-----Original Message-----
From: Rodriquez, Andy
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:46 PM
To: Black, Tamara Jae; '/o=ENRON/ou=NA/cn=Recipients/cn=notesaddr/cn=a478079f-55e1f3b0-862566fa-612229'; Abler, William; Aggarwal, Anubhav; Allen, Diana; Arora, Harry; Bailey, Debra; Ballato, Russell; Ballinger, Ted; Baughman Jr., Don; Benchluch, Moises; Benjelloun, Hicham; Benson, Robert; Bentley, Corry; Blaine, Jay; Bolt, Laurel; Broderick, Paul J.; Broussard, Richard; Burnett, Lisa; Campbell, Larry F.; Capasso, Joe; Carson, Mike; Chen, Alan; Choate, Jason; Cline, Kevin; Collins, Dustin; Comeaux, Keith; Coulter, Kayne; Davis, Mark Dana; Day, Smith L.; Dean, Clint; Decook, Todd; Emesih, Gerald; Errigo, Joe; Forney, John M.; Freije, William; Garcia, Miguel L.; Gilbert, Gerald; Gilbert-smith, Doug; Giron, Gustavo; Greer, Andrew; Gualy, Jaime; Guerra, Claudia; Gulmeden, Utku; Gupta, Gautam; Ha, Amie; Hanse, Patrick; Hernandez, Juan; Imai, Rika; Ingram, David; Jenkins IV, Daniel; Kaniss, Jason; King, Jeff; Kinser, John; Larkworthy, Carrie; Laurent, Dean; Laverell, Justin; Lenartowicz, Chris; Lorenz, Matt; Lotz, Gretchen; Lowell, Thomas; Mack, Iris; Mahajan, Ashish; Makkai, Peter; Marquez, Mauricio; Maskell, David; May, Tom; McElreath, Alexander; Miller, Jeffrey; Oh, Seung-Taek; Olinde Jr., Steve; Pace, Andy; Padron, Juan; Pan, Steve; Philip, Willis; Podurgiel, Laura; Poppa, John D.; Presto, Kevin M.; Quenet, Joe; Rawal, Punit; Rogers, Benjamin; Rust, Bill; Ryan, David; Saibi, Eric; Schiavone, Paul; Schneider, Bryce; Seely, Michael; Serio, Erik; Shoemake, Lisa; Simpson, Erik; Stalford, Robert; Stepenovitch, Joe; Sturm, Fletcher J.; Symms, Mark; Tamma, Ramanarao; Thomas, Paul D.; Trejo, Reese; Valdes, Maria; Vernon, Clayton; Wang, Steve; Williams, Ryan; Willis, Cory; Zipperer, Mike; Baughman, Edward D.; Clynes, Terri; Dalton III, Oscar; Kelly, Mike E.; Sewell, Doug; Valderrama, Larry; Walton, Steve; Roan, Michael; Perrino, Dave; Maurer, Luiz; Hueter, Barbara A.; Landwehr, Susan M.; Hoatson, Tom; Novosel, Sarah; Nicolay, Christi L.; Yeung, Charles
Subject: RE: RTO Week -- Summary of Standards and Practices Panel

RTO Week

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Day 4 - October 18, 2001

Afternoon Session

Standardizing Markets, Business, and Other Practices

Panelists for this discussion were:  Sarah Barpoulis, PG&E National Energy Group; William P. Boswell, GISB; Bill Burkes (substituting for David J. Christiano), City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri; David N. Cook, NERC General Counsel; Michael Kormos PJM Interconnection; LeRoy Koppendrayer, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; and Marty Mennes, Florida Power & Light Company.

General Observations

The Commissioners were all present the majority of the time (Massey left late in the  afternoon).  FERC Staff was active in the discussion; however, the commissioners were very active as well, asking perhaps as much as 70% of all questions.  There was a general consensus that standards were needed; much discussion focused simply on how much and by who. The Commission seemed very interested in leaning what they needed to do to move the industry forward and how far they needed to go.  Panelists urged the need to mover forward as quickly as possible, but both they and FERC seemed to recognize that some of the issues regarding standardized market design and such needed to be addressed before RTOs could really begin to move forward.  There was discussion on identifying which industry group (NERC or GISB) would take the reins in the future.  On an interesting tangential note, there was noticeable conflict between NERC and GISB, with veiled insults between the two organizations somewhat common during the discussions.

FERC Deliverables

A great deal of the discussions focused on identifying what the industry needed from the Commission.  Staffers probed all panelists to find what they felt was critical.

The first major topic was "How many RTOs?  What is their scope?"  All panelists seemed to agree that this question needed to be answered immediately by FERC, in strong definitive language.  N o one offered any specific language, but seemed to be urging FERC to issue a formal statement.

The next topic was, "What will be standard market design?"  Panelists varied on this, but most felt strong guidance from FERC is urgent.  Some urged for one mandatory design for North America, one supported a set of rigid standard designs, one supported a single design with requests for exceptions (followed by an in-depth review process), and one seemed to prefer the current situation.

The commission in general seemed to be very interested in understanding what the industry needed to move forward.  They continually visited this topic throughout their discussions, asking questions like, "Do we need to issue a Mega-Order that addresses all these issues?" and, "How much detail do you need us to provide?"   General feel from the panelsists seemed to be they wanted strong leadership in this areas.  Kormos and Burkes went so far as to say FERC should "Mandate as much as they felt comfortable - and then go a little further."  Others seemed to be a little worried about this idea, but in general did not oppose the concept, citing only general warnings and the need for cautious investigation.

One item of interest: Wood referred to the filing made by the Electronic Scheduling Collaborative and specifically asked if the items identified in the "RTO Design and RTO Implementation" section would address many of the questions and uncertainty facing the industry with regard to RTO design.  Kormos indicated that clear and specific answers to these questions specifying a course of action would go a long way toward guiding the industry.  The section to which Wood referred was one that I wrote, and asked the following questions:

?         Congestion Management - When Operational Security Violations occur, how is the system to be stabilized in a fair and equitable manner that is nonetheless efficient?  Will LMP based systems be standard, or will there be others that must be accommodated?

?         Transmission Service  - Are transmission services required to schedule ("covered" schedules only), or are they risk management tools protecting from congestion charges (both "covered" and "uncovered" schedules are allowed)?

?         Loop Flows  - Are contract-path based or flow-based transmission services appropriate?  If contract-path based, how are parallel path issues to be addressed?

?         Grandfathered Transmission Service - Should contracts existing prior to RTO development be transferred, or is there an equitable way to retire those contracts?  Are there other solutions?

?         Energy Imbalance Markets - How are imbalance markets to function? Will they serve as real-time energy markets (support unbalanced schedules), be limited to supplying needs of imbalance service (require balanced schedules), or will they be required at all?

?         Ancillary Services - Will ancillary service markets be developed in standard ways?  Will entities be required to actually schedule ancillary services (required to schedule), or will they be treated primarily as financial instruments (protecting against real-time POLR charges)?

?         Losses - Can we utilize the imbalance markets to support losses?  Can we create specific loss standards that facilitate the scheduling process, or must we support methods that are currently in tariffs, but technically unwieldy?

?         Non-Jurisdictionals - How are non-jurisdictionals to be integrated into the new world?  Should systems be designed with the assumption that non-jurisdictional will be part of an RTO?  Or should they be designed to treat each NJE as a separate entity?

Hopefully, FERC will use this section as a template to answer these critical questions in an assertive manner, and give some solid direction in which to move. Kormos emphasized the need for concrete answers to these questions, pointing out that vague answers (i.e., "do congestion management") will take a year or two to resolve, but specific answers (i.e., "LMP with financial hedging instruments") will take only months.  The Commission asked Mike about moving forward, and he told them that effectively, it was impossible to move forward with implementation without getting these issues addressed.

Now for a  funny point - One of the commissioners (I think Breathitt) referred to some concerns expressed in the Northwest that their high concentration of hydro power makes LMP inefficient for the Northwest.  Kormos flat out said, "My profession is understanding how power systems work, and I don't believe that that statement is true."  He then backpedaled a bit and said that it would need more study, but he stood by his statement that the assertion by the Northwest interests was false.

NERC and GISB

A great deal of discussion focused around the need for a single standard-setting organization.  Massey went so far as to ask, "Are we looking at a beauty contest between NERC and GISB?"  Cook and Boswell then went into several short polite jabs at each other's organizations.  Other participants continually reiterated the need for ONE, INDEPENDENT organization.  Interestingly, Boswell was very emphatic about the established trust and respect in GISB, while Cook preferred to only talk about the "new" structure of NERC and did not focus on its history.

Brownell offered some not-too-subtle passive support of GISB by pointedly asking both Cook and Boswell if they lobbied political positions (i.e., were they not only an organization but also a stakeholder?).  GISB was easily able to say they were not, but NERC of course had to admit to their romancing of Congress and the Bush administration for reliability legislation. Point, Brownell.

Mennes acted as somewhat of a supporter for NERC, playing Dave Cook's yes-man.  He probably did them a little bit of harm by pointing to NERC's supposed "successes," such as TLR and E-Tag.  If staffers have tenure, they will likely remember that these "successes" have not been so successful, resulting in several filings and interventions.  We may also wish to file comments in specific objection to these claims, to refresh their memory and to show the pretty picture Marty painted was in fact a fiction.

There was a little discussion about splitting reliability and market issues, but general consensus was that I could not be done.  There was also some talk of folding NERC under GISB/EISB.

The arguments began winding down after a some time, and Boswell strongly urged the Commission to speak to industry executives and advocacy group leadership to see whether NERC or GISB should lead the industry forward.  NERC somewhat less enthusiastically supported this position.  In general, I would say it was a close fight but GISB came out more on top.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Andy Rodriquez
Regulatory Affairs - Enron Corp.
andy.rodriquez@enron.com
713-345-3771


Stock market is exploding. Dow 11133 (up 260). Nasdaq 2150 (up 60). It has to be higher than where you bought now?

Chris


Thanks I will begin the process for a Master and reply on status of other.

DP


Attached is the latest version of the model to illustrate the portfolio
benchmark concept.  Alan, I have included PG&E's QF resources using the data
from Suzy.  If anyone has questions please call, else we will chat at 3:00.

From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 12/11/2000 10:20 AM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Data on Monthly Generation for SCE

The votes have been counted (kidding), and the call will take place today at
3 PM PST.  Call-in number to follow.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/11/2000 10:19 AM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	12/07/2000 12:13 PM

		 To: Stephen Swain/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: Data on Monthly Generation for SCE

Folks:

The "subcommittee" I've referenced that's trying to come up with a solution
to California's train wreck is moving very quickly.  The group's shooting to
have a first cut at a "straw person" proposal sketched out by end of next
week.  The group's meeting on Tuesday to continue to bounce around ideas.

I'd like to try to have an internal call on Monday at either 10 AM (PST) or
3  PM (PST) to pin down at least a vaguely detailed conceptual framework that
I can propose to the subcommittee on Tuesday.  The agenda items for the
internal meeting are:

Finalize proposal for benchmark(s) for utility procurement.
Goal: increase utility willingness to enter into forward contracts by
replacing PUC after-the-fact "reasonableness" review with a benchmark. (Been
working the Portland desk on a "portfolio benchmark" concept.)

Determine our view of how to treat term contracts w.r.t. the PX credit, i.e.,
should those contracts be disclosed to the market, or should PUC keep them
confidential, calculate the PX credit behind closed doors, and publish the
credit ex poste?  The PX credit depends on the overall utility portfolio, not
just the PX price.

Let me know if 10 AM or 3 PM (PST) works better.

Harry:  I'll assume that you'll contact the folks from EES that need to
participate.

Best,
Jeff


---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 10/24/2000
03:56 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Joe Sutton @ ENRON                           10/24/2000 03:36 PM

Sent by: Enron Announcements@ENRON
To: All Enron Worldwide
cc:
Subject: A Message from Joe Sutton

Today, I announce my departure from Enron.  Enron is a great company and I
have enjoyed working with our terrific employees over the last eight years.
Together, we have made Enron a successful global company.

With Enron,s decreased emphasis on international asset development activity,
however, I have decided to pursue opportunities where I can make greater use
of my skills and experience.  I leave Enron with wonderful memories of our
employees and the many successes we have achieved together.  You have my best
wishes for Enron,s continued success.

Joe


Christian,

Can we get Pat / John to review this this morning.  I think it is very
bullish for DWR, but I would appreciate his review in the event we want to
comment - comments are due this afternoon.

Thanks,

Chris
---------------------- Forwarded by Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT on
03/21/2001 08:00 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: DWR rate component at the CPUC

Some more info on the issue from Jeanne.
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 07:33 PM -----

	Susan J Mara
	03/20/2001 06:52 PM

		 To: Michael Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Scott
Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 03/20/2001 04:51 PM -----

	JBennett <JBennett@GMSSR.com>
	03/20/2001 04:45 PM

		 To: "Bob Frank (E-mail)" <robert.frank@enron.com>, "Christian Yoder
(E-mail)" <christian.yoder@enron.com>, "Harry Kingerski (E-mail)"
<Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, "Jeff Dasovich (Business Fax)"
<IMCEAFAX-Jeff+20Dasovich+40+2B1+20+28415+29+20782-7854@GMSSR.com>, "Sue Mara
(E-mail)" <smara@enron.com>, "Tamara Johnson (E-mail)" <tjohnso8@enron.com>
		 cc: "'acomnes@enron.com'" <acomnes@enron.com>
		 Subject: FW: A.00-11-038 et al. ruling of 3/19/2001

Attached is a ruling by ALJ DeUlloa issued yesterday pertaining to the
calculation of the California Procurement Adjustment.  A draft decision was
suppose to be release on such on Friday, March 16th.  It was not, and now we
know why.  On March 14th, the Department of Water Resources wrote to the
Commission to give the commission its views on how the CPA should be
calculated. In his ruling of yesterday DeUlloa stated that he would wait to
issue the PD so as to take into account DWR's submission. He also provided
parties until tomorrow to file comments on the DWR letter (which is attached
to the ruling).

Not surprising, DWR has a different view of the world than the UDCs do when
it comes to calculating the CPA.  The UDCs view the CPA as residual amount
left over from the generation component of their bundled rate on 1/5/01
after the cost of their retained generation (including QFs and bilateral
contracts) are subtracted out. DWR views the CPA as a rate (i.e., a cent per
kWh) which would be paid to DWR by the UDCs every month. It is DWR's view
that a Total Generation Related Rate must be calculated which is a blended
average of the cost of the UDC retained generation and the cost of the "net
short" power.  From this total rate (e.g.., 5 cent) the cost  of the UDC
retained generation (e.g., 2 cent) would be subtracted and the remainder
(i.e., 3 cent per kwh) would be the CPA.  This CPA would be subject to
further allocation by the Commission to determine the Fixed Department of
Water Resources Set-Aside. DWR is not asking that such allocation be done
now.

DWR's view of the world would place it in a sounder financial position,
making it a more viable purchaser of electricity for California, but would
place the UDCs in more dire straights.

Please let me know by tomorrow at noon if you want to comment on the DWR
proposal.

Jeanne Bennett

> -----Original Message-----
>  <<CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc>>

 - CPUC01-#93188-v1-A0011038_et_al__DeUlloa_Ruling_.doc


Leila Salazar
2017 Mission St Suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94110
leila@globalexchange.org

To Mr. Ken Lay,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Leila Salazar


Your message

  To:      Tony@Digitrain.com; rlfossum@mato.com
  Cc:      DickOsgood@aol.com; doug.loon@uschamber.com
  Subject: (no subject)
  Sent:    Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:02:21 -0500

did not reach the following recipient(s):

doug.loon@uschamber.com on Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:10:09 -0500
    The recipient name is not recognized
 The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a=
;p=USChamber;l=WDCEXC010011061409VVLM9L6N
    MSEXCH:IMS:USChamber:WDC:WDCEXC01 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient

Message-ID: <OFE8DF15DA.B671C43F-ON8625698F.004CD559@enron.com>
From: Drew.Fossum@enron.com
To: Tony@Digitrain.com, rlfossum@mato.com
Cc: DickOsgood@aol.com, doug.loon@uschamber.com
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:02:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-MS-Embedded-Report:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C047FB.4A49824E"

I've got to get one of these digital cameras!  Dick, did you get any action
shots--like an action shot of Doug stuffing his face with walleye?   PS:
Reed, how much of the 4 feet of snow did sturgis get????  Loon--I'm in DC
tomorrow for the day, where are you?  DF
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 11/06/2000
07:58 AM ---------------------------

DickOsgood@aol.com on 11/05/2000 04:10:39 PM

To:   dfossum@enron.com, DLoon@uschamber.com
cc:

Subject:  (no subject)

Hey Guys:

Here is a pic from S.D. hunting.

Dick
(Embedded image moved to file: pic09374.pcx)

 - pic09374.pcx


Attached is a NON BINDING letter of interest to Questar for their Southern Trail Pipeline - west leg.  This is their crude pipeline that was purchased with the intention of converting it to a natural gas line but apparently, their interests have changed.  The west leg runs from near the California border to Long Beach.

The importance of this non binding bid is to get us into the data room so that we can really take a close look and gather information to see how interested we really are in this pipe.

Please let me know if you have any comments.  This letter has gone through legal and will be faxed to Questar today.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark McConnell
Transwestern Pipeline Company
713-345-7896   office
713-822-4862   cell
713-646-2551   fax
mark.mcconnell@enron.com


Please join us in helping
to fight breast cancer
THIS Friday, October 6, for
Lee National Denim Day

****Special**** Bring Your Motorcycle to Work Day

The Exchange will provide motorcycle parking outside the building for anyone
who
contributes $100. To register for motorcycle parking, please see John
DiPlacido (JADE) in the natural gas ring.

Neat, clean, non-ripped jeans and/or golf shirts will be allowed this one day.

All other aspects of the Exchange's dress code policy will apply, including
the prohibition of t-shirts, sweat suits, sweat shirts, sandals, and shorts.

All contributions will benefit the Susan G. Komen Foundation
for breast cancer research and education.

Suggested contribution: $5

Dress-Down Day sponsored by the New York Mercantile Exchange Charitable
Foundation

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=tana.jones@enron.com&refdo
c=(00-345)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


Attached is PIRA's extended Daily Demand Report.

Please contact Morris Greenberg and Victoria Watkins for more information
regarding these reports at [mailto:morris@pira.com] and
[mailto:vwatkins@pira.com], respectively. For distribution requests, contact
John Graziano at [mailto:jgraziano@pira.com]. We can all be reached at (212)
686-6808.

 - ed042401.pdf
 - ed042401.xls


Jeff:
Here is the latest version of the investor list - as of this morning.  The
list is usually updated daily, so please let me know if you want an updated
copy daily or weekly.  Thanks!
Ben


any interest
----- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 05/30/2001 02:10 PM -----

	Sarah Novosel@ENRON
	05/30/2001 10:36 AM

		 To: Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Power Marketing Seminar

----- Forwarded by Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron on 05/30/2001 11:36 AM -----

	Joanne.Rutkowski@bakerbotts.com
	05/29/2001 11:03 AM

		 To: snovose@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Power Marketing Seminar

Sarah,

Is this something your folks might find useful?

best

Joanne

POWER SALES AND TOLLING ARRANGEMENTS
IN TODAY'S MARKET

On Tuesday, June 5, 2001, Baker Botts will be presenting an internal legal
training seminar entitled "Power Sales and Tolling Arrangements in Today's
Market" in the main conference room on the 13th floor of our Washington
office, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue (The Warner).  Bob Bohme, of our Washington
office, will be the speaker for the program.  He will address a number of
drafting and negotiation problems commonly encountered in power sales and
tolling agreements.  Although the program is geared toward lawyers, it may
also be of interest to non-lawyers involved in these negotiations.


I am putting a Master Gas Agreement in place w/ Connective.  Russell Diamond
has asked me to contact you re their guaranty.  I need for their guaranty to
us to also cover physical gas trades.   Please advise.

Thanks,

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


Brian,

What about the weekend?
I am in Atlanta Thursday.

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mihura, Brian
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:29 AM
To:	Kaminski, Vince J
Subject:	In light of the events this week....

If you are in need of a companion for an alcohol infusion, I stand ready to oblige.


what are you going to dc for?


?
 - santa22.jpg


Jim, Thanks for this.  Would you please let me know how much we owe?  Would
you like to join us for the game?  Michelle

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

Michelle Cash
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3823
Houston, Texas  77002
(713) 853-6401
michelle.cash@enron.com

This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.

	"Bensfield, James" <JBensfield@milchev.com>
	06/27/2000 08:58 AM

		 To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Orioles

 Michelle:  You have 6 seats for the Orioles-White Sox game on Monday
evening, August 14.  These are the "firm seats" that I mentioned -- along
the third baseline above the visitor's dugout.  Game time is 7:35 p.m.  I'll
send the tickets down to you in the next day or two.  Have fun!