached at home promised to try to
clarify their order today. One outstanding question is what obligations power
suppliers have to deliver electricity to California in an emergency.
?????Both buyers and sellers in the market agree that the new price, when it
is set, will probably be lower than $90 per megawatt-hour because the price
of natural gas, the main fuel in California power plants, has dropped lately.
?????Temperatures soared several degrees higher Monday than grid operators
had anticipated. But they said they expected to avoid rolling blackouts in
part because the Bonneville Power Administration in Portland, Ore., had
agreed to provide several hundred megawatts of Pacific Northwest hydropower
each hour in exchange for a return of electricity from California later this
summer.
?????"Bonneville is giving us emergency power to get us through," Hart said.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

James D Steffes
07/06/2001 10:04 PM
To: Jeffrey T Hodge/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron,
Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
dwatkiss@bracepatt.com

Subject: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGDE - Draft FERC Brief on Settlement Process

The attached is a rough draft of a potential filing Enron would make in to
Judge Wagner in the Settlement process (it is unclear if this would remain
confidential per the gag order).

Please provide Ray Alvarez your comments.  This would be filed as early as
Monday am.

Jim


Here's my "final" draft incorporating comments from West Trading, Steffes,
Kaufman (limited, due to time constraints) , Dasovich , and the latest back
and forth on the level of the cap.

In the end I did not reorganize sections as I thought that would cause to
much craziness with the lawyers who are trying to x-reference the document.
Frankly I think the order of the arguments in the affidavit are less
important than in the pleading.

Alan Comnes


Matt Motley and Mike Swerzbin both said this trade should be desk-to-desk and
has nothing to do with Bonneville. Could you send me a copy of the confirm
letter? They'd like to look at it to try and figure out what trade BPA is
referring to. If it's a hard copy, you can fax it to 503-464-3740. Thanks a
lot.

Kate

	From:  Kimberly Allen                           01/04/2001 03:16 PM

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

Subject: #486435

Hey Kate! I have a trade that Motley did and it shows as a desk to desk
trade. But BPA sent me a confirmation on the trade. Is this suppose to be
desk to desk or should the counterparty actually be BPA?

Thanks,

Kimberly Indelicato


Phillip:

This will confirm the meeting scheduled for 4:00 pm on December 13, 2000.
The meeting will be held in Mark Haedicke's office (EB3325).  Thanks in
advance for your participation.

Jeff


Ginger:  would you please distribute the following memo to the Government
Affairs group.  Thank you!

Congress continues to advance the Electricity Restructuring Legislative
debate.  On Tuesday, June 20th, the Senate Energy Committee plans to mark-up
and pass Senator Gorton's Reliability bill including the consensus state
savings clause language.  Attached below (attachment 6-17 jt.st.wpd) is the
46 page joint Senate staff draft which represents agreement in many areas,
but the differences remain significant.  No agreement was reachable at this
time in Committee on the extent of FERC jurisdiction to prevent unreasonable
differences between wholesale and retail service nor reached on the RPS.
Although the 46 page draft includes language on PURPA, Reciprocity ,Consumer
Protection, Interconnection, etc.; currently only two Senators support the
additional language included in the 46 pages; thus, the only chance of moving
through the Senate Energy Committee this year is to pass Reliability-only
now.  With the make-up of the Senate Energy Committee, our strategy is "to do
no harm" in committee thus, making the reliability language-only option
acceptable as a means to an end.  Enron does support the Reliability bill but
we will insist on adding transmission access and functional separation
language later in the process while EEI will insist on adding PUHCA while
APPA will insist on adding Private Use (thus, we can see what the final
consensus will look like; plus we have been involved in drafting the
consensus in all these provisions.....but timing and sequence are crucial.)

It might be helpful to remind everyone that the bills leading up to the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 as passed by the Committees were also amended in
Conference since it was impossible to garner the necessary Committee votes or
survive a Senate filibuster with any Committee-included wheeling language.
Transmission wheeling/ access language was successfully added in Conference.
Thus, the sequence of adding our necessary provisions remains key to a
successful strategy then as it does now.

Also attached is Chairman Bliley's Reliability and Transmission discussion
draft (section by section, summary and 005_PDF).  This is the foundation from
which he is willing to add additional consensus amendments. From Enron's view
,this foundation draft is our exact wish list to clarify FERC jurisdiction
over both bundled and unbundled transmission (although we have suggested a
few technical drafting points which have already been conveyed to staff.)  It
is important for all of us to convey our support for this draft as the
essential foundation for the bill.  Mark-up  will likely be scheduled to
occur during  the week of June 26th.

It is important to note that Subcommittee Chairman Barton is philosophically
opposed to the Bliley/Enron "pro-FERC" approach.  As such, he has asked Texas
PUC Chairman Pat Wood and Oklahoma Corporate Commission Chairwoman Denise
Bode to draft a compromise to lighten the FERC authority in favor of a more
Regional Approach.  I just got off the phone with Pat who walked me through
the draft he was submitting this evening to Barton (once it is officially
transmitted, I will be able to get a copy to you, likely on Monday or
Tuesday.)  From Pat's description, we should be able to be supportive since
he shares our views about  wholesale markets needing federal authority.   He
discussed a draft that mandates RTO participation, a seven point mandatory
RTO test  filed at FERC in 60 days after enactment, Ratemaking established by
the state but allowing FERC appeal, allowing FERC appeal if 2/3rd's
disagree,  State authority but also ongoing FERC authority with an expedited
dispute resolution process.  The seven point mandatory filing details are 1.
full wholesale competition under the same terms, rates and conditions; 2. RTO
sole functional control of transmission; 3. functional separation of
generation from transmission; 4. curtailment on non-discriminatory basis; 5.
all transmission uses disclosed and transparent (889); 6. constant assessment
of construction needs; and 7.  remedy and emergency authority for dispute
resolution.  He mentioned Denise's insistence for interconnection on a
non-discriminatory basis which he feels is adequately addressed in their
draft.

From Pat's discussions with Reliant on his draft, they again spoke in support
of Enron's transmission open access goals.  TXU remains concerned that ERCOT
will be pulled under FERC jurisdiction in the draft.  But, it is Pat's view
that this already has happened under the state law.

Our goal next week is to lock-in bipartisan House Committee support and House
Leadership support for the mark-up plus tighten the mark-up process so it is
transparent to all; plus to pass the Senate Committee bill.   A bill to meet
our established goals is still doable this year.  My strategy was always
based upon the necessity to lead with the reliability language in order  to
create a legislative vehicle for us to include our non-discriminatory
transmission access provisions.    Please call should you need clarification
or have questions.  Many thanks for your continued support.

 - sectionbysection.wpd - summarydoc.wpd - 005_.PDF


I just spoke to Tanya and she was going for either (1) Bloomberg published a
report that said energy supply was going to be low for the next couple of
years, or (2) the California thing.  She hadn't heard the Energizer bunny
story.


Thanks, Joe.  I will check back with you after the 19th.  The resume I sent highlights more of my PR skills and background, but I don't want to limit my opportunities.  I would also be interested in potential marketing and/or marketing communications opps.  Thanks again!!
Elizabeth

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Stepenovitch, Joe
Sent:	Monday, September 10, 2001 1:49 PM
To:	Peters, Elizabeth
Subject:	RE: Suzette's friend

Hello Elizabeth,

I would be happy to give your r?sum? to my mother and father.  In fact,  I'm going home this weekend and I will leave a copy for them.  I should tell you they are on a cruise in Europe until the 19th but keep in touch and I will see what I can do.

-Joe

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Peters, Elizabeth
Sent:	Monday, September 10, 2001 1:33 PM
To:	Stepenovitch, Joe
Subject:	Suzette's friend

Hi Joe-
I am Suzette's friend-the one looking for jobs (on the sly of course) in the greater Tampa and/or St. Petersburg area.  She had suggested I send my resume to you for potential contacts at FPL and Bank of America.

I am currently in the associate program but have a 'unique' concentration.  I was hired into the marketing track and have focused mainly on those areas here at Enron.  Let me know if you have any questions for me-here's a recent copy of my resume which includes my latest rotation.  Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.  Regards,
Beth Peters
office: 713-345-6313
mobile: 713-410-0705

 << File: Resume-public affairs.doc >>


we flashed this as Union, they subsequently moved the volumes on GL to CPR pipeline exchange.  you have to look at both to get this to reconcile.  Does this make sense?  If not, give me a call.  Thanks.
PL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bowen, Melba A.
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:35 PM
To:	Love, Phillip M.
Subject:	RE: Ontario - August 01 - Union

I do have this deal under CPR Pipeline Exchange but if I move this $635,999 liquidation to Syn Strg I end up with a variance exposure of $1,237,227 on Syn Strg.  Our flash for Syn Strg is volume of (189,279) and ($1,058).  No volumes have been booked yet.  Should there be another liquidation?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Love, Phillip M.
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:43 PM
To:	Bowen, Melba A.
Subject:	RE: Ontario - August 01 - Union

looks like this deal got zeroed out and rebooked on #1019677 look and see if you see this - CP should now be CPR pipeline exchange.  No variance should occur.  Thanks.
PL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bowen, Melba A.
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:27 PM
To:	Love, Phillip M.
Subject:	Ontario - August 01 - Union

I'm still showing an open item for Union Gas Purchases - Liquidation 972214/VU3457.1 in the amount of $635,999.94.  Any info on this yet?

Thanks!


All --

Here is the document Steve referred to on our call.  It's very much a work
in progress but perhaps can serve as a building block for some of the other
work under way.

Regards,

----------
Josh Pekarsky
Kekst and Company
ph. (212) 521-4877
fax. (212) 521-4900

 <<post-deal_comms.doc>>  <<post-deal_Activities.doc>>
______________________________

This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(212) 521-4800 and permanently delete the original and any copy of the
e-mail and any printout thereof.


I thought we should have be taxable to the toon of 100 Million.  Give me a call when you get a chance.


THE FORUM MEETING IS BACK ON!!!  Please mark your calendars for October
15th for the regular monthly meeting.  An e-mail will come out a week
before for RSVP.

Gail Glidewell
Assistant to Michael Morgan
713-361-7205
713-361-7280 (Fax)


I will be attending the online presentation today at 4.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 01/05/2001
05:17 PM ---------------------------

"Btu" <subs@Btu.net> on 01/05/2001 04:34:17 PM
To: "Btu's Weekly Power Report" <>
cc:
Subject: Btu's Weekly Power Report

Attached is the latest issue of Btu's Weekly Power Report

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

 - wp010801.pdf


Please include the following changes to the item listed as b. in the below
email

b.  The floating price will be the Median of the High/Low of the Day Rate
Range ($) for the Rigtype listed as JU-Over 300'-IC as posted in Offshore
Data Services Gulf of Mexico Weekly Rig Locator, Gulf of Mexico Rig
Utilization and Day Rates each Friday of the month.   (Mark, the price listed
on Friday the 7th, will be for the first 7 days of the month)

---------------------- Forwarded by John Peyton/HOU/ECT on 06/22/2000 06:54
PM ---------------------------

John Peyton
06/22/2000 06:51 PM
To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Keith MacIvor/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jean Mrha/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Chiles/Seacor Smit Day Rate deal

Mark,

Please prepare a term sheet which can be used as a Indicative Proposal for
our potential first Day Rate transaction.

The key issues other than call premium that need to be clarified are the
"posting language" and the determination period.

We will (if we reach agreement) be purchasing a series of calls and Chiles
Offshore LLC or Seacor Smit, Inc. (the entity which is currently the majority
owner of Chiles Offshore, LLC - but after the Chiles IPO, their interest will
be lowered to around 25%) will be selling the calls.

The Strike Price will be at a Day Rate of  US$70,000/day

The volume will be One (1) Rig * Day (rig multiplied times day).

Determination Period:  Jan 1, 2001 through Mar 31, 2001

Floating Price:  We need two sets of language here - to let the customer
choose from.

 a.   The floating price will be the Median of the High/Low of Day Rates for
Gulf Of Mexico, Jackups "Over 300' - C", as posted in the first printing of
the month of the Offshore Data Services, Offshore Rig Locator, page entitled
"Competitive Offshore Rig Day Rates",   (Mark, the day rates listed in the
June 2000 posting will be applied to each day of the preceding month (May
2000)).

or:

 b. The floating price will be the Median of the High/Low of the Day Rate
Range ($) for the Rigtype listed as JU-Over 300'-IC as posted each Friday of
the month.   (Mark, the price listed on Friday the 7th, will be for the first
7 days of the month)

I need to send this out Friday (tomorrow) afternoon.  As we discussed, we
need to include language that identifies that this is not definitive and
needs Enron Corp's board approval before becoming a deal.

I will carry a copy of the posting to your office before I leave this
evening.

John


Group,

Just wanted to give you an update on the Wheelabrator Martel outage.  They are currently only producing 9mw (they are prescheduled at 13mw), and we are selling them 4mw back real-time in order to cover their preschedule.  I just spoke with Mike Burt at the plant, and he said that they will continue producing 9mw through HE4 on Thursday, 9/27.  Beginning HE5, they will be going down to 0mw, so at that point we need to sell them 13mw, through HE16.  At that point in time they should be back to full power and producing 13mw (their full preschedule).

I'll keep you posted on any changes.
Thanks,

Stan Cocke
Enron North America
121 SW Salmon
Portland, OR  97204
503-464-3829 (w)
503-819-1132 (c)


Dear GERALD NEMEC,

Introducing our NEW 24 HOUR UNLIMITED INSTANT PEOPLE SEARCH

at a

SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY PRICE for PREVIOUS US SEARCH USERS ONLY!

Just click here: http://click.ussearch.com/kc123203339.526.0.320
to start finding friends, family, classmates - everyone instantly!

With access to a unique set of databases containing over
2 billion records, you can conveniently search for everyone
on your list.

You can:
- Search as much as you want for 24 hours
- Search by Name (as little as a last name)
- Search by Address
- Search by Phone Number

Use the new 24 hour Unlimited Instant People Locate Search
to find everyone you care about, to update your address book,
to organize reunions. You name it!

Just click here: http://click.ussearch.com/kc123203339.526.0.320
to start finding everyone instantly.

This search, at a special introductory price, is available
only through the link in this e-mail, until June 15, 2001.

Happy Searching!

Your friends at US SEARCH
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe information

If you want to be removed from future mailings, please reply to
this e-mail and write "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Please
do not write anything in the body of your e-mail as this can not
be picked up by our system. Thank you.


Teb,

Are you available for thi conf. call?

Denise

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kilmer III, Robert
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 3:54 PM
To:	LaGesse, Denise
Subject:	RE: Trying to set up conf call re: TW Weather Drivative (involves potential affiliate issue)

No try Teb Lokey

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	LaGesse, Denise
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 3:35 PM
To:	Pryor, Tony; Kilmer III, Robert; Porter, Gregory J.; McConnell, Mark; Rapp, Bill
Cc:	Huber, Lee
Subject:	Trying to set up conf call re: TW Weather Drivative (involves potential affiliate issue)

Please let me know ASAP whether or not you are available for the above-referenced meeting tomorrow, 10/23/01, 2:30pm for 30 minutes.

Local people meet in Lee Huber's office (EB4781); she will call Greg Porter.

Denise LaGesse
Enron Transportation Services
1400 Smith Street (77002-7361)
P.O. Box 1188
Houston, Texas 77251-1188
denise.lagesse@enron.com
ph 713-853-6704
fax 713-853-5425


Please let Arvind I'd like to get this....Jeff

	From:  Jennifer Fraser                           11/08/2000 06:04 PM

To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: LNG Industry Intelligence

 I didn't see your name on this dist list - I thought you'd want to receive it
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Fraser/HOU/ECT on 11/08/2000
06:03 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Russell Dyk @ ENRON                           11/08/2000 05:40 PM

To: Jennifer Fraser/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: LNG Industry Intelligence

---------------------- Forwarded by Russell Dyk/Corp/Enron on 11/08/2000
05:38 PM ---------------------------
   Merritt Thomas @ ECT                11/08/2000 04:06 PM

To: Russell Dyk/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: LNG Industry Intelligence

---------------------- Forwarded by Merritt Thomas/LON/ECT on 08/11/2000
22:00 ---------------------------

Arvind Bhatnagar
03/11/2000 01:38
To: Doug Arnell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rick
Bergsieker/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Guido
Caranti/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Javier
Chavarria/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dustin Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Nancy Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ned E
Crady/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
Cullen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laurie
Davidson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kim Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Borislav Feschiev/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tony
Galt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Zdenek
Gerych/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, David L
Glessner/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sonia
Guerra/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kathleen D
Hardeman/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Clay
Harris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, David
Haug/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Brenda J
Johnston/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kenneth
Krasny/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Maurizio La
Noce/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Cindy Long/Corp/Enron@Enron, Andrew
Makk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dan Masters/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wayne
Perry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Todd
Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, V V Rao/SIN/ECT@ECT, Margaret
Rhee/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Daniel R
Rogers/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dennis
Vegas/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Satish Venkataraman/SIN/ECT@ECT,
Emilio Vicens/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Les
Webber/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Stella
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Arvind Bhatnagar/SIN/ECT@ECT, Rob
Walls/NA/Enron@Enron, Echo Wang/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Frank S
Wang/Corp/Enron@Enron, Robert Soeldner/LON/ECT@ECT, Alexios
Kollaros/HOU/EES@EES, Eric Gonzales/LON/ECT@ECT, Amitchell@linklaters.com,
Merritt Thomas/LON/ECT@ECT, Brad Hitch/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Eric Groves/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: LNG Industry Intelligence

Please find attached an issue of LNG Industry Intelligence.


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 08/07/2000
12:42 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Jay Reitmeyer                           08/07/2000 10:39 AM

To: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Keith Holst/HOU/ECT@ect
cc:
Subject: New Socal Curves


Please find attached the Global Markets Monitor for the week ending 18 May
2001.

Thank you,
Maureen Raymond-Castaneda and
Gwyn Koepke


---------------------- Forwarded by Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT on 08/23/2000
07:12 AM ---------------------------

"Brook" <brook@pdq.net> on 08/23/2000 01:18:02 AM
To: "Eric Johnson" <ezy@flash.net>, "Heather Evans" <reagantgo@aol.com>,
"Greg Smith" <gregtapper@aol.com>
cc: "Matthew Lenhart" <Matthew.Lenhart@enron.com>, "Bryan Hull"
<Bryan.Hull@enron.com>

Subject: Losers Wanted

Wow, what a response we have had so far...23  players are in (old news, more
than that now).? WE NEED MORE  HOWEVER!!!!? Don't forget to spread the word
if anyone you know would be  interested.? I surely expect atleast 10 more to
join but would love alot  more.? Anyway, now to the important stuff...getting
on the  site.
?
Unlike in years past, I feel that people are more  internet literate and can
get signed up in a league without step by step  instructions.? So I am going
to give you the basics and you can figure it  out from there.? I advise you
do it sooner than later incase you have any  problems.
?
The site is www.commissioner.com.? On the home  page, you will see the?a
place to sign into commissioner.? You must  have an account with
commission.com to join the league.? It is the same  site we used last year
and your name and password should still be active.?  If you don't remember
it, you can create a new one or there is probably  somewhere that you can get
them to email you your?username and  password.? Anyway, once you set up an
account scroll down and select Office  Pool Manager. Our league name is
Losers Wanted.? We also have a short name  of Loser (they might ask for that
also, **notice no 's').? The password is  3333.
?
You should be taken to a page to pick who you  are.? Your name should not be
in the list.? Select "new player" and  enter your name.? This should take you
to the site.
?
Once you are in....BOOKMARK IT.? It will make  it alot easier to get to it in
the future.? Take a look at the site.?  The three main links you will be
using are...1)Make Picks...2)My  Picks...3)Standings.? Each week (I think
Tuesday) commissioner.com will  enter the lines on the Make Picks page.?
These lines will stay constant  untill they close the entries for the week (1
hour before first kick?off,  includes Thursday games).? You can make your
picks and change your picks on  this page.? To view your picks you can go to
My Picks.? On Monday you  can check the Standings.? You can view it by a
certain week or the yearly  totals.? Just click on the top on what column you
will want to sort  by.? That is basically it.?There are other links if you
want to check  them out...it is a great site.
?
As for the rules...the money will all be determined  as I get an exact number
of players...ALL MONEY WILL BE PAID OUT!!!!! There will  be weekly winners
and yearly winners (and LOSER).? The picks you make each  week will be each
game that week, including Monday nights game.? In  addition to Monday's game,
you will pick the Monday night total points  scored.? This tie breaker will
determine weekly winners in case of any  ties.? The person closest to the
total will win the tie breaker (absolute  value).? If the absolute value is
equal, the under will beat the  over.? Example...total points is 30.? Player
A picks 35...B picks  20...A wins.? Player A pick 35...B picks 25...B wins.?
Don't worry, it  is real easy.?
?
As for the tie breaker for the season totals.?  Anyone that is tied at the
top will use the playoffs in the NFL as our  playoffs.? I will send out the
lines (the site won't have them) to the  players involved.? You will pick all
four games and the person who gets the  most correct will win.? If multiple
people tie then we will weed out and go  on to the next weeks.? If it makes
it all the way to the superbowl, then we  will pick the game and an
over/under as the ultimate tiebreaker.
?
Don't worry if you don't make your picks one  week.? You won't take a zero?(
I am a softie).? Too many people  have those weeks that they can't get around
to making there picks.? If I  gave zeros, that would kill your chances for
the yearly total.? Anyone that  doesn't get their picks in will take all the
AWAY teams.? I will enter  those picks after the deadline to enter picks.?
All these games will count  to the yearly total but can not win the weekly
prize.?
?
That is it for now...Oh ya, one more thing.?  You can send me a check ($50)
to the following.?
?
Michael Brookner
3001 Hillcroft #508
Houston, TX 77057
?
?
PLEASE DON'T FORWARD THIS TO NEW  PLAYERS.??I WANT TO KNOW EVERYONE THAT IS
IN.? IF YOU KNOW  SOMEONE THAT IS INTERESTED, HAVE THEM EMAIL ME AT
BROOK@PDQ.NET.? I WILL SEND ALL THIS INFO  TO THEM WHEN I GET THERE INTEREST.
?
?
THANKS....Brook


George Orwell would be proud of this
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:13:47 -0400
From: "Tracey Bradley" <tbradley@bracepatt.com>
To: "Aryeh Fishman" <afishman@bracepatt.com>, "Andrea Settanni"
<asettanni@bracepatt.com>, "Charles Ingebretson"
<cingebretson@bracepatt.com>, "Charles Shoneman" <cshoneman@bracepatt.com>,
"Deanna King" <dking@bracepatt.com>, "Dan Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>,
"Gene Godley" <ggodley@bracepatt.com>, "Kimberly Curry"
<kcurry@bracepatt.com>, "Michael Pate" <mpate@bracepatt.com>, "Marc F.
Racicot" <mracicot@bracepatt.com>, "Paul Fox" <pfox@bracepatt.com>, "Ronald
Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>, "Scott Segal" <ssegal@bracepatt.com>
Subject: California ISO's Spin on the FERC Settlement Talks
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E6BC9BCB.B8D9B5B1"

Please see attached press release.

 - caiso press release.pdf


Hello,

Please e-mail your weekly report to me before you leave today.

Thank,
selma


John,

Attached are updated results of Zimin's model assuming each trade is on a
total notional of 30,000 bbls.   Note that I have re-scaled the results to be
in $MM.

--Stinson

Open-Close prices Continuous Prices


Energy Committee Members:
Please find the agenda for tomorrow's energy committee meeting attached.
This is a critical time on the energy front.  We find ourselves both excited
and discouraged and have a number of things to share with you.

There have been some encouraging developments - the ISO approved the SVMG
proposal for an early notification system and are working on implementation,
which is expected by June 13.  This is something our committee plainly
expressed as necessary for business to survive through this crisis and is
something the SVMG advocated for on behalf of its members for the past month
or so.  Also, the first SVMG-NRDC joint energy webcast conducted last week
was a success.  Leslie Hummel will be available to provide feedback and
discuss next steps.

There are also a few things that make us very concerned.  Such as a proposal
from Speaker Hertzberg that has potential to severely raise rates for the
business class.  We need your help in devising an energy plan and a strategy
by which we can adress proposals such as this one.  We also need to hear
from you in devising a long range plan for the energy committee as we
re-tool the focus and tactics of the SVMG on energy.  Please review the
agenda.  If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to adress them by
responding to this e-mail or at tomorrow's committee meeting.  Thanks!

 - Energy Committee Agenda May 30.doc


As you will see this has now been finalised and is attached below.
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Simons/LON/ECT on 08/05/2000 16:35
---------------------------

Ali Lloyd
08/05/2000 09:44
To: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT, David Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT, Diana
Higgins/LON/ECT@ECT, Janine Juggins/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Lewis/LON/ECT@ECT,
Eric Gadd/LON/ECT@ECT, Rob Bayley/LON/ECT@ECT, Simon Hastings/LON/ECT@ECT,
ECT London UK Power Trading, Peter Morris/LON/ECT@ECT, Gail Hill/LON/ECT@ECT,
Jonathan Bond/LON/ECT@ECT, James New/LON/ECT@ECT, David
Hutchinson/LON/ECT@ECT, Paul Dawson/Govt. Affairs/LON/ECT@ECT, Lee
Munden/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Grid Trade Master Agreement

Attached is a copy of the final version of the new Grid Trade Master
Agreement developed by Allen & Overy on behalf of the UK Electricity Industry
(specifically the EFA Association).  The agreement is designed to replace the
EFA Standard Terms and Condition as the standard contract for OTC electricity
trading post-NETA.  The agreement is for physical delivery 'on the system'
achieved by notification of Energy Contract Volumes to BSC Co.  (Hence it is
similar to the NBP Contract in gas).  The agreement is heavily influenced by
ISDA language.

Enron (through Paul Simons and others) has contributed significantly to the
development of this contract.  Hence I would hope we are happy to trade on it
unamended.  However if anyone has any significant concerns about the contract
or would like us to agree any extra clauses bilaterally with counterparties
then please speak now (by the end of this week) or forever hold your peace.

Later this month we will begin the process of signing up with
counterparties.  With each party we need to agree a number of items as
follows (see Schedule 2):

Who acts as no the ECV Notification Agent (can be one of the parties or a
third party).  My view is we would do it at a price (to compensate us for the
assymetrical risk we would be taking on) - we are currently thinking about
what this price should be.  The contract default is that the Buyer acts as
the ECV Notification Agent.

Method of transmission of confirms (default fax) - Gail please comment.

Compensation Threshold.  If a party fails to perform its obligations relating
to contract notification or nomination then it pays damages to the other
party to keep it whole (ie it pays the cash out charges incurred by the other
party).  The Compensation Threshold allows termination if these damages reach
a certain level in any month.  The default is 'not specified' - ie no
termination.  Legal please comment.

Cross Default Threshold - this defines a minimum payment default level above
which cross-default applies.  Credit Department please advise.

Termination Payment Method.  The contract has two approaches to calcualting
termination payment - the "Loss" method and the "Market" method.
Leagl/Credit - please advise on preference.

Change in Taxes - this clause can be switched on or off - Tax Dept please
advise.

Credit Support - to be discussed with Credit Dept on a case by case basis.

Rollover Clause - the Agreement has a clause in it which automatically
converts existing EFA deals to Grid Trade Master deals when NETA starts.
This clause can be switched off, but presumably we would wish to keep it
switched on.

In agreeing GTMs withg counterparties, we should start with our biggest
counterparties first.  I would suggest:
 Entergy
 Dynegy
 Accord
 National Power/npower
 TXU
 AEP
 Aquila
 British Energy
 Yorkshire
 Scottish & Southern
I understand Richard has nominated Derek to start this process.

Any comments?

Ali


Attached is a revised Credit Watch listing for the week of 9/25/01.   Please note that the following entities are placed on "NO TRADES"-- Texican Natural Gas Company, Oxford Natural Gas Company and Chris Thena Inc.
If there are any personnel in your group that were not included in this distribution, please insure that they receive a copy of this report.
To add additional people to this distribution, or if this report has been sent to you in error, please contact Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002.
For other questions, please contact Jason R. Williams at x5-3923,  Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002 or Darren Vanek at x3-1436.


---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
03/06/2001 02:37 PM ---------------------------

Clay Harris
01/09/2001 12:36 PM
To: Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Clay.Harris@enron.com, Wayne Perry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: OLNG/COU

Todd,

I will remind Hiro to resend the draft COU for our review. He emailed the
draft in December but we were unable to open the document. With respect to
the cool down cargo I intend to wait until we have an agreed plan for DPC
supply before discussing the cargo with OLNG. Our intent is to make sure the
cool down cargo is a pre-lift of DPC's fixed quantity obligation regardless
of the contract start date.

Clay

Todd Peterson
01/08/2001 04:34 PM
To: Clay.Harris@enron.com
cc: Wayne Perry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: OLNG/COU

Clay,

Any news on the COU and the redacted Kogas implementation procedures?

Also, what are you telling them about the first cool down cargo that EE&CC
are requesting for the 1st of Nov 01.

BR/TP


actually i think he is out - he just put a call into you

Chris Calger
503-464-3735

-----Original Message-----
From: Kitchen, Louise
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:44 AM
To: Calger, Christopher F.
Subject: Re: berney

I think he'll be done at his current offer, do you want to give him more?

I told him he's reporting to you and Milly and he was pleased.

Are you listening or video conferencing into this meeting?
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


Here is our forecast


done

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Parker, Megan
Sent:	Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:17 PM
To:	Love, Phillip M.
Subject:	PSEG

Phillip:
I see the changes coming through, but I have one more problem.  PSEG terminated their contract on 11/30, so we only need to bill them for 29 days.  Can you change the volumes on the demand fees for Nov. only to a monthly volume?  I have detailed the changes below.  Thanks.

change 1,700/day to 49,300/month
change 2,500/day to 72,500/month
change 5,800/day to 168,200/month


Start Date: 1/13/02; HourAhead hour: 11;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002011311.txt


Eloy,

Who is General Brinks?

Fletch


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.


Please, grant access as requested.

Vince Kaminski
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 09/19/2000
03:41 PM ---------------------------
DANIEL MUSCHAR @
ENRON
09/19/2000 03:27 PM

To: Juan Padron/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: access to O;...

Vince has this under control.  He will forward it to the security group.

Daniel A. Muschar

	Juan Padron
	09/19/2000 02:22 PM

		 To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Daniel Muschar/AA/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: access to O;...

vince, this e-mail is to request access to the o:/research/power
meteorlogy/weather temps/txtemps.xls file...  i was told by tech-support to
e-mail you with this request and everything would get squared away.

daniel, could you please advise on what to do next.   thank you...

juan

---------------------- Forwarded by Juan Padron/NA/Enron on 09/19/2000 02:17
PM ---------------------------
DANIEL
MUSCHAR
09/19/2000 09:14 AM

To: Juan Padron/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: access to O;...

I called security again and here is what is happening:
this request is waiting on the approver.  Stinson Gibner:

here is the info on the user we are waiting on.

			STINSON??GIBNER
	CONTACT INFO		COMPANY INFO

Phone :	(713) 853-4748	Employee Type :	ENRON EMPLOYEE
Email :	sgibner@enron.com	Job Title :	VP RESEARCH
Location :	EB 1963	Supervisor :	KAMINSKI, WINCENTY J
Fax :	(713) 646-2503	Contract Company :	ECT RESOURCES CORP
Cellular :		Company Number :	0413
Pager :		Cost Center :	0000107043 Click here for others in Cost Center
		Cost Center Name :	NA-RESEARCH GROUP ENA
		City :	HOUSTON
bner or Vince Kaminski are the approvers for this directory


Jim:  You available to talk at 9:30 Houston time re: how to stop the next
attempt at the ISO board to lower the price caps further?  If not, are you
available at about 3 PM houston time to discuss same?  Thanks.


Last 30 day trade count, by 4:00 pm:

TRADE DATE	TRADE CNT
10/3/2001	5953
10/4/2001	6487
10/5/2001	5854
10/6/2001	17
10/7/2001	53
10/8/2001	5117
10/9/2001	5280
10/10/2001	6261
10/11/2001	5950
10/12/2001	6107
10/13/2001	16
10/14/2001	19
10/15/2001	5428
10/16/2001	7155
10/17/2001	7425
10/18/2001	7654
10/19/2001	7988
10/20/2001	4
10/21/2001	34
10/22/2001	7916
10/23/2001	8567
10/24/2001	8001
10/25/2001	8405
10/26/2001	6792
10/27/2001	12
10/28/2001	8
10/29/2001	7152
10/30/2001	5761
10/31/2001	7141
11/1/2001	6575
11/2/2001	5853

Last two weeks, by counterparty:


Dear Dr. McMullen,

A few weeks ago I received a call from your University
regarding employment opportunities at Enron.

I called back and summarized the  needs of my group (an ideal profile of a
candidate):

1. mathematical finance
2. computer programming (C, C++)
3. understanding of the energy markets

I shall appreciate any information about potential candidates.

I have also given some other suggestions regarding potential
opportunities for graduates with different profiles.

Please, feel free to call me. My number is 713 853 3848.

Vince Kaminski


Open Enrollment for your 2002 Health Benefits begins Monday, October 29, 2001!

Q. 	WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
A. 	If you plan to make changes to your existing benefit coverage, you will need to make changes during Open Enrollment which begins Monday, October 29, 2001 at 8:00 AM (Central) and ends on November 12, 2001 at 5:00 PM (Central)

To facilitate these changes, you received an Open Enrollment Benefit Packet at your home address.  This packet contains a personalized [Julie Kearney]    worksheet and the Enron Instruction Guide to help you make your selections.  	(If you have not received your Info Packet, please let us know ASAP! )

Q.	WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?
1.  If you are satisfied with your current elections and do not need to make changes, do nothing.  Your current choices will automatically roll over to 2002.

2.  If you plan to make changes to your coverage, you will need to either access the Intranet website at work:  benefits.enron.com
or at home at  www.Enron.BenefitsNow.com   or call the Phone Enrollment Line at (800) 332-7979, Option 5.

Q. 	I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.  I NEED MORE INFORMATION.
A.	If you have more questions or need more information, you may  call in to our  Open Enrollment "Brown Bag" Info Session being held on Friday,October 26 @ 11:30 PM in the Mt Hood Conference Room.

EWS Portland HR Office
Julie Kearney x7404
Grace Rodriguez x8321


Agreed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Novosel, Sarah
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:12 AM
To: Shapiro, Richard; Robertson, Linda; Steffes, James D.; Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject: FW: E-Notes: Risk Considerations for Enron Counterparties: Failure to Exercise Rights May Constitute Waiver

Here's one law firm we want to make sure we never use -- it's Baker and McKenzie, not Baker Botts.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fulton, Donna
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:47 PM
To: Novosel, Sarah
Subject: FW: E-Notes: Risk Considerations for Enron Counterparties: Failure to Exercise Rights May Constitute Waiver

Is this ambulance chasing?  Oh how unbecoming and I do believe it's Baker, Botts??

-----Original Message-----
From: Zimmer, Michael J
Sent: Wed 10/31/2001 3:21 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: E-Notes: Risk Considerations for Enron Counterparties: Failure to Exercise Rights May Constitute Waiver

>  <<...OLE_Obj...>>
> E-Notes provides regular briefings on new developments in global energy
> and public utility law.
>
> October 31, 2001
>
> RISK CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENRON COUNTERPARTIES:
> FAILURE TO EXERCISE RIGHTS MAY CONSTITUTE WAIVER
>
>
>       The reduction by Moody's Investor Service Inc. of Enron Corp.'s
> senior unsecured long-term debt to Baa2 from Baa1 this week may be an
> issue of concern for companies that are counterparts to Enron obligations.
> This downgrade may have immediate consequences under existing transactions
> with Enron given that its current credit rating is now two levels above
> non-investment grade.  Any further downgrade into non-investment grade
> levels could seriously affect relationships between counterparties and
> Enron, and possibly Enron counterparties and their counterparties.
>
>       Enron is the principal in nearly one-quarter of all electricity and
> natural gas trades in the United States.  For Enron's power and gas
> trading counterparties, a credit event such as a downgrade by Moody's may
> precipitate certain obligations under the terms of their trading
> transactions.  For example, any downgrade, not just a downgrade resulting
> in a sub-investment grade rating, may entitle a counterparty to require
> Enron to provide additional credit in support of Enron's purchase
> obligations.  Counterparties should examine all power, gas or other
> commodity purchase and sale documentation to confirm whether they possess
> this right.  The failure to exercise this right may constitute a waiver
> and foreclose access to critical performance and payment assurance,
> threatening to alter the risk assessment and mitigation considerations
> upon which the transactions were originally based.  Furthermore, a failure
> to declare a credit event or default against Enron could cause a default
> on the part of the counterparty itself in collateral or ancillary
> arrangements, such as its financing.  The potential for a domino effect,
> causing defaults or credit events in a series of transactions, is
> considerable.
>
>       It is uncertain whether Enron's efforts to obtain new lines of
> credit will be sufficient to overcome the current difficulties.
> Regardless, it is prudent to review the terms of existing transactions
> with Enron or its affiliates, including any guarantees or other forms of
> corporate credit support.  It is also advisable to examine the terms of
> transactions dependent on, or otherwise ancillary to, transactions with
> Enron or its affiliates to avoid any consequential effects of the Enron
> credit ratings downgrade.
>
>       For further information on how Enron's current financial situation
> could impact your firm's transaction risk profile, please contact Michael
> Zimmer at 202.452.7055 or michael.j.zimmer@bakernet.com, Jonathan W.
> Gottlieb at 202.452.7084 or jonathan.w.gottlieb@bakernet.com or Samir
> Desai at 202.452.7057 or samir.s.desai@bakernet.com .
>
> Michael J. Zimmer
> Jonathan W. Gottlieb
> Samir S. Desai
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> E-Notes is a publication of Baker & McKenzie.  It does not constitute
> legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.
> The contents are intended as general information only.  You are urged to
> consult your attorney concerning your situation and specific legal
> questions you may have.  For further information on the subjects discussed
> in E-Notes, contact Michael J. Zimmer,
> <mailto:michael.j.zimmer@bakernet.com> or
> Jonathan W. Gottlieb, <mailto:jonathan.w.gottlieb@bakernet.com>.
>
> For more information about BAKER & McKENZIE and our global energy and
> utility practice, click on our electronic business card:
>  <<...OLE_Obj...>>
>
> or visit our website at <http://www.bakerinfo.com/Practice
> Areas/nabfmp/energy/!viewme.htm> .
>
>
>


Section 4 and Preface:
(See attached file: 251399-SECTION 4_1.doc)(See attached file: IM Sales
Process
Preface v5.doc)

 - 251399-SECTION 4_1.doc
 - IM Sales Process Preface v5.doc


by the way,dinner better be good tonight!
---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Bass/HOU/ECT on 08/31/2000 03:32 PM
---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Eric Bass                           08/31/2000 03:30 PM

To: Shanna Husser/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Aspen Ridge

here is where we are staying in telluride!
---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Bass/HOU/ECT on 08/31/2000 03:29 PM
---------------------------

"K. Bass" <daphneco64@bigplanet.com> on 08/31/2000 03:09:06 PM
Please respond to "K. Bass" <daphneco64@bigplanet.com>
To: "Larry W. Bass" <lwbthemarine@bigplanet.com>
cc: "Bass, Jason" <Jason.Bass2@COMPAQ.com>, Eric Bass <Eric.Bass@enron.com>
Subject: Aspen Ridge

This is it.

?http://aspenridge.net/index6.html
 - Aspen Ridge.url


Newly appointed Asst. Secretary for EERE, David Garman, is urgently seeking
input on the 31 programs administered by his department.

Do not miss this opportunity to provide written and/or oral comments on the
program objectives, deployment, and if programs are meeting their objectives
as well as recommendations for future objectives and implementation. [See
Public Notice Attached]. Your input will be used to help determine the
future of these programs, identify new programs, and provide the basis
hopefully for a DOE supplemental budget increase.

A.  Seven public meetings will be held around the country from June 12th  -
Jun 26th.  You should at a minimum submit your recommendations in writing to
DOE [instructions contained on page 2 of the announcement].
B.  Be as specific as possible and cite success stories as well as failures.
Brief comments are also welcome to show general support and/or need for
improvement or termination.  Please be as constructive as possible to help
restore funding for those programs you support.
C. Please provide me with copies of any written comments by email so the
Alliance can hopefully incorporate your suggestions in our written comments
as well.

This is one of the most important and timely opportunities you will have to
impact these programs.  Asst. Secretary Garman needs our input!  Feel free
to contact me with any questions by email or calling 202-530-2213.

Malcolm Verdict
202-530-2213
Alliance to Save Energy
 <<noticiation final.pdf>>  <<short notification.pdf>>

 - noticiation final.pdf
 - short notification.pdf


[IMAGE]
 [IMAGE]    Dear JENNIFER ARNOLD,   As  November comes to an end, so does your chance to save $20  instantly on your Quicken
 2002 Deluxe upgrade. As a previous  Quicken user, you're entitled to a $20 mail-in rebate. But  as a Preferred Customer, you can order now and pay just $39.95  with your INSTANT REBATE. That's an immediate $20 off  the regular price of $59.95. And there are no forms to mail  in. No waiting for your rebate to arrive.   Time  is running out. To take advantage of this special offer you have to act fast! [IMAGE]     Quicken  2002 Deluxe is packed with powerful features to help give  you a more complete and accurate picture of your finances.  It's easy with One Step Update,* Automatic Reconcile,*  Automatic Categorization, the new Portfolio Analyzer,  Step-By-Step Budgeting, the Capital Gains Estimator  and more. And, because Quicken 2002 supports the new tax laws  and includes the updated tax rates, getting every tax break  you deserve is easier too.  With  your INSTANT REBATE OF $20, you get all these great  features for just $39.95!   Place  your order today!  Online: www.orderquicken.com/save20   By Phone 1 (800) 366-0543 6 a.m.-6 p.m., Monday through Friday,  Pacific Time Be sure to mention Priority Code 5010181 when you call.  Sincerely,   The Quicken Team  P.S.  The holidays are fast approaching and Quicken Deluxe makes  a great year-end gift. Stock up now and take advantage of  the instant rebate available only through November 30, 2001.       Instant  rebate is for previous Quicken users only. Offer valid through  November 30, 2001. A shipping and handling charge of $3.95  will apply.  Terms,  conditions, pricing, special offers, features and service  options subject to change without notice. This offer cannot  be combined with any other offer. Offer applies to Quicken 2002 Deluxe only.   *Internet  access required for all online features. Service fees may  apply. Online banking and online bill pay are subject to application  approval; services and fees, if any, may vary by participating  financial institutions.   ?  2001 Intuit Inc. Quicken and Intuit are registered trademarks  of Intuit Inc. All other trademarks are the sole property  of their respective owners.
 [IMAGE]   [IMAGE]  IMPORTANT: Intuit respects the personal nature of e-mail communication. Every effort is made to offer only information that may be of value to you or your business.  If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mail from Intuit in the future, please click here.   If you would like to change your e-mail address in our database,  please click here.   This e-mail was sent to the following address: jarnold@ees.enron.com  9CD2    [IMAGE]