--

California Power-Price Boost Not Needed, Agency Says (Update1)
By Daniel Taub

Sacramento, California, July 13 (Bloomberg) -- California regulators won't need to raise electricity prices for consumers to cover a planned $13.4 billion bond sale, said a spokesman for the agency that buys power on behalf of the state's utilities.

The California Department of Water Resources, which has spent more than $7.7 billion on power this year, is expected to recommend a rate increase of as much as 25 percent, Dow Jones reported today, citing three unnamed members of the state's Public Utilities Commission. Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the agency, said no rate increase is expected.

``Our folks are stunned by this revelation because it is nowhere near what our numbers show,'' Hidalgo said. ``In fact our numbers show that there is no need for any increase beyond what's already been done.''

The Department of Water Resources will submit a report to the California Public Utilities Commission today or Monday with the state's revenue requirements for repaying a planned $13.4 billion bond sale, Hidalgo said. The bonds are to be repaid by customers of utilities owned by PG&E Corp., Edison International and Sempra Energy.

The bond sales, the largest municipal offering in U.S. history, are scheduled to begin in September. Governor Gray Davis has said repeatedly that he believes the bonds can be repaid without further rate increases. His position hasn't changed, spokesman Steve Maviglio said today.

Previous Increases

In March, the PUC voted to boost rates by 3 cents a kilowatt- hour at the state's two largest utilities. Rates at PG&E's Pacific Gas & Electric, the largest California utility, would rise by as much as 36 percent and Southern California Edison rates would rise by as much as 27 percent, the PUC said at the time.

The average consumer-price increase would be 30 percent, the PUC said. The increase, the second this year, was intended to help the state pay for power purchases. The PUC voted in January to raise rates about 10 percent.

California Treasurer Philip Angelides has said that the bonds will let the state cushion the immediate rate impact on residents and businesses by spreading power costs over time. The debt will be repaid over 15 years.

Investors have said they can't predict how the bonds will be received without knowing how much cushion is built into the revenue pledge backing the debt.

Legislation that paved the way for the bonds allows the state to raise electricity rates as needed to cover debt repayment. That pledge, typical for revenue bonds, usually entails a promise to raise a specific level of money annually to cover interest and principal payments on the debt and provide an added cushion.

That formula, known as a debt service coverage ratio, must result in investment-grade ratings for California's power bonds, according to the legislation. Investors want assurance that an issuer will raise rates to maintain the promised cushion, even if increases aren't needed at the time of the bond sale.


Thanks, have a good weekend.

-Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Venkataswami, Vishwanatha
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:38 PM
To:	Semperger, Cara
Subject:	RE: DONALD ROBINSON DOES NOT HAVE PATH CONFIRMATION

Please log on to this web site
http://eapps.enron.com/login.asp

Thanks,
Vish
x 53209

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Semperger, Cara
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 05:31 PM
To:	Venkataswami, Vishwanatha; Crooks, William
Cc:	Robinson, Donald
Subject:	DONALD ROBINSON DOES NOT HAVE PATH CONFIRMATION

His attempts to get path confirmation he gets this error

ACCESS VIOLATION AT ADDRESS 005096E9 IN MODULE "PATH CONFIRM.EXE" READ OF ADDRESS 00000000.

He needs access asap.

Thanks,

Cara


No comments.  Did not give her anything to do.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Spencer, Becky
Sent:	Monday, November 19, 2001 2:26 PM
To:	Hodge, Jeffrey T.; Shackleton, Sara; Jacobson, Kimberley; Perlingiere, Debra; Heard, Marie
Subject:	Comment needed:  Debra Garcia (111901) Rozycki

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

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

	Initiative

	Cooperation

	Punctuality

	Attendance

	Quality of Work

	Would you request this person again Y/N?


I've heard some mumbling about problems with EES deals, so this doesn't come
as much of a surprise. Here's what I've done:

On the first deal, #481619, I'd feel more comfortable if Mike Swerzbin, the
trader who did the deal, gave his okay to change the price. I've left a
message with him to verify the price, and at the very latest I'll see him
tomorrow morning.

Deal #480433 cannot be killed because it contains liquidated strips; however,
it looks like Phil Platter, the Short Term California scheduler, has alreday
zeroed out the deal. Will this work? Or is there another method by which I
can go about killing a deal? (Sorry to ask so many questions, but 90% of our
office is already gone for the holidays and quite difficult to get ahold of.)

I've changed #481620. I think the trader just overcompensated for the change
back from Daylight Savings Time. I'll remind these guys to always enter PPT
for the time zone, to be on the safe side.

I hope this solves at least some of the problems for now. I'll let you know
as soon as I talk to Swerzbin tomorrow. Let me know if there's anything else.

Kate

	From:  Sharen Cason                           12/20/2000 12:48 PM

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Kimberly Hundl/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: problems!

Happy Holidays!

We have a few problems with deals with EES.  We have tried to get them
straightened out here, but I think it has come to the traders duking it out.
Our contact at EES, Judy Dyer has checked these deals with her traders and
they won't come around to our way of thinking on these deals.

Deal #481619 should be $145.00 even.  The trader says the deal was done
direct and they are not paying the 5 cent charge

Deal # 480433 should be killed.

Deal # 481620 is not input correctly.  This is another one where the hours
have been duplicated.  The first strip and the last strip repeat 10/29 for
the same hours.  This makes the total Mws on the deal doubled by the amount
that flows that day which is 400.

Thanks and you have a Merry Christmas, ya' hear!


contact:  Linda Rale 202.224.3861


Good morning,

In an effort to smooth out some of the problems we have seen in the past, I would like to start getting a P&L estimate from each of you nightly to try to prevent any unnecessary surprises in the mornings.  I will then expect my group to contact you before they leave at night if it is above or below your estimates, or range you give them.

This will certainly help us all avoid any fire drills the next day.

If you have any concerns about this please let me know, otherwise, your book admins will be calling you or stopping by your desks around 3:00 daily to get this estimate.

Thanks,
Kam

x3-5781


Martin,

No problem. Please, ask Stinson as well.

Vince

From: Martin Lin@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 01/24/2001 01:46 PM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: dinner with Lasdon

I thought that since Chonawee has an optimization background, he would be
good to have him go to dinner with Dr. Lasdon on Thrusday as well.  Would
this be fine?

Thanks,
Martin


Hi again,

     I thought it might be helpful if I forwarded a document which describes
some of the hybrid structured products I have been contemplating.  Please
refer
to the attached files.

     In addition, any further information regarding my coming to Houston?

Regards,
Iris

(See attached file: Hybrid Structured Products.doc)

(See attached file: Diagram of Aircraft Delivery Options.doc)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
This message is confidential; its contents do not constitute a
commitment by BNP Paribas Group* except where provided
for in a written agreement between you and BNP Paribas Group*.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination, either
whole or partial, is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient of the message, please notify the sender immediately.
*BNP Paribas Group  is a trading name of BNP SA and Paribas SA

Ce message est confidentiel; son contenu ne represente en
aucun cas un engagement de la part du groupe BNP Paribas*
sous reserve de tout accord conclu par ecrit entre vous et le
groupe BNP Paribas*. Toute publication, utilisation ou diffusion,
meme partielle, doit etre autorisee prealablement. Si vous n'etes
pas destinataire de ce message, merci d'en avertir immediatement
l'expediteur.
*Le groupe BNP Paribas est le nom commercial utilise par BNP SA et Paribas SA

 - Hybrid Structured Products.doc
 - Diagram of Aircraft Delivery Options.doc


I talked to Tom Swank this morning on UAE and he feels that we need to have
Nepco still send out their best EPC number to UAE.  Tom said he can buy some
time from UAE, so that Nepco can send out the number the middle of next
week.  I talked to Bruce this morning and he was having Nepco continue to put
information together on UAE.  Thanks!
Ben


I have no idea what this project is so an update would be appreciated.  Please set something up with my assistant Cindy Stark.  Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Piro, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:59 PM
To: Hayslett, Rod; Horton, Stanley
Cc: Abrams, Clement; HEIKKINEN, GARY; Shah, Mahendra
Subject: District Cooling Project - Project Financing

We are in the process of closing with US Bank on our financing for the
construction of the first phase of this project for $13 million.  We are
working with the Enron Corp. - Corporate Financing group to obtain a corporate
guarantee for the financing.  This project is currently in PGH2 and is part of
what is being sold with PGE.  The financing guarantee will contemplate this
sale and will allow for the assignment of the guarantee to the new buyer as
long as they meet an agreed upon financial standards (ie. BBB+).  Since we are
under ETS you or Stan might get questions on the project and I wanted to
provide you an overview of the project.

Mahendra Shah of our treasury group has had a conversation with Greg Caudell
and Jim Newgard (both report to Tm Despain) at Enron Corp. Corporate Finance
about the Enron Guaranty for the US Bank construction facility (up to $13
million). He has forwarded to them, the US bank's draft of the Enron guaranty.
 They indicated that the guaranty would probably be redrafted by Clement
Abrams using the standard Enron format.

If you have any questions on the District Cooling Project or need additional
information we can set up a conference call and go over the various aspects of
the project.  We also have the financial model available that we can forward
to you that was reviewed and was the basis of Enron's approval.


This warning is sent automatically to inform you that your mailbox is approaching the maximum size limit.
Your mailbox size is currently 75247 KB.

Mailbox size limits:

	When your mailbox reaches 75000 KB you will receive this message.To check the size of your mailbox:

  Right-click the mailbox (Outlook Today),
  Select Properties and click the Folder Size button.
  This method can be used on individual folders as well.

To make more space available, delete any items that are no longer needed such as Sent Items and Journal entries.

You must empty the Deleted Items folder after deleting items or the space will not be freed.

To turn Journaling off,
 click Tools | Options | Journaling Options and de-select all items.

See client Help for more information.


----- Forwarded by Mary Cilia/NA/Enron on 10/04/2000 08:38 AM -----

	"David Gohlke" <DGOHLKE@skadden.com>
	10/03/2000 08:12 PM

		 To: Mary.Cilia@enron.com
		 cc: glauco.palhoto@enron.com
		 Subject: Re: Preliminary Engineering Release Agmt. - final issue

Mary,

I've attached the latest draft, which has not yet been sent to the other
side, and which includes a provision not yet agreed by ESA or negotiated with
EECC (Clause 1(c)).  The schedule 1, which you care about, should reflect the
changes you and I discussed with Jeff last week.  SInce this draft is not an
agreed one, will you delete it after you review it, and if you are not ok
with all the changes, let me know so I can include them when we finalize this
tomorrow (Wed).  I will include you on the final negotiated draft tomorrow
when I (or Glauco) send it out for final approval.

Dave

>>> <Mary.Cilia@enron.com> 10/03/00 03:53PM >>>

Dave -

Do we have the latest draft with the changes I submitted for Appendix 1?
Can you please send it to me.  Thanks.

Mary

                    "David
                    Gohlke"              To:     john.g.rigby@enron.com,
                    <DGOHLKE@skad        john.guidry@enron.com,
                    den.com>             john.r.ayres@enron.com,
mary.cilia@enron.com
                                         cc:     john.novak@enron.com, "Brian
                    09/29/2000           Bradshaw" <BBRADSHA@skadden.com>,
"Thomas
                    05:25 PM             Weil" <TWEIL@skadden.com>
                                         Subject:     Preliminary Engineering
Release
                                         Agmt. - final issue

ESA and EECC teams,

This email is in response to John Rigby's fax of 28 Sep with comments to
the Preliminary Engineering Release Agreement.

I am OK with all of John and Scott's proposed changes except the rider to
replace paragraph 1(c), which deals with who has the risk/gatekeeper role
on deciding whether an activity is "hard cost" or not.  While I would
prefer to keep a "Contractor shall not perform any "hard cost" activity"
-type prohibition in the contract, I understand that since financing is
really an Owner issue, and Owner wants off-balance sheet financing, making
sure no "hard cost" activity is performed is really an Owner issue.  Thus,
I have taken their basic language/concept and modified it somewhat.

I have marked up EECC's proposed rider and attached the marked copy for
your review.  If acceptable to the owner team, I will forward it to EECC
for their review/approval.  Once we have agreement on this language, the
Preliminary Eng Release Agmt should be done and ready for John Novak's
review and approval and subsequent execution by ESA and EECC.

David E. Gohlke
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1600 Smith Street, Suite 4460
Houston, Texas 77002
direct (713) 655-5158
fax - main (713) 655-5181
dgohlke@skadden.com

------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original and any
copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof.

Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their
professional qualifications will be provided upon request.

(See attached file: 39148_2.doc)

------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail
and any printout thereof.

Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their
professional qualifications will be provided upon request.

 - 38012_9.doc


Please mark your calendar:

Date: Tuesday, Dec 12
Time: 4:00 - 5:00 PM
Locations: EB 21C2
Subject: Cost Savings for Confirm Central
Attendees: Sally Beck
 Tom Gros
 Mary Solmonson
 James Scribner
 Bob Hall
 Leslie Reeves
 Brad Romine
 Patrick Scales
 Kim Theriot

Thanks,
Patti x39106


One of their litigators--Steve Smith-- is representing Duke International in
a recently filed arbitration against ENA in which Duke seeks to cancel an LNG
contract with ENA that is valued at $170 million. As you will recall, this
representation was the reason that we did not meet with O'Melveny when we
were in CA last month.

	James Derrick@ENRON
	01/10/2001 05:30 PM

		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Law Firm Recommendation/O'Melveny & Myers

Please let me have your thoughts re Adam's message.  Thank you.  Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James Derrick/Corp/Enron on 01/10/2001
04:44 PM ---------------------------

Adam Umanoff
01/08/2001 03:50 PM
To: James Derrick/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Eric Newell/EWC/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Law Firm Recommendation/O'Melveny & Myers

Jim - Happy New Year!  While I am no longer on the legal side of the fence, I
want to pass on to you my strong recommendation for you to consider using
O'Melveny & Myers, in particular for California litigation,  but perhaps in
other areas.  Over the past 2 years, we used O'Melveny in connection with the
wind cos dispute with Florida Power & Light, and they did a great job.
O'Melveny is one of the 2 or 3 largest firms in California and probably one
of its oldest and finest.  One of their litigation partners (and good
personal friend of mine) is named Brian Curry, and if you have any interest
in meeting these guys, they would very much like the chance to meet you.
Please let me know if there might be any interest.  I hope all is well with
you and your family.  Best regards. Adam


<<Palo.xls>> Due to Technical difficulties some people did not receive this
file.

 - Palo.xls


Here is the version that you sent me.  I wanted to see if you had a updated
version.  Thanks
Ben


ISO Market Participants:
In the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") June 19 order, the
California Independent System Operator Corporation ("ISO") was directed to
pay generators for air district mitigation fees associated with NOx
emissions as incurred by generators required to run in accordance with ISO
Dispatch Instructions.  The ISO specifically was ordered to develop an
emission allowance charge assessed against all in-state load served on or
through the ISO Controlled Grid in order to recover NOx emission mitigation
costs which would be used to pay eligible generators for such mitigation
costs.  In compliance, the ISO filed, on July 10, 2001, proposed Tariff
revisions to develop:
1.)	a rate for the emission allowance charge,
2.)	an escrow account for monies collected;
3.)	a process through which generators would submit to the ISO invoices
for emission mitigation fees; and
4.)	a payment process through which the ISO would pay for such
mitigation costs.
In a Market Notice posted on August 1, 2001, the ISO published the initial
emission allowance charge rate.  The ISO  has developed details of the
methodology and calculations used to develop this rate and posted this
information at http://www.caiso.com/docs/2001/07/12/2001071217521028555.html
<http://www.caiso.com/docs/2001/07/12/2001071217521028555.html> .
The June 19 FERC Order also directed the ISO to exclude start-up fuel costs
from the calculation of the mitigated market clearing price, and instead, to
pay generators for such start-up fuel costs, in the same way as the ISO is
to handle emission mitigation costs and fees.  In a Market Notice posted on
August 1, 2001, the ISO published the initial start-up fuel charge rate.
The ISO has modified the previously posted start-up fuel charge rate and
provided details of the methodology and calculation used to develop this
rate.  This information is also posted at
http://www.caiso.com/docs/2001/07/12/2001071217521028555.html
<http://www.caiso.com/docs/2001/07/12/2001071217521028555.html> .

CR Communications


Group,
We recently have had new counterparties express in interest in doing business
with us... The telephone numbers are as follows:

Enmax(City of Calgary)  1-403-268-2018
TransCanada       1-403-216-2905
Florida Power and Light 1-561-625-7100

The Canadian companies primarily deliver at the BC border(they are typically
sourcing from the Alberta Power Pool), please be sure to agree to terms for
this energy(firm, non-firm, trans-contingent, etc.), in the case of a cut.
TransAlta will also source from the Power Pool at times(otherwise they use
the Centrailia plant), please keep this in mind.
FPL has a geothermal plant in SP-15 and some wind generation(?) in NP-15.
Typically they have 12 mws in SP and 31 mws in NP.  Their SC is currently the
APX.

And finally as the credit situations change, or if you have any doubts be
sure to talk with Tracy or call the credit hotline (6-853-1803).  Remember
that you may be able to use other counterparties to buy or sell when needed
(ie.  SnoPUD will buy from POWX for us).

Good Luck.

Bill


I believe we are in agreement on the new deal amounts.  I held back
$1,087,409 from the MEH book.  The MEH book lost $ mostly because there was
$20K added to the P&L last Friday.  I did not add that amount back in
tonight.  I don't know what it is.  I'll talk to you in the morning.  Let me
know if there is something you want me to send you.  Thanks.

DG


Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 06/07/2001 12:16 PM -----

	Marianne Castano@EES
	05/30/2001 11:05 AM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES, Sarah Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES, Jennifer
Hillegonds/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: Mid Market Power Form/ENA Changes

Carol:

I have attempted to incorporate the changes that Jim has incorporated in our
long form power agreement which ENA has suggested to date into the short
form.  Attached please find a sample short form (for the Con Ed market) for
your review.

Please note the following as you review:

1.  The short forms do not contain the optionality relating to our performing
billing services -- all of our midmarket  forms anticipate that we will act
as customer's billing agent and that we will collect all amounts due related
to T&D and the like from the customer (and reflect same on our invoice) and
pass those amounts on to the customer's utility.
2.  I did not include a "Setoff" provision in this draft, mainly because the
vast majority of the time, we will not, nor will an affiliate, have another
agreement in place with these customers.  If you feel strongly about our
including a setoff provision, we will do so.
3.  The change in law provision reads a bit differently from the long form --
the thinking here is that the long form language is very lengthy and rather
harsh (and we've had great difficulty selling it in the past).  Taking into
consideration this class of customer, we decided to include certain items,
including our inability to cover our costs due to a change in law, rules or
practices as a "force majeure event" in an effort to soften the approach (see
the GTCs).  Also we do not address calculation of a termination payment in
the event of a change in law as the long form does -- again, more in the
interest of "saving space" than anything else...

Let us know your thoughts on this document and if you are comfortable with
our using this until such time as the hybrid form is launched.  If you are
comfortable, we will drive these changes into our other midmarket power forms.

Thanks again for your help with this project,

Marianne

P.S.  Please be sure to copy Sarah Dietrich and Jennifer Hillegonds on your
response -- they will be taking this project during my "hiatus"  --  I am
moving to PA on Friday of this week, and will be out of pocket through
approximately 7/16.  I will start up again in mid-July...


- KickintheHead.pdf