The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying documents is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product rule and is confidential business information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or representative of the recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Systems Administrator at admin@pkns.com and immediately delete this message from your system.
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:16:47 -0700
From: "Debbie Castro" <dcastro@pkns.com>
To: "Michael Kirby" <mlk@pkns.com>
Cc: "Stephen Chapple" <shc@pkns.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received: from b1b.brobeck.com	(BRO002-SF003-5.arcommunications.net [216.168.87.70])	by PKNS.COM; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:58:50 -0700
Received: by b1b.brobeck.com; id IAA09989; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown(192.168.73.89) by b1b.brobeck.com via smap (3.2)	id xma009955; Tue, 15 May 01 08:51:41 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: b0fe6c76-9e59-11d1-b373-00805fa7c2de
Message-ID: <79587830D4B9D311A59400805FA75A2E09E14E42@sfrexch1.brobeck.com>
From: "Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
To: "Andy Pickens (E-mail)" <apickens@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Barrett H. Reasoner (E-mail)" <breasoner@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "David J. Noonan (E-mail)" <djn@pkns.com>,        "Debbie Castro" <dcastro@pkns.com>,        "Emison, Theo" <TEmison@brobeck.com>,        "Jean Frizzell (E-mail)" <jfrizzell@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Jeff Alexander (E-mail)" <jalexander@gibbs-bruns.com>,        "Meringolo, Peter" <PMeringolo@brobeck.com>,        "Mike D. Smith (E-mail)" <msmith1@enron.com>,        "Molland, Michael" <MMolland@brobeck.com>,        "Richard B. Sanders Esq. (E-mail)" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>,        "Robert C. Williams (E-mail)" <Robert.C.Williams@enron.com>,        "Smith, Amanda" <ADSmith@brobeck.com>,        "Susan Bisop (E-mail)" <sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com>
Subject: FW: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:01:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
X-WSS-ID: 171F8D58123756-01-04
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=iso-8859-1

FYI.
Thanks.
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Fergus, Gary S.
> Sent:	Monday, May 14, 2001 7:45 PM
> To:	Michael L. Kirby (E-mail)
> Cc:	Molland, Michael E.; Smith, Amanda D.
> Subject:	Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
>
> Mike,
>
> 	Here is the draft research memo that Amanda prepared on some of the
> questions surrounding Senator Dunn's investigation (some of this you saw
> before):
>
> Legislative Committee Subpoena Power
>
> Government Code Section 9401, provides that "a subpoena requiring the
> attendance of any witness before the Senate, Assembly, or a committee may
> be issued by the President of the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly, or the
> chairman of any committee before whom the attendance of the witness is
> desired if permission has been secured from the rules committee of the
> respective house."
>
> There is a relative dearth of case law interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et
> seq. and the Govt. Code reporters cross reference to the Code of Civil
> Procedure Sections on issuance of subpoenas (C.C.P. 1985, et seq.).
> Therefore, it is possible that the provisions of both the Govt. Code and
> the C.C.P. will govern the issuance and enforceability of a subpoena
> issued by a legislative committee.
>
> Govt. Code Section 9402 provides that a subpoena is sufficient if it "(a)
> states whether the proceeding is before the Senate, Assembly or a
> committee. (b) is addressed to the witness [presumably the custodian of
> records when documents are sought]. (c) requires the attendance of the
> witness at a time and place certain and (d) is signed by the President of
> the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly or chairman of the committee before
> whom attendance of the witness is desired."
>
> If the witness does not appear or refuses to testify or "neglects or
> refuses ... to produce upon reasonable notice any material and proper
> books, papers or document sin his possession or under his control, he has
> committed a contempt."  Govt. Code Section 9405.   If the contempt is
> committed while the Legislature is in session, Govt. Code Section 9407
> provides that the committee shall report the contempt to the Senate or
> Assembly "for such action as may be deemed necessary by the Senate or
> Assembly."  If the Legislature is not in session, "the superior court in
> and for the county in which any inquiry, investigation hearing or
> proceeding [is] held ... may compel the ... production of books, papers,
> documents and accounts, as required by the subpoena issued by the
> committee, on the filing by the committee of a petition to the court
> asking that the witness be so compelled."
>
> Govt. Code Section 9409 provides that "any witness neglecting or refusing
> to attend in obedience to subpoena may be arrested...."  It is unclear how
> this provision would (or whether it could) be applied to a subpoena issued
> to the custodian of records of a non-resident company.
>
> Motion to Quash Subpoena
>
> California courts have held, under C.C.P. Section 1985, that a motion to
> quash is the procedurally appropriate method of testing the validity of a
> subpoena duces tecum.  See e.g. People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v.
> Younger (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 575.  My research has revealed no case in
> which a subpoena issued by a legislative committee has been challenged by
> a motion to quash, but, as noted above, there appear to be only a very few
> cases interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et seq.   Therefore, it appears that a
> superior court may be able to grant a motion to quash a subpoena issued by
> a legislative committee (assuming that we want to take the risk of state
> court jurisdiction).
>
> In one early case, the Court of Appeal held that the contempt order and
> accompanying affidavit issued by the Court upon the request of a Senate
> Committee were fatally defective.  Ex Parte McLain (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d
> 274.  In McLain, the Senate Interim Committee on Social Welfare served
> upon Mr. McLain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a corporation a
> subpoena calling for the production of various books, papers and
> documents.  Mr. McLain appeared before the committee but refused to answer
> questions or produce the documents.  Upon representation of the Committee,
> the Superior Court issued an order directing Mr. McLain to produce the
> documents.  Mr. McLain again appeared before the Committee and again
> refused to produce the documents at which point, an affidavit was filed in
> Superior Court stating:
>
> "That, based upon evidence in its possession, the said Senate Interim
> Committee has determined that each of the books, papers, and documents
> specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to the matters now
> under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee, and the
> production of such books, papers and documents is necessary in order to
> enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the duties
> imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of California
> pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162." and "That each of the books,
> papers and documents specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to
> the matters now under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee
> and that the production of such books, papers and documents is necessary
> in order to enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the
> duties imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of
> California pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162."
>
> The Superior Court found Mr. McLain guilty of contempt and ordered him
> committed to the sheriff until he produced the records.  The Court of
> Appeals found that the order and affidavit were defective because "a
> witness who is otherwise orderly and respectful cannot be adjudged guilty
> of contempt unless the order affirmatively sets forth the materiality and
> pertinency of the books and papers called for.  In cases of constructive
> contempt, as is this, not only the order but also the affidavit upon which
> it is based must sufficiently charge the alleged facts constituting the
> offense."  McLain at 276.
>
> This holding appears to be somewhat consistent with cases interpreting
> C.C.P. 1985, which hold that the subpoena and affidavits must allege
> material facts rather than conclusory statements.  See e.g. Grannis v.
> Board of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551.
>
> However, cases interpreting C.C.P. 1985 also require the subpoena to
> demonstrate a level of specificity, materiality and relevance to be held
> proper.  See e.g. Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 273
> Cal.App.2d 61.  It is unclear whether subpoenas issued by legislative
> committees are held to this same standard.
>
> What is the likely impact of a legislative committee subpoena issued
> against the Enron' custodian of records, an out-of-state resident,
> intended to affect the production of out-of-state Enron documents?
>
>
> Here are the threshold questions:
>
> A.  Since we have found so few cases interpreting Govt. Code Section 9401,
> to what extent would a legislative committee subpoena be governed by the
> same procedural and substantive rules as a subpoena issued in a pending
> civil state court action?
>
> B.  Would a court determining the validity of a legislative committee
> subpoena make reference to the Code of Civil Procedure Sections governing
> subpoenas "generally" (i.e. C.C.P. 1985 et seq.) or those governing
> "deposition subpoenas" (i.e. C.C.P. 2020 et seq.)?  This is a toss-up and
> the answer may well be "both."  The Government Code reporter sections on
> legislative subpoenas cross references to C.C.P. 1985 et seq. ("subpoenas
> generally").  However, the "deposition subpoena" provisions (C.C.P. 2025
> et seq.) more closely resemble the "discovery" process that the Senator
> seems to be undertaking.
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 1985 et seq.
>
> C.C.P. 1989 is entitled "Residency requirements for attendance of
> witnesses" and provides that "A witness, including a witness specified in
> subdivision (b) of Section 1987, is not obliged to attend as a witness
> before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness
> is a resident within the state at the time of service."
>
> There is a statutory limitation on the residency requirement imposed by
> Section 1989.  Section 1987.3 provides "[w]hen a subpoena duchess mecum is
> served upon a custodian of records or other qualified witness as provided
> in Article 4 (commencing with Section 1560) of Chapter 2 of Division 11 of
> the Evidence Code, and his personal attendance is not required by the
> terms of the subpoena, Section 1989 shall not apply."  (Evade. Code 1650
> lays out the terms for compliance with a subpoena for business records
> where the business is "neither a party nor the place where any cause of
> action is alleged to have arisen.")
>
> On commentator noted the following with respect to C.C.P. 1987.3:
>
> "The rule limiting subpoenas to California "residents" (C.C.P. 1989) does
> not apply to subpoenas duchess mecum served on custodians of records
> unless their personal attendance is required. See C.C.P. 1987.3; Amoco
> Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (1995) 34
> Cal.App.4th 554, 561 fn. 9.  Thus, a nonresident custodian of business
> records may be required to respond to a subpoena duces tecum served upon
> him or her while present in California, by producing the records in
> accordance with Cal. Evid. Code 1560 (delivering copies of the records and
> accompanying affidavit to the court clerk)... [However], C.C.P. 1987.3
> probably applies only where the nonresident custodian is employed by a
> business entity subject to California jurisdiction. Otherwise, there would
> be no way for the court to enforce compliance with a subpoena served on a
> nonresident.  See Amoco Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of
> London, supra."
>
> Werner, Fairbanks & Epstein, Rutter Group, California Practice Guide:
> Civil Procedure & Trials at 1.57-58
>
> Moreover, in one unpublished case, Allee v. King (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d
> 1081, the court held that it lacked power to compel a nonresident
> defendant to produce original out-of-state documents at trial.  In so
> holding, the court stated that:
>
> "even though King apparently voluntarily attended the trial, his presence
> does not confer jurisdiction on the court to oblige him to deliver the
> out-of-state documents.   Although section 1989 uses the word "witness"
> and does not refer to documents, it has long been presumed under common
> law that documents in other states are outside the court's territorial
> jurisdiction, so that a court will allow the use of copies or other
> secondary evidence instead of originals.  (See, e.g., Heinz v. Heinz
> (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 61, 66, 165 P.2d 967, and cases cited therein.)   The
> recognition that out-of-state documents are not subject to the court's
> process is in conformity with the general rule under common law that,
> absent a statute properly conferring broader powers, the extent of a
> state's subpoena power and its accompanying subpoena duces tecum power is
> coterminous with its borders.  (See 97 C.J.S., Witnesses, S 17, p. 367, S
> 23, p. 375, S 25, p. 380;  81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, S 8, p. 32, S 14, p.
> 39.)
>
> However, the Allee court notes that the "state-border" limitation on
> subpoena power has not been extended to local branches of national
> corporations who are subpoenaed to deliver documents which are
> out-of-state.  Therefore, even under Allee, if a subpoena was issued to a
> California Enron entity that possessed responsive documents, that Enron
> entity may be obligated to respond.  See Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co.
> (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806.
>
> Therefore, if a subpoena is issued which requires the attendance of an
> out-of-state officer of Enron, Enron has a very good argument that that
> witness is not obligated to attend under C.C.P. 1989.  It also seems
> probable that, under Amoco and Allele cited above, if a subpoena is served
> on an Enron custodian of records who is employed by a non-California Enron
> entity, the subpoena may be invalid.  However, if a subpoena seeking the
> production of documents is served on the custodian of records (or someone
> similarly situated) who is employed by an Enron entity that possesses
> responsive documents and is subject to personal jurisdiction in
> California, that Enron entity most likely is obligated to produce the
> documents.  It is an open question whether that custodian of records
> (employed by an Enron entity in California) would only be required to
> produce the Enron documents in the possession of the Enron California
> entity or whether that person's obligation would extend further -- to
> produce out-of state documents (i.e. documents from non-California Enron
> entities)  (This question is addressed somewhat in the commentary on the
> C.C.P. 2020 statutory scheme, see below, but is still open)
>
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 2020 et seq.
>
> Additional threshold question:  If the legislative subpoena was treated as
> a "deposition subpoena," would a court deciding the enforceability of a
> legislative subpoena treat Enron as a "party" or as a "non-party"?
>
> The rules governing the reach of discovery in California are obviously
> different for the two.  The deposition of a party or party-affiliated
> witness may be noticed (without a subpoena) for a place within 75 miles of
> the witness' residence.  It is unclear how a court would resolve this
> issue.  After all, if a court was resolving the issue at all, an Enron
> entity will have appeared before it. and would be a "party."  However, it
> seems moderately more likely that the court would treat Enron's
> obligations under the legislative committee subpoena as similar to its
> obligations if it was served with a "non-party" subpoena.
>
> There are three types of "deposition subpoena":  a "testimony only
> subpoena" (requires only the attendance and testimony of the witness), a
> "business records subpoena" (requires only the production of business
> records) and a "records and testimony subpoena" (requires both -- also
> formerly called subpoena duces tecum).  The second of these is the most
> relevant to Enron.
>
> The attendance of an non party out-of-state witness or the production of
> documents can be compelled only under the law of the place where the
> deposition is to be taken.  C.C.P. 2026 (b)(2).  Specifically, C.C.P.
> 2026(b)(2) provides "If the deponent is not a party to the action or an
> officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, a party serving
> a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and
> procedures required and available under the laws of the state, territory,
> or insular possession where the deposition is to be taken to compel the
> deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document or
> tangible thing for inspection, copying, and any related activity."
>
> Some states issue subpoenas routinely, some require a showing of
> materiality or relevancy, and some require a commission from the court
> where the action is pending.    This question will depend on the law of
> the state when the custodian of records resides.
>
> Regarding the question of whether the service of a deposition subpoena on
> an in-state custodian of records would compel the production of
> out-of-state documents.  Weil & Brown, Rutter Group, California Practice
> Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at 5:540.4 notes:
>
> "It is unclear whether service of a "business records" subpoena on a
> nonparty corporation in California compels production of its records
> located outside the state. ... C.C.P. 2020(d) requires that the subpoena
> be directed to the records "custodian" (or someone authorized to certify
> the records). Whether "custodian" requires actual custody of the records
> is unclear. If it does, serving an officer or agent in California would
> not compel production of business records located elsewhere.... The result
> is different where a "records and testimony" subpoena is used. That
> procedure extends to records in control of the subpoenaed party, not
> merely in his or her custody."
>
> If the State of California files civil suit against Enron to obtain
> discovery of the requested documents, does the fact that the State is the
> plaintiff (rather than a private party) affect Enron's prospects for
> removal of the suit to federal court?
>
>
> If the action filed by the State of California presents a federal
> question, then under the rationale of the court in People of the State of
> California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992) 792 F.Supp. 84, the case
> should be removable to federal court.
>
> In People of the State of California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992)
> 792 F.Supp. 84, the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles brought
> suit alleging violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition
> Statutes (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16720 and 17200).  The District Court
> found that, although the district attorney is only allowed to prosecute
> Cartwright Act violations on behalf of the county or public agencies
> located in the county, the unfair competition statutes expressly provide
> that suit be brought "in the name of the people of the State of
> California."  Id. at 85.  Therefore, for the purposes of the Unfair
> Competition Claims, the Court found that the State of California was the
> real party in interest.
>
> The Court then found:
>
> (1) that "for diversity purposes, a state is not a citizen of itself.
> Therefore it cannot sue or be sued in a diversity action."  Id.
> Specifically, the Court found that: "[e]ven assuming arguendo that
> defendant is correct that the County of Los Angeles is the real party in
> interest and the proper party in the Cartwright Act claim, diversity
> jurisdiction does not lie because, under long- established teaching, there
> must be complete diversity, i.e., all plaintiffs must be diverse from
> defendant.   E.g. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed.
> 435 (1806).   Here, there cannot be complete diversity because, to repeat,
> the State of California is not a citizen of any state. "  Id.
>
> (2) that "[i]ndependent of its failure to meet the complete diversity
> test, the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because of the bar of
> the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.   The Eleventh Amendment is a
> grant of sovereign immunity to a state against suit in federal court.   It
> is in "the nature of a jurisdictional bar."  .... Defendant, relying on
> the literal wording of the Eleventh Amendment, contends that this is not a
> "suit ... against one of the United States ..." because the State is the
> plaintiff.   However, since the immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment
> is an immunity from being made an involuntary party to an action in
> federal court, it should apply equally to the case where the state is a
> plaintiff in an action commenced in state court and the action is removed
> to federal court by the defendant." Id.  (internal citations removed).
>
> However, the Court noted that "where removal is predicated on federal
> question jurisdiction, removal is permitted even where a "non-removable"
> claim is joined with the removable claim...." Id.
>
> If a criminal case (price gouging, etc.) is brought against Enron, is
> there any theory (preemption, primary jurisdiction or double jeopardy)
> which would allow that criminal proceeding to be dismissed, stayed or
> removed given the criminal penalty provisions of the Federal Power Act?
>
>
> Our preliminary research shows that there is a body of substantive law
> dealing generally with the question of whether criminal proceedings are
> subject to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, but no case which considered
> this question with respect to the Federal Power Act specifically.
>
> Generally, in one case concerning a District Court order staying criminal
> action involving allegations of conspiracy and fraud against a defense
> contractor pending the District Court's referral of various questions
> regarding the case to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the
> Ninth Circuit has said:
>
> "Our concern with the district court's stay and referral is heightened by
> the fact that this action is a criminal prosecution.   While it is true
> that the primary jurisdiction doctrine has been applied in criminal cases,
> see United States v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co. (1913) 228 U.S. 87,
> 106-08; United States v. Yellow Freight Sys. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 737,
> 742, its use clearly interferes with the government's authority to
> prosecute criminal cases. ... We said in a related context:
>
> 'We approach the interpretation of the statute with a presumption against
> a congressional intention to limit the power of the Attorney General to
> prosecute offenses under the criminal laws of the United States.   In
> general, the "conduct [of] federal criminal litigation ... is 'an
> executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney
> General,' "  In re Subpoena of Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54 (2d Cir.1975),
> quoting United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1965) (Wisdom, J.,
> concurring).   Congress may limit or reassign the prosecutorial
> responsibility.   See Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 96-97, 66 S.Ct. 438
> [440-41] 90 L.Ed. 552 (946);  Nader v. Saxbe, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 92-93,
> 497 F.2d 676, 679-80 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1974);  FTC v. Guignon, 390 F.2d 323,
> 324 (8th Cir.1968).   But "[t]o graft such an exception upon the criminal
> law would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative
> will."  United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282, 32 S.Ct. 81, 82, 56
> L.Ed. 198 (1911).'  United States v. International Union of Operating
> Engineers, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied,
> 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S.Ct. 1026, 62 L.Ed.2d 760 (1980)"
>
> United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (9th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 1356,
> 1366.  The General Dynamics Court went on to say that "only where an issue
> unambiguously requires initial agency determination under the primary
> jurisdiction doctrine ... and the referring court has the authority to
> review the agency's order, can the agency's regulatory interests be
> required or allowed to subordinate the government's authority to prosecute
> criminal offenses."  Id.
>
> In another context, the Ninth Circuit held that the exhaustion of
> administrative remedies before the Federal Election Commission was not a
> prerequisite to indictment under the Federal Election Campaign Act:
>
> "... neither the language nor the legislative history of the Act provides
> the kind of "clear and unambiguous expression of legislative will"
> necessary to support a holding that Congress sought to alter the
> traditionally broad scope of the Attorney General's prosecutorial
> discretion by requiring initial administrative screening of alleged
> violations of the Act. On the contrary, the language and legislative
> history indicates that while centralizing and strengthening the authority
> of the FERC to enforce the Act administratively and by civil proceedings,
> Congress intended to leave undisturbed the Justice Department's authority
> to prosecute criminally a narrow range of aggravated offenses."
>
> United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701
> (1979) 638 F.2d 1161.  See also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Shipping
> Industry (D.D.C. 1960) 186 F.Supp. 298, 309 ("though the doctrine of
> primary jurisdiction may be applied to both civil and to criminal actions,
> it is more forceful in the civil regulatory type actions than in criminal
> actions for in the latter actions the violations of other federal statutes
> may more often be involved, and the regulatory scheme less affected.")
>
> Therefore, it seems clear that it will be difficult to invoke the doctrine
> of primary jurisdiction to dismiss or stay criminal proceedings against
> Enron, especially since the "criminal penalty" provisions of the Federal
> Power Act are relatively limited.
>
> In addition, at least one court has held, in the civil context, that the
> Federal Power Act was not designed to "shift the forum for the trial of
> anti-trust questions affecting power companies from the District Courts to
> the Power Commission [FERC's predecessor]"  Pennsylvania Water & Power Co.
> v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. (4th Cir. 1950) 184 F.2d
> 552, 562.
>
> I have not been able to find any case directly on point which invokes
> "double jeopardy" type arguments.  (In other words, if there are possible
> criminal penalties under the Federal Power Act and the same conduct is at
> issue that was examined by FERC, would State law criminal charges based
> upon the same conduct be precluded.)  Further research on this point after
> the filing of a criminal claim (when the details of the allegations are
> known) may be productive.  Also, it may be worthwhile to look for
> regulatory statutes that consider language similar to that in the Federal
> Power Act to determine if preemption/primary jurisdiction case law exists
> in analogous situations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

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


Thanks for your list.  I have talked with Brent and of the three names that
you have listed, he wants to include only Cindy Horn.

I have thought more about Heidi Mason and Jan-Erland and think that they
should be included.  While they do roll into Europe and also have a tie to
accounting, they are the individuals in Sydney and Toyko that we are
depending on to stress and enforce controls.  Heidi particularly does have
active responsibility for risk, confirmations and settlements on a day-to-day
basis.  And in addtion to their role reporting in to Europe, we are looking
to them to oversee controls for other non-EEL traded commodities in their
locations - weather, coal, etc.

I will include Fernley on the invitation list, as I had mentioned the meeting
to him when I saw him in San Antonio.  He can certainly respectfully
decline!

Mike Jordan
09/25/2000 10:21 AM
To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Fiona McNaught/LON/ECT@ECT, Patti Thompson/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Invitation List for Operations Business Controller Offsite

People I am paying for :-

Myself
James New - Power, Gas and Credit
Mike Wellings - UK Power
Coralie Evans - Continental Power
Robert Yeo - UK and Continental Gas
Paul D'Arcy - Structured Products
David Wall - Credit
Andrew Cornfield - Metals Risk Manager

People who may come from EGM - Fiona, we should get them on same booking if
they confirm attendance ( Patti, could you let Fiona know ? )

Cindy Horn
Kenny Nicoll
Mark Fondren

---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Jordan/LON/ECT on 25/09/2000 16:19
---------------------------

Mike Jordan
12/09/2000 08:26
To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: Invitation List for Operations Business Controller Offsite

Sally

Proposed list - of all potential candidates

Myself
James New - and his lead risk managers
Mike Wellings - UK Power
Coralie Evans - Continental Power
Robert Yeo - UK and Continental Gas
Paul D'Arcy - Structured Products
David Wall - Credit
Tim Poullain-Patterson - Metals Integration
Andrew Cornfield - Metals Risk Manager
Kevin Rhodes - Metals Controller ( there are in fact two controllers at
present Kevin for Financial Trading and Howard Carter for Merchanting )

I would leave Ralph Jaeger of Frankfurt out of the offsite if places are
restricted  - He is covered by the mainstream Accounting conferences, but I
would have Jan Erland, and Heidi and Tiong Hock from Singapore.

I am not sure Fernley would want to be there - but I can ask.

On others  - Simon Thurbin of liquids in london should be in Houston and
would be a good choice for inclusion. Brent may want his two London
controllers of Cindy Horn and Kenny Nicoll to also come

Would you invite Kristen to come with( in place of Barry? ).

A long list ( and we may want to cut back ) but all these individuals carry
the burden of operational risk assessment and management - standardising that
process would be an achievement indeed.

Mike

PS  - Shall we revisit Agenda and discuss who should start preparing
presentations - we had thought about engaging RAC, IT etc

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  Sally Beck                           11/09/2000 21:49

To: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Invitation List for Operations Business Controller Offsite

Dates: Sunday, October 22 (late afternoon, early evening kick-off, reception
and dinner)
  Monday, October 23 (all day, with evening event)
  Tuesday, October 24 (through mid afternoon)

Confirmed speakers to date:  Jeff Skilling (Tuesday, October 24 - available
9:30 am to 1:00 pm)

Proposed list of attendees (Mike:  let's talk about the scope of this list on
Tuesday):

ENA
Gas - Steve Jackson
 Leslie Reeves
 Bob Hall

Power - Stacey White

Calgary - Peggy Hedstrom

EIM
Pulp, Paper, Lumber - Brenda Herod

EGM
General - Brent Price
Global Products - Scott Earnest
Weather - Todd Hall
Financial Products - Sheila Glover
? Kevin Sweeney

EEL
? Fernley Dyson
Mike Jordan
London - James New
Frankfort - Ralph Jaeger
Metals - Tim Pouillan-Patterson
Australia - Heidi Mason
Japan - Jan-Erland Beking

ESA
Scott Mills

EBS
Barry Pearce

EES
Wanda Curry ?

Global Risk Management
Sally Beck
Shona Wilson
Eugenio Perez
Mike Moscoso


Since you like the list, I have another question (of course).  Was your
question about confirmation asking how you can tell which groups the message
went to?  If so, they will show in the TO field when you get the message.

From: Tana Jones@ECT on 06/21/2000 02:16 PM
To: Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

Your list looks good!

	Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
	Sent by: Erika Vaughan@ENRON
	06/21/2000 10:34 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

Tana,

These are the groups that we have available for the cities that you mentioned:

 All Enron Houston
 Everyone_in_ECT_Calgary
 Everyone_in_ECT_London
 Everyone_in_ECT_Portland
 Everyone_in_ECT_New York
 Everyone_in_ECT_Denver
 Everyone_in_ECT_Oslo
 Everyone_in_ECT_Singapore
 Singapore EI Announcements
 EI-Australia
 Buenos Aires Argentina - Office Staff
 Buenos Aires Argentina - TGS Office Staff
 Enron Everyone_EOG_Denver
 Enron Everyone_EOG_Calgary

If this will do, let me know and I'll use these groups.  If you need
something else , please contact Linda Lannom in HR to provide you with a list
of all Enron employees by city.  Again, if you do this I will need them in an
Excel spreadsheet with First Name, Last name, Social Security number and
department.

I will send you a draft of the letter in a few minutes.  I will need you to
send approval to Enron Messaging Administration in order to send it out.

Thanks

Erika

From: Tana Jones@ECT on 06/20/2000 06:06 PM
To: Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

Please direct this email to all employees at the offices indicated below (I
think Sydney is our Australia office).  I have revised the letter a little
and am reattaching  it.  Thanks!

	Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
	Sent by: Erika Vaughan@ENRON
	06/19/2000 02:58 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

It is the "and any other offices where we might have trading affiliates"
portion of your message that still has me concerned.  I can send the message
to all ENA and, if we don't have one already, have HR provide a list of
employees in the other cities you listed.  However, I don't know the answer
to the any other offices.  Do you want to send it to every employee
worldwide?

Sorry to be difficult but I still don't have a good idea of your desired
audience.

Erika

From: Tana Jones@ECT on 06/19/2000 02:44 PM
To: Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

I do not have an individual list.  It will have to got to all the employees
in the cities, and or countries where we have trading offices, which is
pretty much the list I had below.

	Enron Messaging Administration@ENRON
	Sent by: Erika Vaughan@ENRON
	06/19/2000 02:24 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Company Wide Email

Tana,

We have a recent group with all of ENA.  However, we do not have anything set
up for trading affiliate offices or a way to determine that information.
Please provide any names/addresses that are needed other than the ENA.

If you do give me names that are not already in a Notes address format, I
will need you to provide them in an Excel spreadsheet with First Name, Last
name, Social Security number and department to help resolve conflicts.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Erika

From: Tana Jones@ECT on 06/19/2000 01:42 PM
To: Enron Messaging Administration/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Company Wide Email

I need to send out the attached memo ASAP to all employees of Enron North
America and its trading affiliate offices.  This includes Houston, Calgary,
London, Denver, New York, Oslo, Singapore, Portland, Australia, Buenos Aires,
and any other offices where we might have trading affiliates.  Can someone
with your team get back to me ASAP so we can be clear about who we send this
to.  Thanks!


When I open this letter there is nothing there.  Can you send again?

From: Eddy Daniels on 01/31/2001 04:10 PM
To: Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: John Novak/SA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: OPIC letter

Rob --

Here is the letter with the section on the YPF GSA revised as we discussed.

Best Regards,
EDD


GE wants a letter outlining the structure of the deal (at the 10000 ft
level), who owns which companies, and who has payment obligations to them.
Could you draft a letter to that effect for my review?

Thanks,

Kay


Dear Dr. Kaminski,

This is a message of discussing the problem in Lacima's paper. I think that
Glen Dixon has told you there is a fault in the paper written by Dr. Clewlow
and Dr. Strickland. It is understandable to have some errors in their work.
People always make mistakes.

Actually, I found the problem in appendix A of their paper. They can't prove
the eq. A4 rigorously. There is something wrong in mathematical
interpretation. If you like, I can give you a full analysis of this problem.

PS: attached with their paper.

best regard
Quentin
---------------------------------
Quentin Kerr,                            email: qkerr@maths.uq.edu.au
Room: 67-622                          Tel: (07)33461428
Department of Mathematics,  The University of Queensland

 - energy_single_factor.zip


Notes for this Week's Report:

* UK Power's average daily transactions via EOL appeared to peak in March
with 60 deals, and now shows an average of only 7 transactions per day in
April, an 88% decrease from March. Average Volume is up from March however,
with a daily average of 40,000 MWH's in March to an average of 474,000MWH's
so far in  April. This move brings UK Power's Volume back in line with 2000
power volume numbers.

* US West Power's average transactions via EOL continues to increase since
December, 2000.  They closed out March with 146 deals per day and already are
tracking at 160 daily deals, a 196% increase from the 54 average daily EOL
deals they transacted in December, 2000.

* LPG's Monthly Transaction Totals via EOL have shown a steady decrease since
it's high of 454 deals in January, 2001. They ended March with a total of 199
transactions and currently show 122 deals done in mid April, a 39% decrease
from the prior month. Total Volume for LPG has also decreased steadily in
2001. Non-EOL monthly transactions have also declined since December 2000,
showing 383 in January, 330 in February, 306 in March and only 278 deals so
far in April.

* Northeast Power's volume has remained constant, while EOL Transactions per
day has reached a new trading high of 187 deals. This is a 68% increase from
the 59 average in December, 2000. Non-EOL average transactions during this
same period has shown a steady decrease from an average of 133 deals in
January to only 99 in April.

* NA Gas has continued to show improvements in average EOL transactions since
December, 2000. NA Gas ended December with 2,633 EOL deals per day and now
show 2,861 deals in mid April.

*NA Power ended March with 453 EOL deals per day and currently shows 533
deals in April , up from only 181 in December. Canadian Power is also up from
March, currently showing an April average of 11 transactions per day.

---------------
The following files contain a graphical view of the average deal count and
volumes per month by Commodity for EOL and OTC transactions since the launch
of EnronOnline. This information is for comparative analysis only.  Do not
update links when opening these files.

AVERAGE DEAL COUNTS FOR COMMODITIES (excluding Global Products, which
displays monthly totals)

NA GAS BREAKOUT BY REGION (Non-Averaged, including Volume and Notional Value)

If you have any questions regarding this breakout, please contact one of the
following:

Torrey Moorer x3-6218
Matt Motsinger x3-5221
Adam Johnson x5-4877


Guys, attached you will find the updated orig plan for Q4.  Trading income is
slim pickings so far ..... we need some key deals of all sizes to close in
the fourth quarter from your organizations.

Thanks
Delainey


funny.  Oh my poor foot.  Noone cares about me.


see you there

-----Original Message-----
From: Shults, Bob
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 3:00 PM
To: Arnold, John
Subject: RE: Specialist Terms

can you do it around 4:15 in Brad's office 2711?

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold, John
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:44 PM
To: Shults, Bob
Subject: RE: Specialist Terms

do you and brad have a minute to sit down today?

-----Original Message-----
From: Shults, Bob
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:41 PM
To: Arnold, John
Cc: Richter, Brad; Zipper, Andy
Subject: Specialist Terms

John,

We finally heard from Bo.  Looks like we may be getting together soon to discuss our proposal.  I would like to get back together with you concerning the specialist requirements and incentives when you can.  I've attached my draft for you to look at.

I also received a call from Mark B. Fisher.  Apparently Mark caught wind that Bo talked to us.  Mark is excited about the opportunity of the locals getting access to EnronOnline numbers.  Mark wants to clear the local trades on EnronOnline and enymex.

Let me know how you want to proceed. Thanks

Bob
X30397

-----Original Message-----
From: Collins, Bo [mailto:BCollins@NYMEX.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:07 PM
To: Shults, Bob
Subject: RE:

sorry for such a slow response...as you can imagine, things are a bit
hectic.  Why don't we plan on talking next monday...i may be in houston and
perhaps we could have breakfast?

-----Original Message-----
From: Shults, Bob [mailto:Bob.Shults@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:32 PM
To: J. Robert Collins (E-mail)
Cc: David Salomon (E-mail)
Subject:

Bo,

I hope all is well for you, your family, friends and associates.

I'm sure you and your team are working 24 hours a day to keep the
exchange open.  We would like to share some ideas with you when you have
some time.  Please give me a call.

Bob Shults
EnronOnline LLC
Houston, Texas 77002-7361
713 853-0397
713 825-6372 cell
713 646-2126
bob.shults@enron.com

**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************


we hav e a tee time sat at herman for 11:40.


6 mnth 575 15-20% discount


[IMAGE]  	  [IMAGE]

	[IMAGE]

	Posturing before the big game

	Nov. 23, 2000

	[IMAGE]Chip Brown, who covers Texas football for The Dallas Morning News,
answers your questions about the A?game, recruits and commitments, Chris
Simms and more. Inside UT Football appears on Thursdays.

	E-mail questions to Chip: chipbrown@dallasnews.com

	Listen to Chip Brown talk about the Longhorns on
	DallasNews.com's Colleges site

	Chip Shot

	There is so much information being pumped out this week surrounding the
Texas-Texas A?game, here is some of what both schools are releasing to the
media in effort to bolster their team's image:

	 Texas A?is taking bragging rights over the 1990s after a 94-28-2 record for
the decade. The Aggies won nine or more games eight times and 10 or more
games five times in the 1990s.

	 They are touting their 94 victories in the 1990s as more than any Texas
school in any single decade. The former record for wins in a decade was 88 by
Darrell Royal and Fred Akers' Texas teams in the 1970s.

	 Here's the list being promoted by the Aggies: 1. Texas A&M, 1990s, 94. 2.
Texas, 1970s, 88. 3. Texas, 1960s, 86. 4. Texas Christian, 1930s, 83. 5.
Houston, 1970s, 80.

	 Texas fans, on the other hand, can probably take comfort in the only
statistic that matters concerning the Aggies: UT leads the overall series,
67-34-5.

	Longhorn Q & A
	 Q: What is the latest on the Texas QB situation?
	 ?? Ted Manges

	 BROWN:  Chris Simms will start Friday. He took nearly all the snaps for the
first five practices during which UT worked on the A?game plan. Major
Applewhite's right knee appears to be responding pretty well. He practiced
Tuesday for the first time since getting injured at Texas Tech. Mack Brown
said if Applewhite is healthy enough to back up Simms, he would use
Applewhite on a need-to-win-the-game basis. Those situations would seem to
include Simms getting hurt or Simms being completely ineffective. Otherwise,
look for Simms to play most or all of Friday's game.
	?

	[IMAGE]
	Kenny Hayter

	Q: Next year, when Hodges Mitchell is gone, will Texas play Kenny Hayter or
freshman Cedric Benson? Why?
	?? Cotton Davis

	 BROWN:  I think it's too early to tell. If Benson is as good as advertised,
I think he'll have a good chance of playing early because Kenny Hayter, Ivan
Williams and Victor Ike did not overwhelm the coaches this season. But Sneezy
Beltran will be coming off of a redshirt season, too. And he'll probably have
a say in how much playing time anyone gets.

	?

	 Q: Can you give us an update on injuries?  ??

	 BROWN:  TE Brock Edwards (leg), DT Stevie Lee (foot) and WR Artie Ellis
(shin) are out. SS Lee Jackson (hamstring) and QB Major Applewhite (knee) are
questionable. For A&M, LB Jason Glenn (knee), the Aggies leader in sacks, is
out. WR Robert Ferguson (ankle) and CB Sammy Davis (ankle) both did not
practice Tuesday for the Aggies and were listed as questionable.
	?

	 Q: I sent you a question last week about the intensity and "hate" that the
Horns didn't have for the OU game and was wondering if Coach Brown: a) thinks
he made a mistake by having the players take the OU game so lightly with
comments like "...we don't hate OU..." and "... it's just another game on the
schedule..." and, b) is that the attitude that will prevail going into the
A?game, and in future OU games?
	?? Joe Rushing

	 BROWN:  Mack Brown and his staff are not an in-your-face group of coaches.
Players say that they are treated with respect. Make no mistake, they know
their jobs are on the line every day in practice. They know if they don't
perform in practice, they will be replaced. But SS Greg Brown said that Mack
Brown has never given a "hell hath no fury" locker room talk, before, during
or after a game. Greg Brown said that Mack simply states what's on the line
for each game and expects the players to find their own way to motivate
themselves. Mack has said that as well. He said he asks players what works
for them best: whether it be the tough-love approach or the straightforward
approach. He has said constant yelling wears off. So he doesn't play head
games with his team. According to coaches and players from his time as OU
offensive coordinator back in 1984, Mack used to be a much more in-your-face
kind of coach, yelling at players to get them going. Coach Barry Switzer had
to tone him down. Brown said he has learned that you can't be negative with
players, that you have to treat them with respect. I don't know that you will
hear him talk about hating other teams.
	?

	 Q: Looking at the haul of recruits Texas already has commitments from, is
there an area of need not being addressed? It appears that this is quite a
haul of offensive linemen, so it looks like a lot of redshirts in the making.
If he signs, what will Quan Cosby be asked to do? Doesn't he have a twin
brother - and is that a factor on where he signs? When all is said and done,
where do you think this class will rank come signing day in February and
which of the potential signees, not orally committed, will most determine
where that rank ends up? Also, with Sneezy Beltran coming off a redshirt year
and from what I am reading, an impressive one at that, what do you see in the
future for Cedric Benson? What about the returning RBs such as Ivan Williams,
Kenny Hayter, et al? Is the abundance of talent at RB a good thing or too
much of a good thing? And one last thing: Is anyone looking to transfer after
the season?
	?? Roy Cassas

	 BROWN:  Quarterbacks and linemen (on both sides of the ball) control the
game, so you can never have enough of those positions. UT is filling its
needs nicely with the commitments that it has. The player that can probably
make the biggest difference is Tommie Harris of Killeen Ellison, perhaps the
best defensive tackle in the country. UT's class is shaping up as a top 10
nationally, again. If Harris comes, it will climb. But as is the case with
all of this recruiting hype, it's just that - hype. Who knows if Cedric
Benson will play next year? He has to come down here in the heat of August
and prove to the coaches that he's better than Kenny Hayter, Ivan Williams,
Victor Ike and Sneezy Beltran. I would say Benson's chances are good if some
of those guys don't toughen up and let loose. But time will tell. As far as
guys looking to transfer, there aren't any rumblings yet. Stay tuned.
	?

	[IMAGE]
	UT's road uniforms

	Q: I can say this because I am a graduate of the University of Texas: I think
the Longhorn football team has the UGLIEST uniform in all of college
football. When the Horns play on the road, they have too much white and not
enough color. They wear the ugliest black football shoes and those long solid
white socks are atrocious. It looks like each player can dress anyway he
desires, there is no uniformity in the look. Some players don't even wear
socks at all. It seems

	the coaches let each player express their own individuality, and I think they
play like a bunch of individuals instead of as a team. Coach McWilliams let
this trend start and it has continued through the current regime with poor
results. The orange home jerseys are not the right color orange, and they
look cheap. I wish Coach Brown would adopt a true burnt orange color. I wish
he would change the helmets to the same burnt orange color with a white
traditional Longhorn logo on each side and a white facemask. Shirttails
should be tucked in and each player should be dressed the same. Few
indicators of individuality should be allowed. The Longhorns look ragtag and
slow on the field. If they would improve their image, their play might
improve as well.
	 ?? John Robert Pharr, Waco, Texas

	 BROWN:  That seemed to be more of a comment than a question. But everyone is
entitled to their own opinion. I don't know about the burnt orange helmets.
That might be a little too much of a good thing.
	?

	 Q: Do you think that the loss to OU will hurt our recruiting class? I know
that we tend to compete for the same players and that they had their recruits
at the Cotton Bowl (since they were the home team).
	?? T. Franks, Austin

	 BROWN:  It appears that Oklahoma is making some serious inroads on UT
recruiting territory, at least for the 10 or so recruits the Longhorns still
hope to get orally committed. Namely, Tommie Harris, the defensive tackle out
of Killeen Ellison. Texas needs to take care of business on Friday to keep
the Sooners from stepping up their pitch for some of the noncommitted kids UT
is hoping to sign.
	?

	 Q: The lack of respect Texas is getting leading up to the A?game is
disturbing. I understand that the Horns were crushed against OU and also had
an early-season loss against Stanford on the road, but even with the stats
from those two losses, the Horns have one of the nation's top 5 defensive
units, plus we are playing at home and are riding the confidence of five
consecutive wins.
	 ?? Derrick Jackson, Coppell, Texas

	 BROWN:  Well, Texas is a 5-1/2 point favorite, so I don't know where the
lack of respect comes from. But I think people are lukewarm about UT because
the Longhorns haven't had a chance to show how much they've improved against
a quality opponent - until now. The Longhorns need to go out and grind the
Aggies into the ground to get the nation's attention. And I think they will.
I'm predicting Texas 31, A?21.
	?

	[IMAGE]
	Quentin Jammer

	Q: What are the key matchups in Friday's game?
	?? Lucas Harrington

	 BROWN:  In think the best matchups will be MLB De'Andre Lewis against A&M's
corps of running backs, namely Ja'Mar Toombs. Also keep an eye on Quentin
Jammer against A?WR Robert Ferguson. Lewis basically said this week that if
you hit Toombs in the mouth, he'll fold. So that immediately inspires some
interest in that matchup. Jammer also had a lot to say about Ferguson,
stating that if

	Ferguson's ankle wasn't 100 percent, it might not even be a close matchup.
"If he's 50 percent or 75 percent, that won't cut it," Jammer said. Jammer
did say that he thought a healthy Ferguson was better than Kansas State WR
Quincy Morgan. Jammer and Ferguson are both big, roughly 6-1 and 205 pounds.
Should be fun to watch.
	?

	 Q: Is Texas A?a legitimate passing team after all these years of trying to
air out the ball and not being able to?
	?? Stephen Torrence

	 BROWN:  I think so. It seems hard to believe. After Branndon Stewart and all
the hype about building a big-time passing offense the past several years,
it's finally hit College Station. The Aggies run four-wide, even five-wide.
They have trick plays, and Robert Ferguson, Bethel Johnson and Chris Taylor
are big-time receivers. And 25-year-old QB Mark Farris is the gritty leader
and 60 percent passer they have been looking for. I think it will be a decent
test for Texas, owner of the nation's No. 1-ranked pass efficiency defense.
	?

	 Q: Why does Texas keep throwing that out pattern and allowing Chris Simms to
be intercepted for touchdowns?
	?? Margie Phillips

	 BROWN:  I'll let Mack Brown answer that one: "It's not the same pass or we
would throw it out of the playbook. We're not that dumb." That was his
comment Tuesday night on his radio show.
	?

	 Q: Do you think Chris Simms is ready for the pressure of the Texas A?game?
	?? Deginald Franks

	 BROWN:  I think so. Simms seemed to grow in confidence after the Kansas
game. Getting the chance to pull the Longhorns out of a 14-0 hole after
throwing a pick for a TD really seemed to give him a positive jolt. Normally,
he would have been pulled at that point for Major Applewhite - at least he
would have been pulled early in the season (a la Louisiana-Lafayette). So
getting the chance to play an entire game seemed to help. I believe Simms
will be fine on Friday. He must feel good about his deep ball to Roy Williams
after the success they had at Kansas. I would expect to see a lot more of
that, creating room for Hodges Mitchell to run against a depleted A?front
seven.
	?

	 Q: I heard that this is only the ninth time that Texas and Texas A?are both
ranked coming into this game. That doesn't seem right.
	?? Brock Marshal

	 BROWN:  It doesn't seem right, but it is. Of the 107 times these two teams
have met (including this year), both have been ranked only nine times. Those
years are 2000, 1999, 1995, 1985, 1977, 1975, 1974, 1943 and 1941.

	 If you received this newsletter from a friend and would like to subscribe,
sign up at:   Newsletter Registration

	To find or change your password, modify your account, or unsubscribe from
this newsletter, go to:   Newsletter Registration

	Questions?    Comments?  Suggestions?

	   (c) Copyright 2000 The Dallas Morning News
		[IMAGE]

			  [IMAGE]
			  [IMAGE]
			  [IMAGE]


what do you guys think.  Jeff
If he is good, we have a lot to do in Japan.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 10/02/2000
01:47 PM ---------------------------

"Chris Handte" <handtec@wharton.upenn.edu> on 09/26/2000 10:06:14 PM
To: <jeff.shankman@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Opportunities in Japan

Hi Mr. Shankman,

I am a second year finance major at Wharton.  I left a voice mail for you
the other day in which I mentioned my interest in pursuing finance
opportunities in Japan.  I have extensive experience in Japan and am looking
to go back and take advantage of some of the fascinating changes that are
occurring over there.  I will try calling you again this Thursday to
hopefully discuss Enron's strategies and opportunities more specifically.  I
have attached my resume for your consideration.  I look forward to talking
to you.

Sincerely yours,

Christopher Handte
________________________________

Christopher Handte
Wharton MBA Candidate, Class of 2001
4300 Spruce Street, Apt. C-104
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215-382-8744
E-Mail: Christopher.Handte.wg01@wharton.upenn.edu

 - RESUME - Christopher Handte.DOC


Proposed edits attached.  Looks good -- I like the references to the energy
savings... I think we should try to get this story some play in california;
not necessarily in the media but perhaps with some of the folks we are
working with in the Gov's office.  Please copy Dasovich and Mccubbin on the
final.

Extra congratulations on the USA Today story.

	Peggy Mahoney@EES
	11/27/2000 09:39 PM

		 To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G
Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES,
Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Elizabeth
Tilney/HOU/EES@EES, Karen S Owens@ees@EES, Thomas E White/HOU/EES@EES, Steven
J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paula
Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cedric Burgher/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Michael
Chudecke/HOU/EES@EES, Angela Schwarz/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc:
		 Subject: Macerich

The Macerich Company has agreed to distribute the attached news release about
our recent energy
management agreement.  Although it was a third quarter agreement, I'd really
like to have this "officially" on the
record.  Please review the attached draft and let me know your thoughts by
end of day Tuesday, November 28.
x57034.

Thanks
Peggy


---------------------- Forwarded by Rhonda L Denton/HOU/ECT on 12/18/2000
06:15 PM ---------------------------

Rhonda L Denton
11/08/2000 05:21 PM
To: John M Forney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Valarie Sabo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Fran
Chang/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Arizona Public Service Company

I will add Valarie and Fran to my distribution.  John is already on here.
---------------------- Forwarded by Rhonda L Denton/HOU/ECT on 11/08/2000
05:23 PM ---------------------------

Rhonda L Denton
10/10/2000 09:19 AM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Genia
FitzGerald/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melissa Ann
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kyle Schultz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gretchen
Lotz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dean Laurent/HOU/ECT@ECT, John D Suarez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cara
Semperger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jan M King/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mike Swerzbin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael
Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Malowney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Laura Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cyril Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, James E
Terrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Corry Bentley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matt Lorenz/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Thresa A Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Portz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sharen
Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT, Veronica Gonzalez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberly Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT,
William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debbie R Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher
Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brant Reves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russell Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Suttle/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tanya Rohauer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rod Nelson/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Stephanie Piwetz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie
Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russell T Kelley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stewart Rosman/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Holli Krebs/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Choi/SF/ECT@ECT, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Mead/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip Platter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Smith L
Day/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, D Brett Hunsucker/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Kim Ward/HOU/ECT@ECT, John M Forney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D
Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kayne Coulter/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Kinser/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Robert Benson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Larry Valderrama/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul J
Broderick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janet H
Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janice R Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shari Stack/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin
M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rogers Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect, Jesse Bryson/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Stanley Cocke/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael M Driscoll/PDX/ECT@ECT, Doug
Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kimberly Hundl/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joy
Werner/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Elsie Lew/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Houston/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Amy Horton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kim Durham/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rhonda
Robinson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rudy Acevedo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diana Allen/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Ted Ballinger/NA/Enron@Enron, Don Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa
Burnett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Carla Hoffman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mark Guzman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
Larry F Campbell/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike Carson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Alan
Chen/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jason Choate/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lawrence
Clayton/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kevin Cline/Corp/Enron@Enron, Terri
Clynes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Keith Comeaux/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karla
Compean/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason Crawford/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mike Curry/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Oscar Dalton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clint Dean/Corp/Enron@Enron, Todd
DeCook/Corp/Enron@Enron, George Diaz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Dutta/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Joe Errigo/Corp/Enron@Enron, David Fairley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Miguel L
Garcia/NA/Enron@ENRON, Gerald Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe
Gordon/Corp/Enron@Enron, Brent Hebert/HOU/ECT@ect, Juan
Hernandez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Wayne Herndon/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jim
Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, George Hopley/HOU/ECT@ect, Richard Hrabal/HOU/ECT@ect,
Rika Imai/NA/Enron@Enron, Alton Jackson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Larry
Jester/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gary Justice/NA/Enron@Enron, MICHAEL
KELLY/ENRON@Gateway, Grace Kim/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff King/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Madhup Kumar/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Justin Laverell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris
Lenartowicz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Peter Makkai/NA/Enron@Enron, Dave
Mangskau/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Posey Martinez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
May/Corp/Enron@Enron, Keller Mayeaux/Corp/Enron@Enron, Doug
Miller/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeffrey Miller/NA/Enron@Enron, Narsimha
Misra/NA/Enron@Enron, Steve Olinde/Corp/Enron@Enron, Andy
Pace/NA/Enron@Enron, Juan Padron/NA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo
Perez/NA/Enron@Enron, Joseph Piotrowski/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe
Quenet/NA/Enron@Enron, Bill Rust/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Ryan/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Eric Saibi/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Zachary Sampson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Anna
Santucci/NA/Enron@Enron, Janelle Scheuer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Erik
Serio/Corp/Enron@Enron, Doug Sewell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Stalford/NA/Enron@Enron, Chad Starnes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joe
Stepenovitch/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tom Swank/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark
Symms/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paul Thomas/EU/Enron@Enron, Greg
Trefz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Maria Valdes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joseph
Wagner/NA/Enron@Enron, Christopher Watts/NA/Enron@Enron, Lloyd
Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jay Wills/Corp/Enron@ENRON, George Wood/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Alex Wong/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Arizona Public Service Company

Arizona Public Service Company is moving its bulk power marketing to PINNACLE
WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION.  Credit and Legal have approved us to trade with
this entity for deals less than one year in length,


You will be migrated to outlook on Monday night 5/14/01.  You will be
receiving a series of four emails between now and then, please open and read.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks
-Ina Rangel


<title>WineISIT.com - Member E-mail</title>

Store
Member:
Spec's Wines, Spirits & Finer Foods

Members > E-mail
<map name='weekly link'>
<area alt='' coords='24, 9, 327, 28' href='http://www.wineisit.com/ad/2001October/Weekly/20011022/spec.html' shape='RECT'>
</map>

Hi WARREN P,

Spec's Wines, Spirits & Finer Foods and WineISIT.com have teamed up to offer you some great savings on your favorite wines and spirits.

We hope you enjoy these WineISIT.com specials.

5% discount is available for those not using credit cards. Use of debit cards
earns the 5% cash discount.

Both regular and cash discount prices are listed. Specials available at all
locations.

E-mail any questions or comments about these special offers to:

sales@specsonline.com

Spec's largest and most famous location is at 2400 Smith St. on the south edge of
downtown. 16 other locations are around Houston.

Spec's is famous for providing customers more wine, liquor, beer and specialty foods and at lower prices than anyone in Texas.

Store Hours:

All stores are open from

10AM to 9PM Monday
through Saturday.

Charge Cards Honored:

American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover cards.

To arrange delivery, call order department at 713-526-8787 OR TOLL FREE 888-526-8787

Spec's, for the good stuff.

Spec's is not responsible for mis-prints or typographical errors. All customers must be at least 21 years old.

Monthly Specials:
October, 2001
Valid 10/8 thru 11/3

Turning Leaf Cabernet Sauvignon 750 ml.

This wine expresses itself with dark plum and black currant flavors layered with spicy oak and a slight chocolate finish. The wine is full bodied with structured tannins providing balance and elegance for a pleasurable drinking experience.

Cash Price: $5.79     Regular Price: $6.09

Torresella 2000 Pinot Grigio 750ml.

Aromas of fresh fruit, apple and melon; crisp and clean flavors; dry and beautifully balanced. An excellent complement to soups, antipasti, prosciutto, melon and light fish and pastas.

Cash Price: $6.49     Regular Price: $6.83

Bella Sera Pinot Grigio 1.5 L

The new Bella Sera Pinot Grigio is clean, crisp and refreshing. Utilizing fruit from the Tre Venezie region and subtle winemaker influence, Bella Sera captures the essence of the Pinot Grigio varietal and is a wine that is "true to the grape". The 1999 Pinot Grigio has a clear, straw color and a pleasant nose with delicate aromas of apricot and tropical fruit. This wine is refreshing and crisp with a light to medium body that will allow it to pair well with dishes of all types. Particularly good pairings include grilled vegetables, light pasta dishes and seafood. The refreshing style of the wine makes it a must for hot summer months.

Cash Price: $7.99     Regular Price: $8.41

Bella Sera Merlot 1.5L

The new Bella Sera Merlot clearly attests to the rising notoriety of Merlot in general, and Italian Merlot in particular, by offering a full flavored style without the more astringent tannins found in Cabernet Sauvignon. Ruby red in color, with aromas of currants and cherries, Bella Sera Merlot offers supple plum and blackberry flavors on the palate, and a ripe, rich finish. The vibrant fruit flavors and good acidity of this Merlot make it an excellent match with a wide range of foods, including tomato-based pasta dishes, grilled meats and poultry.

Cash Price: $7.99     Regular Price: $8.41

Tosti Asti 750 ml.

Tosti was founded in 1820 and is located in Canelli, Italy in the heart of the Asti region. Produced from the Moscato grape, it has a pale straw color with golden highlights. The sparkle is soft, lively with a delicate, aromatic nose and a trace of pear and fruit with a sweet flavor.

Enjoy Tosti Asti whenever you feel like enjoying a great glass of wine.

Cash Price: $7.69     Regular Price: $8.09

Ecco Domani Pinot Grigio
750 ml.

This Pinot Grigio has a clear, straw color and a pleasant nose with delicate aromas of apricot and tropical fruit. The wine displays crisp subtle flavors with excellent balance and a snappy finish. With its harmonious flavors and crisp acidity, this wine is an excellent match with seafood, poultry, pasta and vegetarian dishes.

Cash Price: $7.88     Regular Price: $8.29

Ecco Domani Merlot 750 ml.

Ecco Domani Merlot displays a deep red color tinged with ruby-red reflections. Aromas of blueberry and blackberry are evident, with a hint of jam on the nose. This wine is well-balanced, soft and harmonic wine on the palate. Our Merlot is a perfect match for a wide range of foods, particularly tomato-based pasta dishes, poultry and grilled meats.

Cash Price: $7.99     Regular Price: $8.41

Lockwood 1998 Cabernet Sauvignon, Monterey 750 ml.

All of the grapes used in this 1998 Cabernet Sauvignon came from Lockwood's San Lucas vineyard. Two percent Cabernet Franc and a touch of Merlot enhance its complexity. This is a powerful wine that beams with bright, jammy fruit and rich layers of cocoa, eucalyptus, and leather that will soften and grow more elegant over the next 5-7 years.

Cash Price: $9.99     Regular Price: $10.52

Monthaven Coastal 1998 Cabernet Sauvignon
750 ml.

Monthaven Coastal wines are produced using fruit grown along California's Central Coast. A region best known for its warm, sunny days, foggy evenings, and cool ocean breezes, the Central Coast's mild climate and longer growing season enhance the grapes' varietal characteristics and allow the rich, complex and decidedly distinctive flavors to show themselves in each and every bottle of Monthaven Coastal.

Cash Price: $8.99     Regular Price: $9.46

Monthaven Coastal 1998 Chardonnay 750 ml.

Monthaven Coastal wines are produced using fruit grown along California's Central Coast. A region best known for its warm, sunny days, foggy evenings, and cool ocean breezes, the Central Coast's mild climate and longer growing season enhance the grapes' varietal characteristics and allow the rich, complex and decidedly distinctive flavors to show themselves in each and every bottle of Monthaven Coastal.

Cash Price: $8.99     Regular Price: $9.46

E & J Cask & Cream
Liqueur 34? 750 ml.

"? a smooth, easy-to-drink cream liqueur made from blending E&J - and rich, imported cream to give it a uniquely delicious flavor. The brandy provides lingering delights of vanilla and butterscotch, which are enriched with velvety, Dutch cream."

Gregory Hill, Brandymaster

Cash Price: $9.99     Regular Price: $10.52

Moskovskaya Vodka
80? 1 L.

From Moscow's famous Cristall Distillery, makers of Stolichnaya and known worldwide for exceptional quality, this is the top-selling vodka in Russia. Virtually identical to Stoli (except the label is green, not red) at a bargain price!

Cash Price: $12.99     Regular Price: $13.67

Bacardi 8 Yr Rum 80?
750 ml.

From its origins in Cuba in 1862, Bacardi has always been considered one of the world's finest rums. It has a slight hint of banana in the nose, with a warm, syrupy palate.

Cash Price: $16.99     Regular Price: $17.88

J?germeister 70? 750 ml.

Named after Germany's patron saint of hunting, this unique herbal liqueur is made with 56 different spices for a pleasantly bitter taste. It's enjoyed cold (some bars feature it on tap with a chiller that keeps it at 4 degrees!) or in mixed drinks such as the German Chocolate Cake (1/2 oz. each Jagermeister and chocolate liqueur, with splashes of coconut rum and butterscotch schnapps).

Cash Price: $16.99     Regular Price: $17.88

Amaretto Di Saronno 56?
750 ml.

When Bernardino Luini painted a fresco of the Madonna in 1525, his model, a young inkeeper, fell in love with him and created this liqueur as a gift of her love. It's still made according to that original recipe, from the highest quality natural ingredients - alcohol, burnt sugar and the pure essence of 17 selected herbs and fruits soaked in apricot kernel oil. The sweet almond flavors have notes of honey, chocolate and orange.

Cash Price: $17.99     Regular Price: $18.94

Remy Martin VSOP Cognac 80? 750ml.

The flagship of the brand. One bottle alone contains hundreds of blend components, ranging from four to 15 years in age. The brand itself is a Fine Champagne Cognac taken from the two best crus. It has a golden amber color (old pale), great smoothness and complexity; balanced and perfectly mature.

Cash Price: $27.99     Regular Price: $29.46

Covey Run Cab-Merlot 750 ml.

Founded in 1982, Covey Run has established itself as a leading producer of outstanding varietal wines from Washington state's fertile Yakima Valley. Year after year, wine lovers and critics continue to recognize the unmatched quality and value found in Covey Run wines, honoring them with growing popularity and acclaim.

Cash Price: $6.99     Regular Price: $7.36

Rancho Zabaco 1998 Sonoma Heritage Vines Zinfandel
750 ml.

One of the outstanding brands being produced at the Gallo of Sonoma winery, created to showcase the bold, intense varietals of the best Sonoma areas. They're best known for their Zinfandels, and this one captures the essence of the grape's character-lush berry fruit flavors and moderate tannins. It's great for everyday drinking.

Cash Price: $8.99     Regular Price: $9.46

Vermeer Dutch Chocolate Cream 34? 750 ml.

Winner of the GOLD MEDAL for taste and the BEST OF SHOW Award from the American Tasting Institute. VERMEER is a superior tasting liqueur made from real Dutch chocolate, premium vodka, and fresh dairy cream.  This holiday season, treat your friends and family to VERMEER Dutch Chocolate Cream. Enjoy it straight up or on the rocks.

Cash Price: $18.49     Regular Price: $19.46

WineISIT.com Member E-mail is a special service for WineISIT.com members. If you wish to unsubscribe to this E-mail, simply click here and update your preferences on our E-mail preferences page.  We'll remove you from our member E-mail list as quickly as possible.


Shirley;

Am I right that this one would have no effect on Austin?  I am glad to write a
letter, I just want to be clear on this point.

Girard

shirley wrote:

> Please let me know if you have any problems opening the attached documents.
> Thanks,
> Shirley Platt
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                               Name: HB1660.Action Alert.doc
>    HB1660.Action Alert.doc    Type: Winword File (application/msword)
>                           Encoding: base64
>
>                                  Name: HB 1660 Talking Points.doc
>    HB 1660 Talking Points.doc    Type: Winword File (application/msword)
>                              Encoding: base64


where've we been?  where've you been?  really only stay at my house on school
nites (monday/thursday). will be chez toi tonite.  would LOVE to go back this
weekend (it's gorgeous---TONS of iris, apple blossoms, wild flowers, etc.),
but alas, we promised you're folks we'd plant tomatoes this weekend.  I'm
going to put down nice gravely rock around the beds, so it looks more like
Italy, or France or something and we don't get all the weeds.  Sorry about
S.D., but it will be super nice down there.  Be sure to go to Black's Beach.
And golf and Torrey Pines.  See you tonite?

	Cameron Sellers <cameron@perfect.com>
	04/10/2001 02:35 PM

		 To: "'Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com'" <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Merry Xmas?

Where have you been - I haven't seen you guys at all.  Staying at your house
a little more these days??  When are you going back up to the dome?  We are
leaving Friday for San Diego to spend the easter holiday (yeah, whatever)
with Scotty's mom.

Cameron Sellers
Vice President, Business Development
PERFECT
1860 Embarcadero Road - Suite 210
Palo Alto, CA 94303
cameron@perfect.com
650.798.3366 (direct dial)
650.269.3366 (cell)
650.858.1095 (fax)

 -----Original Message-----
From:    Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:28 PM
To:   Cameron Sellers
Subject:   RE: Merry Xmas?

Not a problem.  Just couldn't believe  that they screwed it up so much.
There's 3 ft of new power at Squaw!!!!


Heavy Load

EES owes EPMI 10 MW

Light Load

EES owes EPMI 5 MW


Why don't you come in Saturday night & I'll take you to dinner?


FYI.
Thanks.
Gary

 Burton, et al. v. FERC.cmplt.pdf
 <<Burton, et al. v. FERC.cmplt.pdf>>

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

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

 - Burton, et al. v. FERC.cmplt.pdf


this is fantastic!!
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 08/22/2000
04:57 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Ann M Schmidt                           08/22/2000 09:03 AM

To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paula
Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Time Magazine - Enron Plays the Pipes....

This article is forwarded to you per Mark Palmer's request...

Business
Enron Plays The Pipes This old-time gas company is trading fuel for a future
as a new-economy
superpower. Will the swap work?
Frank Gibney Jr./Houston

08/28/2000
Time Magazine
Time Inc.
38+
(Copyright 2000)

It's Saturday night, and the only thing between you and a movie from
Blockbuster Video is the unpaid late fee for
last week's rental. If that sounds familiar, then you'll appreciate this:
next year Blockbuster plans to offer up to 500
movie titles online in more than a dozen major cities around the U.S. That's
right, video on demand (not the
frustrating no-rewind, no-pause pay-per-view offerings of today) for anyone
with a DSL line at home.

What's remarkable is that Blockbuster's partner happens to be an energy
company called Enron. At a time when
so many old-economy companies seem helpless against the dizzying pace and
technology of the digital age,
Enron is demonstrating why FORTUNE magazine keeps voting it the most
innovative large company in America.
For years the Houston-based firm simply produced, transported and marketed
natural gas. Then, as energy
deregulation threatened profit margins in the gas business, Enron discovered
it could make billions by trading and
brokering packages of energy the way Midwesterners do pork bellies. Now Enron
is moving into the
telecommunications business, with a national fiber-optic cable network and a
floor bulging with Sun
supercomputers.

In fact, Enron may be the most interesting old-economy company around. Since
moving its trading operations from
the phone to the Web eight months ago, the company has doubled revenues to
more than $30 billion. Most of that
is made through trading everything from energy and paper to weather risk
derivatives and now bandwidth--more than
800 offerings in all. Think of eBay, but instead of auctioning $5 used Baby
Gap pajamas, the company trades
$600,000 blocks of natural gas--and pockets commensurately huge commissions.
Boasts Enron president Jeffrey
Skilling: "In terms of dollars transacted, we're the world's largest online
site by a factor of 10."

So far this year, that has meant $120 billion in transactions. And when
you're running the network, all sorts of
profitable opportunities arise. Last week, when word spread that natural-gas
prices would spike this winter, Enron's
in-house traders saw their gains surge as customers raced to lock in future
supplies at today's prices. And Enron's
stock price? It hit $90 last week, tripling its value of a year ago. Kind of
like an Internet play, only better.

The market loves Enron because Skilling and CEO Kenneth Lay seem to have come
up with a business model that
works for just about anything. They provide a service to their customers by
packaging a supply of name your
commodity and then using the efficiency of their vast network to beat most
prices. They arrived at this model back
in the mid-1980s almost out of desperation, when crude-oil prices had
collapsed, natural-gas deregulation had
thrown that market into chaos, and the Peruvian government had just
nationalized Enron's offshore properties.
Figuring they might as well leverage deregulation instead of succumbing to
it--call it business judo-- Skilling, a
McKinsey & Co. consultant at the time, came up with a plan called the Gas
Bank, to buy up reserves of natural
gas, then package them for sale, with various prices and conditions for
different customers. When electricity
markets deregulated a few years ago, the company did the same. It's the
oldest concept in business: buy low, sell
high.

Enron also leverages its assets and expertise to provide services to big
customers. Since 1997, companies like
Owens Corning and Chase Manhattan Bank have signed long-term,
multibillion-dollar contracts with Enron
subsidiary Enron Energy Services (EES) that lock in their energy costs for up
to 10 years and provide Enron with a
steady revenue stream. What's more, Enron is beginning to actively manage its
clients' heating and cooling plants,
installing new equipment when necessary and monitoring it all over the
Internet.

Skilling's latest gambit is to apply the same principles he learned in the
power and energy sectors to making Enron
a leader in the booming telecommunications business. The plan isn't to go
head to head with established fiber-optic
carriers such as AT&T, Qwest and Williams Communications. Instead, Enron
wants to use new switching
technology and its expertise in trading pipeline access to transform a modest
telecom network into a powerful
arbiter of bandwidth. Enron's bet is simple: supply and demand will increase
exponentially, turning bandwidth into a
tradable commodity, just like gas and electricity. Along the way, why not
partner with companies such as
Blockbuster and use this new technology to offer content--like movies- -and
blow it through existing, underutilized
pipe? "They are jump- starting an application [telecom content] with a
potential market of $200 billion a year," says
Tom Nolle, president of the telecom consulting firm CIMI.

Other new-economy players are also beginning to see the power merchant as a
prize partner. IBM and AOL have
joined with Enron to form the New Power Co. (TNPC), an independent start-up
that will offer pricing schemes and a
choice of power and gas service for residential and small-business customers.
Enron provides the electricity; AOL
enables customers to buy it via the Web; and IBM takes care of the billing.
"It's ludicrous that we're in the 21st
century, and you still have people jumping over fences to read meters," says
Skilling, pointing out that the
technology exists to offer real-time pricing for gas and electricity. In
deregulated markets, TNPC will allow
consumers to switch power companies as easily as they do phone companies.

Despite all Wall Street's enthusiasm for Enron's bold plans, there are still
plenty of skeptics. Critics point out that
there is barely a market today for the company's bandwidth trading exchange.
They also stress that pushing digital
signals through pipe is a world away from routing natural gas. Although there
is plenty of cable across the country,
carriers are not set up to mix and match access to it. "It's a very, very
difficult concept," says Nolles. Even the
Blockbuster venture is risky: technology aside, there is also the highly
political question of digital rights. How do
you satisfy Hollywood that its content is secure?

But Skilling and his lieutenants are quick to counter that everyone thought
they were crazy to try to make markets
in gas and electricity. And Enron, after all, is a company that thrives on
entrepreneurial defiance of convention.
Many of its new ventures were started because managers simply set new ideas
in motion without waiting for
approval from the top. Even the online operation was cobbled together in a
mere seven months. Skilling and Lay
found out about EnronOnline only two weeks before it went live.

Is taking risks really a part of a gas-pipeline company's culture? Just ask
John Arnold, the 26-year-old chief of
natural-gas derivatives, who after nine hours and $1 billion in trades last
Wednesday had this to say: "You can't turn
away for a minute or you get picked off." That has happened to too many
traditional companies because they were
unable to find a niche in the new economy. Enron, however, has traded its way
into a starring role, and now it
hopes it is ready for the movies.

[BOX]

THE PIPELINE OF PLENTY --Natural-gas production --Electric-power generation
--Enron Online: global-trading
system for 800 commodity products; $120 billion in trades so far in 2000
--Enron Energy Services: contracts with
institutional customers to manage all power needs at fixed, long-term prices.
Ultimate aim is control, via the Web,
of heating, ventilation and air conditioning --Enron Broadband Services:
trades bandwidth capacity to fill customers'
transmission needs. Offers bandwidth to content providers like Blockbuster
and AtomFilms.com

COLOR PHOTO: GREG GIRARD--CONTACT PRESS IMAGES THE KING OF REINVENTION
Desperate conditions
in the '80s forced Enron's president Skilling to come up with a new and
highly adaptable business model COLOR
PHOTO: PAUL S. HOWELL--LIAISON AGENCY FOR TIME POWER MERCHANT Even as it
trades commodities
from coal to bandwidth, Enron continues to expand its gas and electric
production around the globe COLOR
ILLUSTRATION: ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY BILL SCHWARTZ

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


We have received an executed financial Master Agreement:

Type of Contract:  ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency-Cross Border)

Effective Date:   February 1, 2001

Enron Entity:   Enron North America Corp.

Counterparty:   Axia Energy, LP

Transactions Covered:  Approved for all products with the exception of:
Foreign Exchange

Confirming Entity:  Enron North America Corp.

Choice of Law:   Texas

Stephanie Panus


Only couple brief comments on the version that includes Edison's comments:

Under the definition of "Spot Market Service" it now reads:

This service is available for Large Customers and Medium Customers whose
service from a Direct Access provider has been interrupted, or who have
failed to elect or be deemed to elect either Direct Access, Core Service or
Term Service.

I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "or be deemed to elect."  If
inserting the phrase serves an important purpose, then perhaps it's
appropriate to leave it in.  But we haven't discussed any reason for needing
it.  As such, given the last-minute nature of the change, it should be
deleted.

There is one heckuvalot of detail in the rate-related language that Edison
provided that we didn't have a chance to discuss in our negotiations.  It may
turn out that it's all fine, but I frankly haven't haven't had the chance to
adequately wrap my meager mind around the language, so I just want to let
folks know that many more comments on those pieces may pop up from my end in
the near term.
Finally, I just want to raise a flag on section 25465 (a) (6) regarding the
green portfolio standard.  We never discussed/analyzed those additional
percentages and consequently we never established a "zone of comfort" around
including those numbers.  That may become an issue (and may not, just wanted
to briefly flag it).

Thanks again for all the effort.

Best,
Jeff


Scott,

Your positions were not affected - therefore you were trading on the correct position - just the long-term purchases accrual was off.  Your P&L was the only aspect affected being overstated by approx. $350 k - you made approx $91k should have been -$250k.

kf


----- Forwarded by Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT on 05/19/2000 01:51 PM -----

	mukunah@winstim.com
	05/19/2000 01:48 PM

		 To: clint.freeland@enron.com, mark.taylor@enron.com,
gareth.bahlmann@enron.com, kimberly.blue@ubsw.com, scott.whitney@ubsw.com,
ryan.donovan@ubsw.com, scott.giese@ubsw.com, timothy.steele@ubsw.com,
michael.davidson@ubsw.com, william.sullivan@ubsw.com, john.magovern@ubsw.com,
rastin@velaw.com, mspradling@velaw.com, mshiang@bankofny.com
		 cc: ecklandt@winstim.com, delaneyj@winstim.com, chudyj@winstim.com,
earlyhud@winstim.com, kurzw@winstim.com
		 Subject: Enron PATS 2000-1

 In connection with the proposed offering of Enron's PATS, we're attaching a
Cover Letter, the Preliminary Offering Circular and the Closing Document List.

Best regards,

Hazel Mukuna

(See attached file: Cover Letter.doc)    (See attached file: Preliminary
Offering Circular.doc)        (See attached file: Closing Document List.doc)

______________________________________
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message,or any attachment, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received
this message in error, please notify the original sender (or the WSPR
Help Desk) immediately by telephone (212-858-1000) or by return
E-mail and delete the message, along with any attachments, from
your computer.  Thank you.

 - Cover Letter.doc
 - Preliminary Offering Circular.doc
 - Closing Document List.doc