----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 10/06/2000 09:41 AM -----

	"Fergus, Gary S." <GFergus@brobeck.com>
	10/05/2000 09:33 PM

		 To: "'Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com'" <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com>,
"'msmith1@enron.com'" <msmith1@enron.com>, "'David_Aamodt@pgn.com'"
<David_Aamodt@pgn.com>, "MBD" <MDay@GMSSR.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Revised Draft Proposal to CPUC

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Harvey Morris Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, California   94102

  Re:   I.00-08-002  Subpoenas Served on Enron Power
Marketing, Inc. ("EPMI"), Enron Energy Services Inc. ("EES"), Enron Energy
Marketing Corporation ("EEMC"), Enron Energy Services Operations Inc. (EESO)
and Portland General Electric Corporation ("Portland General")(collectively
sometimes referred to as the "Enron Entities")

Harvey,

 Here are our proposals with respect to the Enron Entities'
production of documents pursuant to the above described subpoenas issued by
the California Public Utility Commission (hereinafter "the Commission").
The Enron Entities are willing to assist the Commission in undertaking its
investigation into the problems in the California electric markets by
producing a limited quantity of specified information on a timely basis.  We
believe that the limited production we propose will enable the Commission to
commence its investigation much sooner than if the parties were forced to
litigate all of the potential objections to the requests for production,
which are, by any standard, extremely broad and could involve millions of
pages of documents.  We make these proposals pursuant to our email exchange
of October 3, 2000 with the understanding that the Commission agrees that by
cooperating, offering to produce or producing documents, the Enron Entities
have not waived any objections or challenges to these subpoenas whatsoever
and that any claims, defenses, objections, jurisdictional or otherwise or
other responses have been specifically reserved and can be raised in the
future, if necessary.   For all of these proposals, we exclude documents
that are protected from disclosure by the attorney client and attorney work
product privileges.

 [SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION:  Generally speaking, the documents and
information that the Commission seeks can be found, if they exist, within
EPMI, EES and Portland General.  To the extent that EEMC or EESO are
relevant to the Commission's investigation, any documents would be located
within EES.  Thus, we do not anticipate specific document productions from
either EEMC or EESO.]

GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Requests 1 through 4

 The Enron Entities have been very dynamic organizations having
acquired, sold, divested, joint ventured, spun off and otherwise reorganized
themselves extensively during the past two years.  The burden and expense on
Enron to locate, and produce every corporate organizational chart anywhere
in its organization since April 1, 1998 is significant.   The Enron entities
will provide the Commission with exemplars of its current organizational
charts, telephone directories and so called "family trees" to show its
current organization.  To the extent that Enron can readily identify and
locate exemplars of significant organizational charts, telephone directories
or so called "family trees" for earlier periods it will also make those
available.  One Enron Entity, Portland General, has published books on its
corporate history.  If a list of those books would be helpful, we can
provide it.  With respect to the other entities, to the extent that
corporate histories can be found, they will be produced.  We anticipate
producing these documents in the first wave on October 13, 2000.

Requests 5 and 6

 The Enron Entities propose that their responses to Requests 1-4 will
identify their relationship to affiliated companies and the Transaction
Documents will identify its customers and suppliers.

FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
Requests 7 through 11

 The Enron Entities will produce their public filings for the period
requested with respect to financial data.  EPMI, EES, and Portland General
will provide to the Commission electronic Transaction Documents for the
purchase and sale of energy delivered which includes economic data.   It is
intended that this economic data will provide the Commission with financial
information regarding the Enron Entities which will be useful to its
investigation.   We anticipate producing public filings regarding financial
data on October 13, 2000 and the electronic Transaction Documents in the
second wave of document productions.

GENERATING DOCUMENTS
Requests 12, 14 and 18

 For the Enron Entities other than Portland General, the generation
facilities are limited in number and there will probably be limited
documents available.  The Enron Entities to the extent they act as a
scheduling coordinator or possessed the right to use or resell generation
output, do not have the specific documents that pertain to each generation
unit requested.  The Enron Entities, other than Portland General, do have
documents and information for Enron Wind, Saguaro and Las Vegas
Cogeneration.  We propose to produce these documents in the second wave of
document productions.

  For Portland General, the production of the requested documents
would involve a tremendous volume of documents, as Portland General owned
twenty generating facilities of a variety of types and sizes during 2000.
Portland General is a net importer of energy and can only generate about one
half of its total energy demand.  As a result, we question whether the
effort required of Portland General is warranted as its impact on the
California wholesale market is necessarily limited.  In addition, those
transactions which do involve Portland General sales into California are
limited to sales to the ISO and PX, and long term contracts with two small
California municipal utilities.  Thus, the Commission will receive the
essential transactional information regarding these sales from the ISO and
PX.  Nevertheless, Portland General proposes to provide for year 2000
electronic Transaction Documents in summary form similar to the data being
provided by other Enron Entities, to the extent relevant.  [We propose that
the Commission defer requesting production of other information until it has
reviewed the information of generators who sell a significant proportion of
their energy into the California market.  At that time a more accurate
assessment can be made of whether this enormous effort will be valuable
given the limited impact of Portland General generation on the California
wholesale market.]

[Alternate ending to paragraph:   We propose for the voluminous Portland
General generating cost and maintenance data, that these documents be made
available in Portland for inspection from a representative sampling of
facilities.  If there are specific documents that the Commission would like
copied from that production, we can discuss the arrangements for producing
these documents.  We propose to make these documents available in Portland
in a third wave of document productions]

TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS
Requests 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19

 We understand that the Commission will be obtaining trading data for
the purchase and sale of energy delivered in California from the ISO and PX.
EPMI can provide the Commission several different sets of transaction data
for year 2000 (in California and outside of California and Real Time) for
the purchase and sale of energy delivered with the date, counterparty,
quantity, delivery point, hours, price, and whether it is a purchase or a
sale.   Because of the speed with which you want this information, it is
possible that some entries will be incomplete or inaccurate.  For those
transactions where EPMI served only as the scheduling coordinator, we
understand that the ISO will show part of the transaction, but there will
not be a corresponding transaction in the EPMI data we can provide quickly.
The reason is that this type of transaction is passed through to EPMI's
customer on an accounting system rather than as part of the trading
business.  EES is a retail provider of electricity, and plays a far more
limited role in the wholesale markets which are the subject of the
Commission investigation.  However, EES can also provide similar electronic
Transaction Data with the proviso that it will not include the specific
names of its retail customers but instead will provide a blind customer
number.  This additional restriction is important to EES because many of
EES's customers have agreements whereby they must be notified of any
subpoena and provided an opportunity to object.  EES cannot meet your time
frame to release information and give its customers the notice they require.
Given that EES was a retail provider and the fact that the identity of
retail customers is of little or no relevance to the functioning of the
wholesale market, we do not believe protecting the identity of retail
customers is an unreasonable limitation or narrowing of the request.  We
anticipate producing the transaction data in the second wave of document
productions.

FERC DOCUMENTS

Request 20

 The Enron Entities will produce the requests for data they received
from FERC and to the extent that FERC has been given responses, copies of
those responses.  We anticipate producing the FERC documents on October 13,
2000.

 Based upon discussions that we have had with the various Enron
Entities, we believe that we could make a second wave of productions on
Friday October 27, 2000.  It is possible that not all Enron Entities could
make that date but we believe the bulk of the data could be available for
production by then.

 We propose to make these productions with the understanding that if
any entity obtains a more stringent protective order than the one currently
in place, that all of the Enron Entities document productions will be
protected by the most stringent protective order.  In addition, if, at the
request of any party or nonparty to this proceeding, the Commission or a
court of competent jurisdiction orders that the requests for production be
limited, reduced or eliminated, the Enron Entities reserve the right to
limit the production of documents in conformance with such order.

 We understand that you will consider these proposals and let us know
if they are acceptable to the Commission.  If you have any questions or
comments about our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Day
or myself.

Brobeck Phleger & Harrison LLP

Gary Fergus

=======================================================
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


---------------------- Forwarded by Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT on 02/27/2001
01:50 PM ---------------------------

Stephanie Miller@ENRON
01/08/2001 09:40 AM
To: Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Generation Plants Listing

---------------------- Forwarded by Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron on 01/08/2001
08:41 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Julie A Gomez @ ECT                           01/05/2001 04:53 PM

To: Elizabeth Shim/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Generation Plants Listing

Here it is...

Julie  :-)


Ford Motor Company
 X Plan Vehicle Sales

  10/21/2001


---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 03/08/2000 01:51
PM ---------------------------

"Immer, Ingrid" <Ingrid.Immer@Williams.com> on 03/08/2000 12:04:27 PM
To: "'Chris Germany'" <Chris.Germany@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: Demand Charges

Chris, we are not going to be able to repair this problem in the next few
days.  We need to do some programming work.  If you guys would go ahead and
pay the bill, it'll be washed out in an adjustment hopefully next month.
The bill itself is correct, it's just on the wrong contract.
Let me know if this is ok with you.   Thanks, ii

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Germany [SMTP:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 8:39 AM
> To: ingrid.immer@williams.com
> Subject: Demand Charges
>
>
>
> Here are a couple of demand charges I don't understand.  AGL released CES
> some
> ESR (offer #18307) and WSR (offer #18210).  The demand portion of these
> contracts being billed on k#1.3473.  What's up.
>


Gerald & Candy,

Per your instructions the Draft Reimbursement Letter Agreement between HPL
and ENA.

Eric Gillaspie
713-345-7667
Enron Building 3886

	Gerald Nemec
	05/16/2000 05:39 PM

		 To: Candace L Bywaters/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Eric Gillaspie/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Reimbursement Agreement between ENA and HPL

I will get something to you within the next couple of days.  Should be a
straightforward letter agreement.

Eric,  Let's discuss in the morning.

	Candace L Bywaters
	05/16/2000 08:41 AM

		 To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Nathan L Hlavaty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kenneth W
Kaase/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Reimbursement Agreement between ENA and HPL

Please advise as to the status of the agreement I requested you draft for
me.  Specifically, I seek a reimbursement agreement with HPL as payee and ENA
as payor whereby HPL will be kept whole on its costs to install the Lockhart
meter for Southern Union.  We are currently awaiting the final word from El
Paso to determine if they elect to participate in this meter as is allowed
them under the JV Agreement., so the reimbursement amount will either be
HPL's full share of $44,000 or half of that amount, as you know from the
Lockhart Agreement in which you participated.

Please let me know where you are on this.

Thanks, Gerald!

Candy


This is the response I put together for Louise.

This may be better done in person.  If so, give me a call when you have time.

Here is my vision of the two worlds - Enron and Commodity Logic.

There are two basic alternatives:

If you see Commodity Logic as an independent venture, then we should build-in
independence in our communication of deal data.  The "Transaction Store" does
this.  Beth's DriveTrain project being led by John Simmons will provide
this.  In this model, not every function/system currently performed will be
supplanted by a Commodity Logic module.  Complete reliance on Commodity Logic
to provide deal data needed for these systems would certainly complicate the
integration as Commodity Logic may reside outside the firewall.   The
systems/functions we don't think we'll outsource to Commodity Logic are:
Trade Capture, Contracts, Valuation, Credit, and SAP functions.
Additionally, we would like to see the development of more reporting support
for the DPR, Operations Pricing Model, EnTelligence, and SAP Warehouse data;
the implementation of a workflow, issue-tracking tool; and an Enron-branded
site for Customer Information.   This vision was arrived at by asking the
question: "What would you never consider outsourcing, either due to
competitive advantage, control issues, or confidentiality?"
I started shopping this vision around last week and will continue to do so
this week to get feedback for finalization.

If the two are really one and will be managed as one going forward, then
certainly a single deal database could suffice.  In this case, there should
not be separately managed IT functions as redundant development efforts may
occur and we could focus the resources on the top priorities.  Right now,
Commodity Logic is heavily dependent upon Beth's resources to provide the
data from the legacy systems.  The work to do these data feeds competes with
other priorities currently underway such as Unify Performance, Alberta Open
Access for Power, etc.  I think it is important to note that we have two
different requirements for deal data.  One - to support Commodity Logic
functions - is transactional and near-realtime in nature.  The second - to
support reporting functions is probably a batch end of day process.  The
technical design of the two would be different to meet functional and
performance requirements.  So, in a combined world, there would still
probably be two sources of deal data, one present on our network as separate
messages for each deal that transactional systems build a listener to
subscribe to and  a second source in a warehouse for reporting.

Either alternative can be approached, however organizational alignment and
priorities might be different.  Further, if the intent is to break Commodity
Logic off into a separate entity, then the first alternative is preferred to
maintain arms-length independence.

Another alternative is to consider Operations and Commodity Logic as a
combined entity that is separate from Enron that offers systems and
back-office services to Enron and other industry players.  I think this may
be what Sally is envisioning.  If this is where we are headed, then some of
Beth's resources that are directly tied to support of Operations' systems
should be combined with Commodity Logic resources so we can have a focus on
coordinated priorities.  I believe this alternative has the same issues as
the first in terms of what is outsourced, e.g. becomes part of Commodity
Logic, and what remains proprietary and confidential to Enron.

Let me know your thoughts.


Critical Migration Information:

1. Your scheduled Outlook Migration Date is THE EVENING OF : May 23rd
2. You need to press the "Save My Data" button (only once) to send us your
pre-migration information.
3. You must be connected to the network before you press the button.
4. If a POP-UP BOX appears, prompting you to "ABORT, CANCEL OR TRUST
SIGNER" please  select TRUST SIGNER.
5. Any information you Add to your Personal Address Book, Journal or
calendar after you click on the button will need to be manually re-added
into Outlook after you have been migrated.
6. Clicking this button does not complete your migration to Outlook. Your
migration will be completed  the evening of your migration date.

     Failure to click on the button means you WILL NOT get your Calendar,
  Contacts, Journal and ToDo information imported into Outlook the day of
  your migration and could result in up to a 2 week delay to restore this
                               information.

    If you encounter any errors please contact the resolution center @
                               713-853-1411


One other comment.  It is still not clear how MT values in excess of the 100
hours will be handled.   Is EWC to be penalized for these "excess hours"?
Hopefully this will be a moot or trivial question.

From: Ilan Caplan on 04/17/2002 04:22 PM
To: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Mark V
Walker/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Clipper Availability Edits

Hollis -

Per our last phone call, I made the changes (in red) to the Clipper
Availability to suite what I believe is a good definition for us
(incorporates Mark(s) comments which I added).  Please review and comment so
I can send this file on to Mark Eilers.  Please view this document in a
Commercial light as spoke, thus looking at what favors EWC.  Please call to
discuss.

Thanks,
Ilan

PS - Dave Schulgen put together a chart which outlines EWC maintenance costs
per year for 1.5 maintenance.  His work indicates that 72 hours (rather than
36/48) should be the standard (with an increase in the later years for
additional work).  This is reflected in the attachment.


Last month all of your donations helped Enron raise a grand total of $6 million for the United Way, including our corporate match.  Once again Enron employees made a difference and contributed more than any other pacesetter company in Houston. Also, congratulations to Elaine Brown with Enron Global Markets who won the drawing for two round-trip airline tickets for participating in this year's campaign.  Thanks to everyone at Enron for your generosity!

This week Enron and the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast have entered in to yet another exciting partnership. Beginning with the Astros vs Giants game on Tuesday, October 2, one of Enron's primary signs at Enron Field will feature the United Way logo alongside the Enron logo.

The decision to include United Way's logo on the sign marks the first time in history that a naming rights partner is sharing exposure on one of its primary in-stadium signage locations with a non-profit partner.  This sign is also a free, innovative way to demonstrate Enron's support of the United Way and promote the agency's role in our community.

The millions of fans who attend Astros games each season will see the sign.  Be sure to look for this history-making sign hanging high above the outfield.


Guys, as per our discussion, I am assuming that the upstream group will
provide gross margin (not including trading) of $30.7M net of the HPL
compressor writedown of $3.0M.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/28/2000
12:21 PM ---------------------------

Brian Redmond
06/27/2000 06:45 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wes Colwell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Q2

Wes,

Please clarify -  I think you were a few million off on the Upstream Plan
#.   Per the weekly earnings estimate my gross margin plan numbers are as
follows:

    Q2 Plan
Upstream Origination  $18.423
HPL (non Texas Trading) $10.746
LRC    $   1.690
    $30.859

Texas Trading   $   7.570

Total Upstream Plan Q2: $38.429

David W Delainey
06/27/2000 02:44 PM
To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, Rodney
Malcolm/HOU/ECT@ECT, W David Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT,
George McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Wes
Colwell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Raymond Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea V Reed/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Q2

Guys, we are getting close to completing the quarter, the following gross
margin is expected from each of these groups before the end of the week.  If
there is any issue of any type please give me or Wes a call. If there are any
upsides to these numbers please let us know as well.

 East Origination  $1.000 M
 West Origination $9.086 M (inclusive of all QF fair value)
 Industrial (incl trading) $12.899 M
 Generation Invest $45.350 M (including fair value and accretion on ECP)
 ENA Upstream  $41.112 M (including Sithe earnings plus HPL, LRC and upstream
origination)
 Coal   $4.161 M
 Canada  $11.50 M

 Equity Portfolio  Current MPR for quarter ($26.786M) (large positions -
moves with market)
    plus an additional writedown of ($279K) equivalent to $27.5 M less ECP
and West QF earnings listed above minus $10M.

Regards
Delainey


Following please find the Daily EnronOnline Executive Summary.

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>


Dear Houston Technology Forum Attendee:

On behalf of Houston Technology Center and Summit Registration, we hope that
you have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day holiday.  Please remember that
the day you return -- Tuesday, May 29th -- is The Houston Technology Forum.

Registration for the Forum begins at 10:45 a.m.  You many wish to park in
surface lots near the Hyatt Regency (1200 Louisiana), or you may opt to
valet park at the Hyatt.  Valet parking will be discounted to $7.00 with the
validation stickers that HTC will provide.  Please bring your parking
ticket, and stickers will be available at the end of the program as you're
leaving.

Please arrive at the Hyatt as close to 10:45 a.m. as possible, keeping in
mind that the other 1,029 Forum attendees will be arriving as well and
needing to park or valet.  The earlier you arrive, the more time you'll have
for networking and enjoying your lunch.  Luncheon service will begin at
approximately 11:20 a.m., and there will be no food service after noon.

When you enter the Hyatt Regency, please proceed upstairs to the third
floor.  Check-in will be in the foyer outside the Imperial Ballroom.  Name
badges will be arranged alphabetically by individual attendee's last name.
If you have been appointed as a substitute between Friday and Tuesday, you
will need to find the line for the person's last name for whom you are
substituting to get your badge.

If your plans have changed, and you need to cancel, please go online by noon
on Friday to cancel your reservation.  If you receive a confirmed
cancellation by noon, your account will be credited.  No cancellations or
refunds will be accepted after noon on Friday.

If you are a primary contact for a full table, please pass this message on
to the other guests at your table. We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday.

jeff.skilling@enron.com


I haven't heard anything about the status of those recruits, except that it
sounds like Alfio Randall will be a partial qualifier.  This isn't great
since we need OL for depth this year.


Here are your positions.  Hopefully we look as good as last night.

Thanks,
Robin

Nicole LaPorte
06/07/2000 05:02 PM
To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rahmaan Mwongozi/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Post Id's 6/7/2000

Hi Robin,

Here are today's Post Id's:

EGSC - 803771
ERMS - 803772
OPT - 803777
C - 803815

I'll call once we're official.

Thanks,
Nicole


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/24/2000
04:00 PM ---------------------------

Jeffrey Sherrick@ENRON
07/21/2000 04:37 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: C-Gas

Dave, Move on and I hope we don't pay more than Book when this is liquidated
from the JEDI fund this fall.  Let me know when the asset is sold to a third
party for a value greater than book.

jeff

David W Delainey@ECT
07/19/2000 09:34 PM
To: Jeffrey Sherrick/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: C-Gas

Jeff, my team believes that there should be a premium to book in the range we
quoted to you; however, I appreciate your interest.  I would agree that we
have spent enough time on this and it is time to move on.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/19/2000
09:27 PM ---------------------------

Jeffrey Sherrick@ENRON
07/19/2000 02:03 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: C-Gas

Dave,  I met with my team today and based on the data and information
supplied by Steve, it is doubtful that the assets and on-going organization
would command a current market value equivalent to book.  I am still willing
to move the assets onto our balance sheet at book for the benefit of Enron,
although if this was a third party bid, I would be surprised if we could pay
this price.  Furthermore, due to your desire to maintain this discussion
among the Houston teams only, I am assuming the PDP reserves are solid, no
major enviornmental issues exit, legal problems are minimal and contracts are
standard.  Let me know what you want to do. I think we have all spent enough
time on this effort.

On a side issue, are you aware that this is a JEDI I property?  My
understanding is that Jedi I owns 100% of C-GAS and the Jedi I fund WILL be
liquidated before the end of the year.  At what price will your unit pay to
liquidate the fund?

jeff

David W Delainey@ECT
07/13/2000 08:12 PM
To: Jeffrey Sherrick/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Pruett/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: C-Gas

Steve, please call Jeff and go through in detail how we got to our valuation
of approximately $39 M.  Please ensure that this is a reasonable facsimile of
value that ENA would accreate over the short to medium term assuming your
continued management.

Let me know where you end up.

Regards
Delainey


Attached is PIRA's latest "API Weekly Comment."

If you have any questions regarding the report's content, please contact
Dr. Gary Ross at (212) 686-6808, email: garyross@pira.com.

Contact Client Services regarding PIRA report distribution and address
changes at (212) 686-6808, email: support@pira.com.

NOTE: Circulation of the "API Weekly Comment" outside a Client's
licensed distribution area is strictly prohibited. Clients that are
unsure of their licensed distribution or require an extension of their
current license should contact their PIRA sales representative, or email
to sales@pira.com.

PIRA Energy Group

 - api112701.pdf


For your information -- Here is some severance language I received from Littler.  Michelle

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Notestine, Kerry" <KNotestine@littler.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:33 PM
To:	Cash, Michelle
Subject:	Language for WARN Set off

Michelle:
In response to my firm-wide email regarding set off for WARN notice: I received a plan that included the following language:
The severance benefits provided under this Plan (including any additional benefits provided pursuant to authority reserved in [company] under the provisions of this Plan) are the maximum benefits that [company] will pay.  To the extent that any federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and any other so-called "plant closing" laws, requires [company] to give advance notice or make a payment of any kind to an Eligible Employee because of that Employee's involuntary termination due to a layoff, reduction in force, plant or facility closing, sale of business, change of control, or any other similar event or reason, the benefits provided under this Plan shall be reduced by the amount of such payment. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, an Employee's Severance Benefits shall not be less than the amount required by WARN, and in the case of an Enhanced Severance Benefit, shall not be less than the amount required by WARN plus an additional amount to be determined by the Employer.
Hope this is helpful.  Let me know if there is any big news at Enron.  Things appear to be moving fast.
Kerry E Notestine
Littler Mendelson, PC
1900 Chevron Tower
1301 McKinney Street
Houston, Texas 77010
713.652.4748
713.951.9212 (fax)
knotestine@littler.com
www.littler.com


I'd love to get your initial comments before passing along to Rice for their
input.

Thanks,
Shelly
3-4589


TTotten@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

The NYISO is reserving hour-beginning 5 in the 15 July 2001
real-time market to verify prices.
Pursuant to ECA-B the NYISO, there are no hours to reserve at the
HQ, NE, OH or PJM external proxy buses.
Prices in the 16 July 2001 Day-Ahead market are correct.


Ok
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/21/2000
02:36 PM ---------------------------

Christopher F Calger
06/21/2000 12:12 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Offsite

Dave,

I would like to have a mid-year offsite with my group in late July.  I would
like to include the associates and west CTG folks since they are a
significant part of our team and we have a tremendous amount of work to do
for the balance of the year.  We will keep costs reasonable by going to a
resort that is driving distance from Portland.  Total cost is estimated at
$23M.  We will have 1.5 days in conference and .5 days of activity (golf,
etc.).  My assistant will send details to Kay.  Are you OK with this?

Regards,

Chris


PUC and Edison Settle Federal litigation to maintain utility service without raising rates
The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Southern California Edison (Edison) today reached a settlement in the Filed Rate Doctrine lawsuit Edison filed in federal court against the PUC.  The settlement is intended to restore Edison to creditworthiness so that it is able to resume procuring the electricity needed by its customers; limit ratepayers' costs of paying off the debt; and maintain the state's role in regulating the investor owned utility by enabling Edison to pay down its back debts over a reasonable, certain period of time.  The terms of the Settlement Agreement include:
?	Edison will apply cash on hand, plus all of its revenue over recoverable costs, to paying off its back debt.  The PUC and Edison have agreed that the amount of the back debt to be recovered from ratepayers is the amount of certain outstanding debt Edison had at August 31, 2001, less the cash on hand on that date, less an additional $300 million adjustment.  The amount that will be paid down pursuant to the settlement agreement is estimated to be $3 billion as of the end of this month.  The parties believe that the amount to be paid by ratepayers will be much less than the cap.
?	Edison will not pay any dividends on its common stock through 2003, or on the full payment of its debt, if sooner.  If Edison has not fully paid its back debt by the end of 2003, the Commission retains the discretion to determine whether Edison will pay a dividend in 2004.  Edison is free to resume paying dividends in 2005. Since Edison's annual dividend has typically been about $400 million, Edison's shareholders will have forgone at least $1.2 billion in dividends and possibly more, in addition to the $300 million adjustment.
?	Edison will apply 100% of any recovery it obtains from refund proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or litigation against sellers to pay down the back debt.  Edison commits through court order to work with the PUC and the Attorney General in pursuing litigation against the energy sellers.
?	The PUC can direct Edison to use $150 million each year for other utility purposes, including the provision of additional energy efficiency monies, which would otherwise be used to pay down the Edison debt.
?	The PUC agrees not to lower Edison's retail rates below their current level through the end of 2003 unless the back debts are recovered.  However, rates may be reduced as a result of a securitization of the debt or reduced DWR revenue needs.
?	The PUC agrees to set rates not higher than the current rate, to enable Edison to recover the remaining amount of the back debt over 2004 and 2005 if Edison's back debt has not been recovered by the end of 2003.
?	There are no concessions of PUC or State regulations or regulatory authority over Edison, nor is there any deregulation of valuable transmission and generation facilities.
?	Edison may make up to $900 million in capital expenditures annually.
"This settlement embodies a fair and judicious way for Edison to become solvent and get back in the business of buying power, while meeting the needs of ratepayers and the state of California," said Loretta Lynch, President of the PUC.  "The settlement also ensures that all of the benefits of any refunds arising through litigation against power generators and marketers that profited from unjust and unreasonable energy prices will benefit ratepayers."
This agreement settles a November 2000 federal court lawsuit filed by Edison against the PUC, in which Edison claimed that the Commission's actions in not providing sufficient retail rates, violated federal law and was an unconstitutional taking of its property.  Under this agreement, Edison will release the PUC from all claims in its lawsuit and will also withdraw any challenges to the Commission's decisions implementing AB 1X, AB 6X, and the TURN accounting proposal.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:42 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa; Comnes, Alan
Subject:	California Update--10.02.01:Part 2:  PUC Approves Edison Bailout

In another surprise move, the PUC approved an Edison bailout today on a 5-0 vote.  This item was not on the Commission's agenda other than as a placeholder regarding "litigation."  We do not have copies of the agreement but we just talked to Edison's SVP of Regulatory Affairs and here's a summary:

The Commission will keep current rates in place through 2003
Any "overcollection" resulting from keeping current rates in place will go to paying off $3.3 B in Edison's past due accounts (the so-called "undercollection")
If Edison collects the $3.3B prior to 2003, then rates can change
If Edison has not collected the $3.3 B by the end of 2003, the PUC will create a dedicated rate component on all bills to collect the remainder.  Half the remainder will be collected in 2004 and the other half in 2005.
Any refunds received from litigation against suppliers will go to reducing the $3.3 B undercollection.
Edison can keep 10% of any refunds received after the $3.3B is paid off.
Edison cannot pay any dividends during the time that it is using rates to pay off the $3.3B.
Edison can apply to the PUC for approval to hedge gas price risk.
Edison will be protected from any increases in DWR contract costs (i.e., if DWR's costs go up, the PUC will raise rates rather than take it out of Edison's rates)
The PUC will not fine Edison during this period if Edison's capital structure varies from the PUC-approved capital structure
Edison must drop its lawsuits against the PUC regarding 1) the "filed rate doctrine" and 2) the so-called "TURN" accounting method, which effectively kept the rate freeze in place.
Edison agrees to "cooperate" with the Attorney General and the PUC in all litigation against suppliers.
The PUC decision could likely nullify the need for the "special" session that the Governor recently announced

We will report back with additional details as soon as we get them.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:45 PM
To:	Kean, Steven J.; Belden, Tim; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Comnes, Alan; Tribolet, Michael; Walsh, Kristin; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Frazier, Lamar; Keeney, Kevin; Gahn, Scott; Swain, Steve; Lavorato, John; Kaufman, Paul; Steffes, James D.; Calger, Christopher F.; Mara, Susan; Black, Don; Richter, Jeff; Kitchen, Louise; Dietrich, Janet; Mara, Susan; Robertson, Linda; Kingerski, Harry; Denne, Karen; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Higgason, Kelly; Whalley, Greg; Mellencamp, Lisa
Subject:	California Update--10.02.01:  PUC Turns Down Davis' Proposed Rate Agreement with DWR

In what will likely be viewed as a fairly shocking event, the California PUC today voted down Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC.
The vote was 4-1, with the two Republicans voting with Davis' hand-picked appointees Lynch and Wood.
Davis' proposal was introduced at the meeting by another Davis appointee--Geoff Brown--who made a lengthy speech about why California would experience economic and political destruction if the PUC did not approve Davis' proposed rate agreement.

What is Davis' proposed rate agreement between DWR and the CPUC?
It would remove all PUC authority to review any contracts between DWR with suppliers.
It would require the PUC to pass through to utility rates all DWR power contract costs, no questions asked.

What are the implications of the move by the PUC to reject Davis' proposal?
With the vote, it remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the DWR power contracts.
The political pressure to re-negotiate--or break--the DWR power contracts is likely to intensify considerably.
It remains unclear how California/DWR will pay for the $12.5 B in bonds the Treasurer has unsuccessfully attempted to issue for past several months.
Under the structure devised by Davis, the revenues flowing from the CPUC/DWR rate agreement would be used to both 1) pay for the DWR power contracts and 2) service the bonds the Treasurer is trying to issue to repay California's General Fund for spot and other short term power purchased by DWR since January.
In short, there is no clear indication of how California will pay for DWR contracts or issue the bonds.
Safe to say that today's PUC vote has seriously embarrassed Davis, and left his approach to "solving" California electricity crisis in shambles.

What Next?
A broad left-right coalition of energy interests supported a bill (18XX) that passed the Legislature with broad bi-partisan support.
The bill would create a "dedicated rate component" on every customers bill to service the $12.5 B in bonds that the Treasurer wants to issue.
Proponents of the bill--and just about everyone else--argue that the "dedicated rate component" is a signficantly more efficient way to raise the debt California needs to plug the hole in its budget.
The bill is silent, however, on how California would pay for the DWR contracts, and the bill's opponents claim that the power suppliers will sue as a result.
All four PUC commissioners who voted against the Davis rate agreement today urged Davis to sign the bill.  The left-right coalition (from Nader types to oil companies) is also working hard to get Davis to sign it.
Davis has said that he will veto the bill on the advice of the Treasurer and bond counsel.
Given today's vote, however, Davis may have no alternative than to sign the bill if he wants to get the bonds issued and the state budget repaid.

Update on Edison Bailout
Still appears that chances are very small that Edison and Davis will succeed in getting the Legislature to vote for an Edison bailout when it returns for another "special" session next Tuesday.

If you have any questions, just let us know.

Best,
Jeff


Yannis,

I have looked at the outline of the proposed course and
find that practically all the topics of the program are the
staple of what we do every day. I don't think Research  should spend
money for this class.

If we want to establish a relationship, we can easily do it
by asking him to work on a research project.

Vince


We have received an executed Master Agreement:

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

Effective Date:   February 22, 2001

Enron Entity:   Enron North America Corp.

Counterparty:   Grupo IMSA, S.A. de C.V.

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

Confirming Entity:  Enron North America Corp.

Governing Law:   Texas

Copies will be distributed.

Stephanie Panus


Barbara,

I noticed the same thing and asked Laura to investigate. I am out of the office but will return on Monday. We'll straighten it out then.

Talk to you soon,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Whittaker, Barbara [mailto:BWhitta@pnm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Lorraine Lindberg (E-mail); Y'Barbo, Paul
Cc: Fenton, Mark
Subject: Oct. Invoice
Sensitivity: Personal

Lorraine and Paul:   Greetings.  Our first invoice under our new firm transportation agreement is incorrect.  I have asked our accounting people to call Laura Giambrone to discuss but wanted to bring this to your attention in case she needs your assistance to understand the terms of our deal.  The invoice includes a "reservation" charge equal to the October MDQ times the number of days in the month times the discount rate, which is correct (35,000 x 31 x $0.08 = $86,800).  However, the invoice also includes a "commodity" charge of $3,945.47.

I believe it is just a matter of setting it up correctly in the computer because the invoices we received under our old contract also included a "reservation" charge and a "commodity" charge, but the two together equaled the negotiated rate.  I would appreciate any help you could provide to get this set up correctly and our October invoice corrected.

Thanks,

Barbara Whittaker


By the way, I got a call back from Greg Simmons in the BLM State Office in
Arizona - my question to him was whether or not a proposed ROW across the
Agua Fria National Monument would constitute a "Fatal Flaw."  He indicated
that it likely would be a fatal flaw.  He said that it would take "an act of
congress" literally, not figuratively, to put a pipeline across a National
Monument.  The boundary of the Monument is the east side of I 17, south of
Cordes Junction - I don't know if we can stay on the west side of the
Interstate there, but we might oughta check it out - it looks like we could
get into some pretty rough side-sloping, two-toning.  FYI.

Scott J. Patti
Senior Project Manager
ENSR International
1601 Prospect Parkway
Fort Collins, CO  80525
Phone: (970) 493-8878
Fax:     (970) 493-0213
Email:  spatti@ensr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Patti, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:28 PM
To: 'Shafer, John'; Cebryk, Doug; 'Dave.Hubbard@ENRON.com'
Cc: Schmidt, Jon; Taylor, Gina; Hyatt, Kevin; Gadd, Eric; Alstad, Jon
Subject: ENSR Cashflow Estimate Through Construction of Project Sundevil

Lady and Gentlemen,

As the Subject line would lead you to believe, I am attaching a further
refinement of our cost estimate, spread out over the life of the project.  I
know that you, Dave, requested a breakdown by personnel and hours, but I am
going to have to go home and pack for my trip.  We certainly can break this
down by personnel and hours, but I cannot do it tonight.  I apologize for
any inconvenience this may cause any of you.  Please remember that you can
contact Jon Alstad in my absence (cc'ed).  I will be back in the office on
October 1st.  Scott

Scott J. Patti
Senior Project Manager
ENSR International
1601 Prospect Parkway
Fort Collins, CO  80525
Phone: (970) 493-8878
Fax:     (970) 493-0213
Email:  spatti@ensr.com

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this communication is confidential and
privileged proprietary information intended only for the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed.  Any unauthorized use, distribution,
copying or disclosure of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please contact the
sender immediately.

It is our policy that e-mails are intended for and should be used for
business purposes only.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

ENSR
www.ensr.com
postmaster@ensr.com
**********************************************************************


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	Extended Staff Meeting/4102

Date:		3/7/2001
Time:		9:00 AM - 11:00 AM (Central Standard Time)

Detailed Description:


Hi--the deal sucks, and my head is pounding....Oh, I still remember your home
number--no reason to leave it on the machine (email smily face thing)

"Lisa A. Schiffman" <lschiffm@JonesDay.com> on 01/09/2001 08:25:52 AM
To: jshankm@enron.com
cc:
Subject:

Hi - Thanks for your message last night.  Sorry you're having to work so
late.  Hope it's an exciting deal or deals you're working on at least
(though I know it's hard to "feel the excitement" consistently from morning
to  . . .morning).

Lisa Schiffman
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
2727 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, Texas 75201

Tel.: 214-969-5286
Fax: 214-969-5100
Email: lschiffm@jonesday.com

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========


I've left the Electricities lawyer a voice mail.

Lisa Mellencamp@ECT
07/11/2000 10:37 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Land Option Agreement with Electricities

can you do this?

Lisa J. Mellencamp
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith St.
Houston, TX  77002
Tel:  (713) 853-7986
Fax: (713) 646-3393
----- Forwarded by Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT on 07/11/2000 10:36 AM -----

	Jeffrey M Keenan
	07/11/2000 10:33 AM

		 To: Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Land Option Agreement with Electricities

Lisa:

Ken Raber (electricities) and I discussed the option agreement yesterday and
came to the conclusion that any issues electricities has with the option
agreement will go to you directly.  I believe that will streamline the
process.

The attorney's name is Mike Colo and his telephone number is 252-972-7105.

I would really like to get this option agreement signed as soon as we can and
I'm sure you feel the same!

If there is anything I can do let me know.

Jeffrey


Jason,

Good morning...I welcome you to the East Power Trading Group.  I will need to get some information so that we can get you moved over.  I will need the following:

Group/Business Name
Current Supervisor
Current Admin.
Current Location
Current ext.
Phone info....Lucent?
Palm Pilot
Current Co # & Cost Center
P #
SS #
Do you have a Corp Id?

Thanks for your help and we will see you soon,

T.Jae Black
East Power Trading
Assistant to Kevin Presto
off. 713-853-5800
fax 713-646-8272
cell 713-539-4760

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hernandez, Juan
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 6:55 AM
To:	Black, Tamara Jae
Subject:	FW: Jason Berlin Start Information

T.J. CAN YOU GET THE PAPERWORK STARTED FOR OUR NEW HIRE.  JASON WILL BE REPORTING TO ME.  THANKS!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Weatherford, April
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 4:08 PM
To:	Hernandez, Juan
Cc:	Guerra, Claudia
Subject:	Jason Berlin Start Information

Your new hire will be starting soon, please see below for all the important information!!

New Hire Name:	Jason Berlin
Start Date:		10/15/01
SSN:			*********

If you have any questions on any of the information above, please call me @ 5-7622.

Thanks,

April
57622


This week's Lite Bytz lunchtime presentation will feature the following TOOLZ
speaker:

Ryan Orsak
Livelink-A Knowledge Management System
Thursday, December 14, 2000

If you have not already signed up, please RSVP via email to
litebytz@enron.com by the end of the day Tuesday, December 12, 2000.

Click below for more details.

http://home.enron.com:84/messaging/1214liteb.ppt


Vince,

I  wanted to follow up with you concerning our earlier exchange regarding my  brother Vikas Saksena. Have you had a chance to speak to your IT folks? I will  be meeting with Vikas in London by the end of this month and will get a chance  to talk to him in more detail. May I ask him to call you directly. For your  reference his phone number in London is 44 208 343 3298.

Thanks

Anurag
(952)  857 6133 ( work)
(952)  943 8501 ( home)


hey, Adam!

My name is Joseph and I'm assistant to Jeff Dasovich, who forwarded your
e-mail to me, as well
as Mona Petrochko, both of whom are directors here in the San Francisco
office.

Please note our address as follows, which applies to Jeff, Mona and myself:

Enron Corp.
101 California Street
Suite 1950
San Francisco CA  94111

Jeff's phone:    415.782.7822
e-mail:   jeff.dasovich@enron.com

Mona's phone: 415.782.7821
e-mail:   mona.l.petrochko@enron.com

my phone:  415.782.7841
e-mail:   joseph.alamo@enron.com

Our fax number: 415.782.7854

Adam, I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions or need any more
info, please do not
hesitate to contact me.  (Are you new?? Welcome aboard, fellow Admin!)

Thanks,

Joseph Alamo
Sr. Administrative Assistant
Government Affairs - The Americas
San Francisco CA

---------------------- Forwarded by Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron on 11/29/2000 02:01
PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 11/29/2000 03:43 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Re: Address Information

Can you get this kind person the info?  Thanks very much.

	"ADAM KRISTENSEN" <adamk@sheltercorp.com>
	11/29/2000 03:32 PM

		 To: jeff.dasovich@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Address Information

Mr. Dasovich,

Hello, my name is Adam, and I work as an administrative assistant to
Ms. Susan Landwehr in Enron's Minneapolis satellite office.  She has
asked me to compile an address list of several of her colleagues,
including yourself.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find your street address or that
of your coworker, Mona Petrochko.  If you could email this
information back to me, it would be much appreciated.  Thanks.

Adam Kristensen
ENRON Corp.


Yes, they are getting a nice building, but will anyone still be here when they get it?

Dave just dropped by. He's around until 2:30 today, and back tomorrow.

Are you coming over?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mann, Kay
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:37 PM
To:	Jacoby, Ben
Subject:	RE: NorthWestern

Dynegy is getting a very nice building.  See you in a bit.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jacoby, Ben
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:36 PM
To:	Mann, Kay
Subject:	RE: NorthWestern

Dave is around. Digs are OK, but it's odd that all this money was spent, given our current circumstances.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mann, Kay
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:32 PM
To:	Jacoby, Ben
Subject:	RE: NorthWestern

No need to hold off.  I'm not worried about GE.

I need Dave to sign one more document.  Is he around?

How do you like your new digs?

Kay

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jacoby, Ben
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:32 PM
To:	Mann, Kay
Subject:	FW: NorthWestern

Kay:

Do you want to continue to hold off on the wire until the letter gets signed? FYI, Louise has given the OK to the wire.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	stephen.swift@ps.ge.com@ENRON
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:17 PM
To:	Mann, Kay; mike.barnas@ps.ge.com
Cc:	Jacoby, Ben; john.schroeder@ps.ge.com
Subject:	RE: NorthWestern

Kay,

The letter looks fine.  Please address the letter to Jeff Darst 1 River Road
Building 36-3E Schenectady, 12345 with a copy to me.

Jeff's fax is 518-381-1513.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks,

Steve Swift

-----Original Message-----
From: Mann, Kay [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:17 PM
To: Swift, Stephen L (PS, CommOps); mike.barnas@ps.ge.com
Cc: Jacoby, Ben
Subject: NorthWestern

Gentlemen,

Pursuant to my discussion with Mr. Swift, I am enclosing a draft letter
for your review.

Kay

 <<Lttr to Steve re consent.DOC>>

**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************


Dear Jeff,

It was a pleasure seeing you the other day.  I would be pleased to share
the ranch with you and your son the weekend of Sept. 1-3.  If these
dates don't work out however, feel free to give me alternate dates.

Best regards, William


Please handle.
---------------------- Forwarded by Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron on 05/17/2001 08:11 AM ---------------------------

GISB1@aol.com on 05/16/2001 04:09:38 PM
To:	Gisb@aol.com, GISB4@aol.com, jcostan@mcguirewoods.com
cc:

Subject:	GISB Ratification Ballot

Dear GISB Members,

Please find the attached ballot to record your vote on the ratification of
the set of recommended modifications to GISB standards adopted by the
Executive Committee (EC) in March and May, 2001.  To record your vote, please
fill out page two of this communication and either email (gisb@aol.com) or
fax it (713-356-0067) to our office by June 11.

The EC voting record and discussion for each of these new standards,
modifications to existing standards, interpretations or deletions of
standards is contained within the EC minutes beginning on November 16, 2000
and carrying through to the EC meeting held on May 8, 2001.  The EC minutes
can be found on the GISB home page (www.gisb.org), as can the requests,
recommendations, and related subcommittee and task force minutes.
Transcripts of the EC meetings where these recommendations were discussed can
be ordered by calling the GISB office - 713-356-0060.

A separate email will be sent to you containing a summary of the
recommendations and the recommendations themselves.  The recommendations are
also posted on the GISB web site.  Please feel free to call the GISB office
if you have any difficulty retrieving any of this information.

Best Regards,  GISB Office

The GISB organization follows a privacy policy, which does not permit
distribution of contact information. As such, all email addresses are denoted
blind in correspondence.  Upon receipt of notice, the GISB office will modify
the distribution to no longer carry your address.  If you would like to add
other participants from your organization to this distribution list, please
also email such request to the GISB office.

 - bt010515.PDF


Sara, what do you want to do re this?  Mary

	Stephanie Panus@ENRON
	08/22/2000 09:03 AM

		 To: Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: BOM

I don't see anything in the file that indicates why the Master with CES was
not terminated, only that it will be inactive.

MARY COOK@ECT
08/22/2000 08:29 AM
To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie Panus/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: BOM

Stephanie,  double check.  It appears the CES master and transactions were
assigned to ENA and the transactions assigned over to the ENA BOM Master
Agreement that we already had we BOM.  For some reason the parties then
agreed not to terminate the old CES master, but leave it in place inactive.
Normally we would terminate the CES master when we have one in place.
Stephanie, is there anything in the file indicating why it was not so
terminated?  Did BOM want to keep it in place until the prior trans were
expired for a belt and suspender?  Please advise.  Mary


Today we announced the appointment of Jeff McMahon as Enron's chief financial officer.  In my continued discussions with the financial community yesterday and today, it became clear that this move was required to restore investor confidence.  Jeff has unparalleled qualifications and a deep and thorough understanding of Enron.  He is already on the job and hard at work on the issues before us.  Andy Fastow will be on a leave of absence from the company.

Jeff had been serving as chairman and CEO of Enron Industrial Markets. He joined Enron in 1994 and spent three years in the London office as chief financial officer for Enron's European operations.  Upon returning to the U.S., Jeff was executive vice president of finance and treasurer for Enron Corp.  In 2000, he was named president and chief operating officer of Enron Net Works.

I know all of you are concerned about the continuing decline in our share price.  I am too, and we are working very hard to turn it around.  Appointing Jeff as CFO is one important step in that process.  But most of the solution involves just continuing to do our jobs with excellence.  The fundamentals of our business are strong, and I think the market will begin to see that as we continue to perform.

Please join me in giving Jeff your full support, and thank you for all of your continued hard work.


Wishing you a prosperous New Year! In today's issue:
As we bid farewell to 2001, investors are getting ready
to ride into smoother waters. Also new this week: a
look at smoking and life insurance. Plus: Have you
thought about investing in investment companies? We
offer two to check out.

***************************************************************
You are receiving this mail because you have registered for
Multex Investor. To unsubscribe, see bottom of this message.
***************************************************************

======================== Sponsored by =========================

What do you want from a broker? Competitive pricing? Try Scottrade,
where customers benefit from our low price points. Trade stocks
for $7, get free Streaming Quotes & Charts, choose from 8000+
Mutual Funds with no transaction fees, open a no-fee IRA and more!
Quality Service? Scottrade ranked #1 Broker! 145+ Offices - Apply now!

http://www.scottrade.com/index.asp?supbid=4859
==============================================================

Below
--------

- Investment strategies
- Personal finance
- Fund watch
- Special report
- Online advice
- Free and sponsored reports

Investment strategies
-----------------------------------------

What's in store
Investors get ready to ride into smoother waters

By Carla Drysdale, columnist

As we bid farewell to a year in which many of us dealt
directly with loss of lives, jobs, and investments, the
Big Ball of 2002 is poised to bring in what we hope will
be a brighter new year. Now, more than halfway
through the fourth quarter, the venture capital market
is still far from robust. Where will it go from here and
which will be the startups that drive VC investments in
2002?

For the moment, venture capitalists are putting most
of their money into saving existing businesses, rather
than starting new ones. According to data from
VentureWire, a division of New York-based
Technologic Partners, halfway through the fourth
quarter, seed money and first-round financing
accounted for just 12 percent of all disbursements,
down from 25 percent in the first quarter.

Click here to read more.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/article.asp?docid=5414&nd=1229

WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR
--------------------------

Equity Funds End Moderately Higher Despite Fading
Hopes for Stimulus Package

As debate over the stimulus package rages on, US
stock funds managed to finish the week slightly ahead
of the previous week. Natural resource funds lead the
fund sectors due to anticipated supply cuts.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/ExpertInsights/SponsorHome.asp?target=/funds/expertinsights/sponsor&sid=127&nd=1229

======================== Sponsored by =========================

Get 10 FREE issues of Investor's Business Daily. More than just a newspaper,
Investor's Business Daily is a unique research tool designed to identify
winning stocks with insightful charts and ratings you can't find anywhere
else.This offer carries no obligation and there's nothing to cancel.

http://ibd.infostreet.com/cgi-bin/freeoffer.cgi?source=A362GGL
==============================================================

Personal finance
-----------------------------------------

1. Insurance on MultexPF
Smoking and life insurance

Looking for a reason to quit smoking? It costs you
money! We all know that purchasing cigarettes and
cigars cost money, but you need to add the
significantly higher cost to purchase life insurance to
that expense.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Topic.asp?target=/personalfinance/insurance/item&ForumID=25&DocID=5502&nd=1229

2. Mortgage on MultexPF
Multex case study: Tapping your home for cash

All those holiday bills have you contemplating a good
way to pay them off. Which is a better way for you to
do that, a home equity loan or a line of credit? Find
out how one couple decided.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Topic.asp?target=/personalfinance/mortgages/item&ForumID=22&DocID=5501&nd=1229

MUTUAL FUNDS
-----------------------------------------

Visit our new Mutual Funds center

Investing isn't easy, but we're here to help. You'll find
tools for investors, fund industry news, research
reports, and more in our new Mutual Funds center.
Learn the basics of investing, discover new strategies,
and see what the experts are saying!
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Funds/MutualFunds.asp?target=/funds/mutualfunds/home

TODAY'S SPECIAL REPORT
-----------------------------------------

Invest in the fund company, with or without investing
in its funds

Morningstar gives Eaton Vance an A+ for profitability,
when few of its competitors are delivering any profit
growth under current market conditions. Find out how
Eaton Vance does it. (3-page report, $10)
http://www.multexinvestor.com/download.asp?docid=21427368&nd=1229

======================== Sponsored by =========================

The Telecomm Analyst: Wall Street's daily and weekly industry outlook

Multex's The Telecomm Analyst features daily telecommunications-industry
specific research highlights, investment ideas, analyst opinions, portfolio
strategies: http://www.multexinvestor.com/Analysts/HomeTTA.asp

To be sure you receive your TTA newsletter every week, click here:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/login.asp
==============================================================

Online advice and chats
-----------------------------------------

1. ASK THE ANALYST
Schaeffer's Research's Bernie Schaeffer explains
what his favorite sentiment indicators are suggesting.

Noting a highly complacent market, Schaeffer
discusses bearish trends in the CBOE's volatility (VIX)
and equity put/call indices and the Consensus Index
of Bullish Opinion. Has holiday market cheer come to
an end? Ask him questions until Mon., Dec. 31.
Click here: http://www.multexinvestor.com/AskTheAnalystForm.asp?&nd=1229

Want to kick off the New Year right?  In his latest
report, Bernie Schaeffer reveals "3 Hot Stocks to Ring
in the New Year." Access Bernie's FREE Special Report
now! Click here!
http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/redirect.asp?CODE=GB01M8&PAGE=1

2. ASK THE EXPERT
Insurance.com's Ronald E. Newton discusses life
insurance coverage issues brought up by divorce.

Newton explains the importance of reviewing
insurance coverage in the midst of divorce to protect
loved ones should catastrophic events occur. Do you
have all the coverage you need? He can take your
questions until Thurs.,Jan. 10. Ask the expert.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/AskTheExpertForm.asp?&nd=1229

3. LIVE EVENT
John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Funds, says staying
the course after the September 11 tragedy benefited
investors. He explains why economics, not emotions,
should rule your decisions.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/LiveEvents/Article.asp?ForumID=42&DocID=5280&nd=1229

Free and sponsored reports
-----------------------------------------

1. DAILY FREE SPONSOR REPORT
Morgan Stanley rates Goldman Sachs (GS) an
"outperform."

Goldman Sachs is one of the few financial service
firms that is skilled across markets, products, and
services. It is well-positioned for global convergence
within the industry. Sign up for Morgan Stanley's free
research trial to access the report.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/download.asp?docid=4445962&sid=8&nd=1229

2. FREE REPORTS LIST
Get the goods gratis: Catch up on the week's
giveaway research reports.

End-of-the-year update; tech perspectives; Robertson
Stephens conference call summary.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/freereports.asp?&nd=1229

3. FREE RESEARCH REPORT
Growth and Income C (ECSTX)
Even in this bad market, Eaton Vance Growth &
Income C has excelled

This fund has managed to trounce its benchmark, the
S&P 500, and its peers by a wide margin, and it has
done so with lower-than-average risk. Find out more
about this top-ranked fund. The report is free for a
limited time.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/download.asp?docid=1794453&nd=1229

You can also download a free Morningstar snapshot
report for Eaton Vance Growth and Income C:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/jp.asp?id=nl_ECSTX1229

===================================================================
Please send your questions and comments to:
mailto:investor.help@multex.com

If you'd like to learn more about Multex Investor, please visit:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/welcome.asp

If you can't remember your password and/or your user name, click here:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/lostinfo.asp

If you want to update your email address, please click on the url below:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp
===================================================================

To remove yourself from the mailing list for the Daily Update, please
REPLY to THIS email message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
line. To remove yourself from all Multex Investor mailings, including
the Daily Update and The Internet Analyst, please respond with the
words NO EMAIL in the subject line.

You may also unsubscribe on the account update page at:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp

===================================================================
Please email advertising inquiries to us at:
mailto:advertise@multex.com.

Be sure to check out our other newsletters, The Internet Analyst
and The Telecomm Analyst by Multex.com. The newsletters will
inform, educate, and entertain you with usable investment data,
ideas, experts, and info about the Internet and telecommunications
sectors. To see this week's issue,
click here:
http://www.thetelecommanalyst.com/ or
http://www.theinternetanalyst.com/


gdp-anr/ok...notice a trend here.
PL


Your honor, could the witness please explain the source of his information.
Couldn't be the Ford Excursion marketing department, could it?

	Jeffery Fawcett
	09/26/2000 10:13 AM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: Environmental Alert called off

Know of any openings???  With the GIR almost wrapped up, I'm looking for a
new challenge....

p.s.  Purchase of the Excursion is defensible (barely), SoCal's "windowing"
practice is indefensible!

From: Jeff Dasovich on 09/26/2000 10:01 AM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: Environmental Alert called off

Gee, with all due respect, this sounds like SoCal trying to justify its
windowing policy.

Have you considered a career as a PR exec with OPEC.

Affectionately yours,
Jeff

	Jeffery Fawcett
	09/26/2000 09:57 AM

		 To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Environmental Alert called off

Consider the facts:

- 80% of the materials in this vehicle's construction are recyclable.
- Although it weighs 7,200 lbs, it gets 14 mpg, city, 18 mpg, highway, better
than most 6-cylinder SUV's.
- It's the only SUV that has a "blocker beam," a sort of low-slung bumper
behind the front bumper designed to transfer the energy of an impact with a
small car directly onto the small car's rear bumper, mitigating the risk of
the Excursion riding up and over the smaller car.  In addition, the standard
class V hitch is set low on the rear frame and, similar to the blocker beam
up front, is designed to absorb the energy of a rear crash.
- It is a high efficiency, smokeless turbo-charged diesel engine... although
diesels produce more particulates than gasoline engines, overall, they don't
produce nearly the pollution of a gas-fired engine.  See below:

Diesel engine
In general terms the diesel engine is less polluting that the petrol engine,
it produces 25 times less carbon monoxide, 15 times less hydrocarbons without
burning and half as much nitrogen oxide, whereas the emissions of sulphur
dioxide are higher.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that when the load of the diesel
engine approaches the maximum, the formation of soot increases radically
(which may even go so far as to multiply the concentration of black lead by
20).

This phenomenon does not occur with petrol vehicles, in which the
concentration of particles in the exhaust gases is kept practically constant.
In order to prevent this, we can recycle part of the exhaust gases through
the air inlet and place filters in the exhaust in order to reduce the
emission of particles.
Comparative chart for the components of the exhaust
from a petrol engine and a diesel engine

Susan Scott
09/25/2000 05:05 PM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Environmental Alert

---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 09/25/2000
05:05 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 09/25/2000 05:03 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Environmental Alert

Oh great, he gets married, but his kids die from pollution.


Your recollection is correct.  However, I got the disturbing sense that FERC
would have pounded NGPL for setting the recouse rate a penny higher than the
negotiated rate reserve price.  Lets talk MOn. on whether we are still OK on
the ENA deal.  Thanks. DF

	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           12/17/99 05:20 PM

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: ENA Deal

I think the major difference is that in NGPL"s as I recall, they set the
recourse at max while the other negotiated rate was significantly lower.  We
did not set the recourse at max--  MK

	From:  Drew Fossum                           12/17/99 03:28 PM

To: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria
Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: ENA Deal

I read Wednesday's NGPL order (RP00-18-002) as applying only to NGPL due to
their unique restrictions and tariff rules.  I do not read it as forcing the
rest of the industry (i.e., us) to use the floor rate as the reserve price
for negotiated index rate bids and ordinary recourse rate bids.  I think we
can still determine the reserve price on a prearranged deal like the ENA deal
based on our good faith valuation of the upside provided by the index
mechanism.  I.e., on that type of deal, we can determine that the index
mechanism is worth "x cents" to us and require a discounted recourse rate
bidder to bid more than the floor plus x cents to win.  Agreed?

Note that NGPL whined that the unique rules they are subject to place them at
a competitve disadvantage to the rest of the industry (i.e., us) on this
issue.  The commission didn't say anything about that, implying to me that
the rest of us are still free to do what NGPL cannot do.   DF


Attached is the latest Cadwalader draft memo addressing additional risks
posed by newer, illiquid products (specifically paper and pulp) and
minimization of the risks.  My goal is for  the paper and pulp group to adopt
the recommendations.  Please take a look at the memo and give me your
comments.  I would like to respond to Cadwalader by the middle of next week.
Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.  Sara
 --------------------- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 04/14/2000
06:14 PM ---------------------------

"Scott Eckas" <SECKAS@cwt.com> on 04/14/2000 03:03:51 PM
To: Sara.Shackleton@enron.com
cc: "David Mitchell" <DMITCHEL@cwt.com>
Subject: Revised Memorandum regarding pulp and paper transactions

Attached is a revised version of our memorandum regarding pulp and paper
transactions.  The memorandum incorporates your comments and our further
thoughts relating to certain issues we discussed during our conference call
yesterday.  Also attached is a revised attachment to the memorandum.

You can reach David at 212-504-6285 and Scott at 212-504-6968.

Have a good weekend.

Scott Eckas

(See attached file: 0463515.03)          (See attached file: 0464504.01)

|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|NOTE:  The information in this email is confidential and may be   |
|legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you   |
|must not read, use or disseminate the information.  Although this |
|email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or |
|other defect that might affect any computer system into which it  |
|is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient |
|to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted |
|by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft for any loss or damage arising in|
|any way from its use.                                             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|

 - 0463515.03
 - 0464504.01


Can you please provide the following information on invitees to the series of breakfast meetings:
(example noted below from today's meeting)

Name			Title		Group 				Direct Supervisor

Jeff Gossett		Director		Operations - Gas Risk (EA)	Bob Hall

La Metrice Dopson	Sr. Director	IT Infrastructure			Jenny Rub

Mark, Greg and I need to have this information the day before the scheduled breakfast meeting.  The group description may be the most difficult to get, but you can look at this as a good way for you to get to know the leadership team within ENW and what they do.  I will be glad to help you with the details - just let me know.   Noting each employee's direct supervisor will just make it that much easier for us to understand where everyone fits into the organization.

I would also like to have this information for the breakfast meeting that was held this morning.  Thanks.

--Sally

Can I also take a look at the total list of employees that will be invited to the breakfast meetings?  The list that I used last week for Senior Directors and above for the Tuesday lunch meeting was not completely up-to-date.  I just want to be sure that we are not leaving anyone out.  Thanks.