Message sent from the pjm-customer-info mailing list at
pjm-customer-info@majordomo.pjm.com:

To meet customer requests, PJM has published the PJM Contingency list on the
web
site at www.pjm.com. The file can be found under PJM Markets, Market and
System
Data, under LMP Model Information. The list contains the approximately 1000
contingencies existing in the PJM Energy Management System. The contingencies
are the possible occurrences against which PJM system operators must protect
the
transmission system.

Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. If you have a question for PJM Customer
Relations and Training, please send an e-mail to custsvc@pjm.com.

To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pjm.com
containing only the following line in the body of the e-mail:

unsubscribe pjm-customer-info


This one's for you.  ANy way we can keep it???

---------------------- Forwarded by Marianne Castano/HOU/EES on 07/31/2001 11:47 AM ---------------------------

Peggy Mahoney
07/31/2001 10:21 AM
To:	Marianne Castano/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject:	Re: Elimination of BizMix Product Offering

There is always something around here!!!!!  Isn't there anyway to keep the product?
The last thing we are doing is sending a letter.
Peggy

Marianne Castano
07/31/2001 08:17 AM
To:	Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	Stacey Bolton/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES, Heather Mathis/HOU/EES@EES
Subject:	Elimination of BizMix Product Offering

Just tickling you on this...What do you think?  MLC

---------------------- Forwarded by Marianne Castano/HOU/EES on 07/31/2001 09:15 AM ---------------------------

Marianne Castano
07/13/2001 02:16 PM
To:	Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	Stacey Bolton/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard Ring/HOU/EES@EES, Heather Mathis/HOU/EES@EES
Subject:	Elimination of BizMix Product Offering

Hi Peggy:

This group met this afternoon to discuss a number of issues related to California retail disclosure; most importantly, the issue of the discontinuation of our BizMix product offer was discussed.

You will recall that we notified our CA C&I customers late last year that all were receiving BizMix (Including the EEMC customers which we acquired in 6/00) and that in conjunction with our providing this product, we would be making claims for credits through the CEC Subaccount Program.  Since that time, we have apparently sent all of our customers back to their respective utilities, and we now understand that we be switching all of these customers back to Enron service in the near term, but that BizMix will no longer be offered upon their return to Enron physical service.

It is our recommendation that we notify these customers that given the current circumstances in CA, upon their return to Enron service, we will no longer be able to offer BizMix and that they will instead receive system mix from us on a going forward basis.  I think it is important to note that because the offer of BizMix involved a "claim" through which we received Subaccount credit moneys, it is imperative that we somehow communicate to our customers that we are no longer able to provide this product given the current situation in CA.

We ask for your thoughts (pro and con) regarding the issue of notifying these customers regarding this matter, and also ask for suggestions as to how to best communicate this message to the customers (e.g. bill stuffer, separate mailing, etc.)

Hope all's well.  Thanks in advance for your input.

Marianne

<Embedded StdOleLink>


So now I know why Sheila had a lock installed on her door.

Stephen Thome@ECT
04/19/2001 10:45 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: ENA Incumbency Certificate

Kay,

You better leave your office unlocked tonight.

Steve

Kay Mann@ENRON
04/19/2001 08:09 AM
To: Stephen Thome/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: ENA Incumbency Certificate

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 04/19/2001 10:09
AM ---------------------------

Jake Thomas@ECT
04/19/2001 09:59 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: ENA Incumbency Certificate

Kay, I will be traveling to Houston today and expect to be in your office's
tomorrow morning or if needed, tonight

Jake

Kay Mann@ENRON
04/19/2001 04:12 AM
To: Ed B Hearn III/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jake Thomas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephen Thome/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: ENA Incumbency Certificate

Hi Ed,

Here's a certificate of incumbancy we need to Jake's Delta deal.  Can you
handle signature?  We can work with a fax today, but will need a fully
executed original for the bank.

Jake, we put a couple of Houston guys just in case something comes up.  We
have assumed that you will be executing the docs.  If there's any problem
with the list, please let me know.

We need this document to set up the escrow account today.

Thanks,

Kay

"Campbell, Carolyn" <CCampbell@KSLAW.com> on 04/18/2001 03:41:06 PM
To: "'kay.mann@enron.com'" <kay.mann@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: ENA Incumbency Certificate

 <<303%02!.DOC>>

Kay:

We may want to go ahead and circulate the ENA Incumbency Certificate for the
escrow.  I was holding it until the Salmon Incumbency Certificate revisions
were completed by Paul Hastings so that the two documents could be
circulated simultaneously, but I'm not sure they will get that document to
us in time to do both together.  Thanks.

Carolyn M. Campbell
King & Spalding
713-276-7307 (phone)
713-751-3280 (fax)
ccampbell@kslaw.com <mailto:ccampbell@kslaw.com>

Enclosure: 140106v2

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.

 - 303%02!.DOC


Dear Judge Biren:

SoCalGas believes that it is important that it be permitted to present its
arguments why the motions to compel should not be granted prior to the
Commission making a final decision on them.  SoCalGas has not had such an
opportunity, either orally or in writing.  Therefore, SoCalGas is filing
this afternoon the attached response in opposition to the motions.

Consistent with your instructions from this morning, I will call Mr. Hawiger
and Mr. Pedersen and try to see if we can resolve this matter in a mutually
acceptable manner.  We will let you know promptly as to the results of that
discussion.

-- Glen Sullivan
Attorney for SoCalGas and SDG&E
telephone:  (619) 699-5162
email:  gsullivan@sempra.com <mailto:gsullivan@sempra.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Biren, Andrea [mailto:alb@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:30 AM
To: 'Sullivan, Glen J.'; 'Hayley Goodson'; alan_reid@pcp.ca; Biren, Andrea;
andy.bettwy@swgas.com; aod@newsdata.com; askaff@energy-law-group.com;
bcragg@gmssr.com; Ortega, Barbara; bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us; burkee@cts.com;
bwood@energy.state.ca.us; ceyap@earthlink.net; chilen@llgm.com;
chris.king@utility.com; craigc@calpine.com; davef@abag.ca.gov;
dcarroll@dbsr.com; ed@clfp.com; Farrar, Darwin; eke@aelaw.com;
eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us; epoole@adplaw.com; evk1@pge.com; ewo@jmbm.com;
Quan, Edwin; furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil; garyb@abag.ca.gov;
gbudin@energy.state.ca.us; ghinners@reliantenergy.com;
grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; gtbl@dynegy.com; iep@iepa.com;
igsinc@ix.netcom.com; inggm@sce.com; jcattermole@pcenergy.com;
jkarp@whitecase.com; jleslie@luce.com; jmct@gmssr.com; jmpa@dynegy.com;
johnj@bcjlaw.com; joseh@lif.org; jsteffen@iid.com; jweil@aglet.org;
jwr@cpuc.ca.gov; karen@klindh.com; karpjos@sf.whitecase.com;
kfyip@seiworldwide.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com; kmills@cfbf.com;
lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com; lmh@eslawfirm.com; Tran, Lana;
mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com; McNamara, Michael D.; mday@gmssr.com;
mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; mjaske@energy.state.ca.us;
napedersen@jonesday.com; pjpowerlaw@aol.com; Gileau, Patrick L.; Myers,
Richard A.; raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; White, Rosalina;
rbw@mrwassoc.com; rczahar@aol.com; rgloistein@orrick.com;
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com; Pocta, Robert M.; rochmanm@cubjpa.org;
rochmanm@spurr.org; ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com; ronknecht@aol.com;
rpelote@energy.twc.com; rpetti@ladwp.com; salleyoo@dwt.com; Sarvate, Sarita;
skatz@sempratrading.com; slins@ci.glendale.ca.us; sscott3@enron.com;
stomashe@energy.state.ca.us; Horner, Trina; tdickers@westerngas.com;
tom.roth@et.pge.com; Beck, Valerie; 'hawiger, marcel'
Subject: RE: I.99-07-003

I have now received SCGC's Motion to Compel.  I note that the same
interrogatories that TURN withdrew, SCGC is withdrawing.  Therefore, my
original view that we can deal with this without taking up time at the PHC
still stands.  I would like you to try to work this out by yourselves based
upon my indication here as to how I will rule.

The bottom line is that SoCalGas must respond to those interrogatories
seeking to clarify which settlement is its first choice.  It is by no means
crystal clear, and does impact the breadth of support for each settlement.
(In fact, I'd like to know SDG&E's view on this too.)  I think this could be
done in a limited way as opposed to responses to all the interrogatories
comparing the two settlements.  Whether SoCalGas has breached the Interim
Settlement by also signing the Comprehensive Settlement is not directly
relevant to this proceeding.  I don't need to determine that and I don't
want to expand this already far-ranging proceeding to include that - take it
to court if you want to.  Moreover, some of the questions are now moot as
all prepared testimony has been lodged.  So, please meet and confer again.
If you can't come to an agreement based on my views in this email, then
SoCalGas should file its Opposition on the 23rd, and I'll rule on each
interrogatory on the 25th.  Please let me know ASAP if you've worked
something out.

--Judge Biren

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Glen J. [ mailto:GSullivan@sempra.com
<mailto:GSullivan@sempra.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'Hayley Goodson'; alan_reid@pcp.ca; alb@cpuc.ca.gov;
andy.bettwy@swgas.com; aod@newsdata.com; askaff@energy-law-group.com;
bcragg@gmssr.com; bho@cpuc.ca.gov; bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us;
burkee@cts.com; bwood@energy.state.ca.us; ceyap@earthlink.net;
chilen@llgm.com; chris.king@utility.com; craigc@calpine.com;
davef@abag.ca.gov; dcarroll@dbsr.com; ed@clfp.com; edf@cpuc.ca.gov;
eke@aelaw.com; eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us; epoole@adplaw.com;
evk1@pge.com; ewo@jmbm.com; eyq@cpuc.ca.gov;
furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil; garyb@abag.ca.gov;
gbudin@energy.state.ca.us; ghinners@reliantenergy.com;
grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; Sullivan, Glen J.;
gtbl@dynegy.com; iep@iepa.com; igsinc@ix.netcom.com; inggm@sce.com;
jcattermole@pcenergy.com; jkarp@whitecase.com; jleslie@luce.com;
jmct@gmssr.com; jmpa@dynegy.com; johnj@bcjlaw.com; joseh@lif.org;
jsteffen@iid.com; jweil@aglet.org; jwr@cpuc.ca.gov; karen@klindh.com;
karpjos@sf.whitecase.com; kfyip@seiworldwide.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com;
kmills@cfbf.com; lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com; lmh@eslawfirm.com;
ltt@cpuc.ca.gov; mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com; mcn@cpuc.ca.gov;
mday@gmssr.com; mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; mjaske@energy.state.ca.us;
napedersen@jonesday.com; pjpowerlaw@aol.com; plg@cpuc.ca.gov;
ram@cpuc.ca.gov; raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us;
raw@cpuc.ca.gov; rbw@mrwassoc.com; rczahar@aol.com;
rgloistein@orrick.com; rick.counihan@greenmountain.com; rmp@cpuc.ca.gov;
rochmanm@cubjpa.org; rochmanm@spurr.org; ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com;
ronknecht@aol.com; rpelote@energy.twc.com; rpetti@ladwp.com;
salleyoo@dwt.com; sbs@cpuc.ca.gov; skatz@sempratrading.com;
slins@ci.glendale.ca.us; sscott3@enron.com; stomashe@energy.state.ca.us;
tah@cpuc.ca.gov; tdickers@westerngas.com; tom.roth@et.pge.com;
vjb@cpuc.ca.gov; 'hawiger, marcel'
Subject: RE: I.99-07-003

Judge Biren has asked me to convey the following information to the service
list in this proceeding:

In addition to TURN's motion (as circulated by TURN's email on Monday, May
15) to compel  SoCalGas to answer portions of TURN's data request dated
April 27, 2000, the Southern California Generation Coalition has indicated
to the ALJ its intent to file a motion to compel SoCalGas to answer the same

questions asked by TURN.  SCGC has said it probably will seek to compel
SoCalGas to answer all questions originally asked by TURN, including those
questions that TURN's motion did not seek to compel SoCalGas to answer.
SCGC has said it will try to file this motion today or tomorrow.  Counsel
for SCGC has informed me that he does not intend to file a motion to compel
answers to these questions by any other parties.

Counsel for TURN has informed me that it does not intend to file a motion to

compel other parties to whom it sent its April 27 data request to answer any

of those questions, but that TURN is not now willing to waive any right to
file such a motion.

The ALJ has stated her intent to rule on the TURN motion and the expected
SCGC motion at the PHC on Thurs. May 25.  SoCalGas has agreed to file a
written response by Tues. May 23, as TURN had proposed.  The ALJ does not
intend to issue a formal, written ruling shortening time to respond to the
motions, but wants to be sure parties understand her intent on how she will
proceed in resolving this matter.

-- Glen Sullivan
Sempra Energy Law Dept.
tel:  (619) 699-5162
email:  gsullivan@sempra.com
Attorney for SoCalGas and SDG&E

 - GIRresponse.doc


Any new information on the $1.5mm owed by Goldman Sachs?


In regards to gas:
what signals do you for in determining your view?
what resources do you use to formulate a price view?
give example of complex transaction you've structured for a customer.
where is storage now relative to history? what is the highest and lowest
level we've been at in past 5 years?
what are your short, medium, and long term views of gas market?
what major basis changes have occured in the market over the past 5 years?
What do you expect in the next 5?
how should a storage operator decide whether or not to inject on any given
day?

In regards to derivatives in order of difficulty
What are delta/gamma/theta?
if you buy a put spread, is your delta positive, negative, or zero?
Is swap price equal to simple average of futures contracts?
If interest rates go up what happens to option prices all else equal?
what is the value of a european $1 call expiring in 12 months if
corresponding futures are trading $5?
what happens to delta of an option if volatility increase?

From: Tom Wilbeck/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/23/2001 03:35 PM
To: John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K
Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: technical help for interviewing traders

Jeanie Slone was telling me that you were among the best interviewers in the
trading group.  Because of your expertise in this area, I was wondering if
you could help me put some technical questions together that you've found to
be effective in interviewing Gas Traders.

Norma Hasenjager is in our Omaha office needs this information ASAP in order
to help her screen some candidates.  It would be great if you could respond
to this with two or three questions that you've used in the past to select
good Gas Traders.

Thanks for your help.

Tom Wilbeck
EWS Training and Development


FERC has issued a Notice of Extension of Time to file comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)  on Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers.   The due date for comments is now December 20, 2001.  The Notice is attached.

 - RM01-10.00B.doc


I mentioned to Stan and Rod that we go forward with this.  I agree, cash is cash.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mckean, George
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 4:55 PM
To: Howard, Kevin A.
Subject: Re: FW: Northern Border Partners Common Units

No update yet

We expect to hear something on tues in regard to the extension of 2 weeks but will probably not know about the final fix until the 2nd week of dec

Why would we not sell the units even if the proceeds are trapped in rawhide as it would allow us to pay down debt ?

I agree that we do not want to announce anything publically until we understand where we are as it could hurt our bargaining position
George Mckean


Uhhhhh - Stacey with NYPA is coming in on Tuesday and wants to come over and
visit with all of us.  Would you like to do an early dinner with Stacey,
myself and 2 or 3 other Enron folks???  OR you and Rose could take her out
Tuesday nite and I could go do something else entirely!!!!!!!!!


I show that we adjusted pricing for excess volumes for the following dates:

Mar 11-31    15,000/day delivered to Mobil Beaumont at IF HSC - .045

April 5-19 15,000/day delivered to Mobil Beaumont at IF HSC - .055.  An
outage occurred on the 5th, so the deliveries to Mobil didn't acutally start
until the   12th.

If you need anything else, let me know.

Daren

"Bruce McMills" <bmcmills@duke-energy.com> on 08/30/2000 01:28:47 PM
To: dfarmer@enron.com
cc: "Marta K Henderson" <mkhenderson@duke-energy.com>
Subject: Discrepancies in Price of Gas redelivered at Mobil Beaumont

I thought it might be easier to reply by email of the
period, volume, and price for periods when the
price for gas redelivered by Duke at Mobil Beaumont was not
HSC Monthly Index - $.0375.


Can we see the July, Aug, and Sept. Operators Reports for Gleason; and the
July and Sept. Operators reports for Sept..? In addition, can we see some
hourly operational data during the months of August and Sept. when the plants
were at maximum load?

?
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin.Rogers@enron.com [mailto:Benjamin.Rogers@enron.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 5:15 PM
To: fabian.lipp@lgeenergy.com
Cc: Don.Miller@enron.com
Subject: RE: Questions

Fabian:
You can find actual performance data on DealBench at Doc # 04.01.03 A-E.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.? Thanks!
Ben


All deals with NP-15 or SP-15 delivery points should use CAISO energy.

Thanks,
Kate
---------------------- Forwarded by Kate Symes/PDX/ECT on 03/05/2001 02:37 PM
---------------------------

Kimberly Hundl@ENRON
03/05/2001 01:58 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT, Amy Smith/ENRON@enronXgate

Subject: Delano #536366, & #536370, and EESI #525625.2

Please let me know whether these deals have the wrong energy type.  They all
have np-15 or sp-15 delivery points.
Thank you!
Kim


Harry,

In case you are looking for a secretary, here is one candidate.

Vince


Denis,

I saw a copy of an MOU dated in November that you had initialed.  I have had
no discussions with anyone with Enron Credit or ERS about the MOU, so I have
no idea if ERS has agreed to the MOU that was sent to them.  I'll leave it to
you and David to sort out the status of the MOU since I have never worked on
this document.

I have finalized the NDA and Tana Jones is handling its execution.

Leslie

	Denis O'Connell
	12/07/2000 11:33 AM

		 To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Richard Sage/LON/ECT@ECT, Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: ERisk MOU and NDA

You tell me ! - what about the timetable - I have seen nothing either from
yourself or leslie

David P Dupre
07/12/2000 17:31
To: Denis O'Connell/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: ERisk MOU and NDA

Denis:

What is the status of the MOU for ERisk?
ERisk needs a signed copy from us and then they will sign and send a copy.

Leslie said that she will forward the NDA to you to review which Steve Wagner
of ERisk
sent to her yesterday.

Thanks
David
713-853-3528

Denis O'Connell
12/06/2000 03:49 AM
To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Bruce Harris/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Denis--Standard Presentation

David - the EFT responsibility statement should be included where you are
making a presenr=tation to UK counterparties.  The language I sent to Bruce
was to be inserted in a presentation to be sent to a prospective US
counterparty.   I will provide you witha universal proforma in due course.

Denis

David P Dupre
05/12/2000 18:06
To: Denis O'Connell/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Bruce Harris/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Denis--Standard Presentation

Denis:
The "Feds" powerpoint presentation which Bruce sent to you earlier with the
language below in the prior email
is different from the attached presentation here called "EC presentation".

Please advise

Thanks
David
---------------------- Forwarded by David P Dupre/HOU/ECT on 12/05/2000 12:04
PM ---------------------------

Bruce Harris@ENRON
12/05/2000 09:07 AM
To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Denis--Standard Presentation

can you insert language as recommended in presentation, then send to em and
put on O drive and let everyone in our group know where it is?
---------------------- Forwarded by Bruce Harris/NA/Enron on 12/05/2000 09:06
AM ---------------------------

Denis O'Connell@ECT
12/04/2000 12:45 PM
To: Bruce Harris/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Denis--Standard Presentation

Bruce - please insert the following at the bottom of the title slide:

This presentation constitutes neither an offer to sell nor the solicitation
of an offer to buy any security.  This presentation is provided for
discussion purposes only.   It is sent to you, and we are willing to
negotiate with you on the understanding that you will conduct your own due
diligence and obtain all external advice which you may deem necessary.  This
pesentation does not purport to identify or suggest all of the risks (direct
or indirect) which may be associated with the  transactions described
therein.  Enron is not, and does not purport to be, an adviser on accounting,
legal, tax or regulatory matters.  Due to the proprietary nature of this
presentation please consider it confidential.

Bruce Harris@ENRON
04/12/2000 16:39
To: Denis O'Connell/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Denis--Standard Presentation

Can you please review this today so I can send to my clients?

Thanks,  Bruce
---------------------- Forwarded by Bruce Harris/NA/Enron on 12/04/2000 10:39
AM ---------------------------

John Haggerty
12/01/2000 10:24 AM
To: Bruce Harris/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Denis O'Connell/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Standard Presentation

I have permission from KMV for usage of their slides

There is an appendix with aboout 2,500 names in it as well that we include
sometimes.


-----Original Message-----
From: gd [mailto:gd@goodsonauto.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:39 AM
To: Hyatt, Kevin
Subject: 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 4x2 Swb

To: Kevin Hyatt
From: Jim McKinney
Subject:  2002 Dodge Ram 1500 (4 Door) Quad Cab SLT 4x2 140" WB

INCLUDES A 7 YEAR  / 100,000 MILE POWERTRAIN WARRANTY

Thank you for choosing Goodson Dodge Internet while in your search for a
great deal without the hassles. We feel, as our customers do, that there is
more to a great deal than just a low price. The 2002 model Dodge Ram 1500
Quad Cab listed below is in stock. We have others available or we would be
glad to order one for you. If you wish to change the equipment requested,
please revise and return. You can reach me at (281)556-1111, to discuss your
purchase. If I am not available ask for my son, Tom McKinney.

Jim McKinney               Internet Sales Manager
Goodson Dodge
15865 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas  77094
Phone Number: (281)556-1111
Fax Number:  (281)556-6598
URL     www.goodsonauto.com

  Quote for a 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 4x2 140" WB

Model:  Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 4x2 140" WB
Package:  24G
Exterior Color: Bright Silver Metallic Clear Coat
Interior Color:  Dark Slate Gray
Engine:  4.7L  V8  240 HP

Options:
Multi-speed Automatic transmission,
Cloth 40/20/40 bench seat,
Air conditioning,
Power windows,
Power door locks,
Power heated fold-away mirrors,
Overhead console with trip computer,
Cruise control,
Tilt steering wheel,
Four wheel disc brakes,
AM/FM/Cassette,
17" Chrome wheels,
Bodyside molding,
Floor mats,
Carpet,
SLT package

Availability:  In Stock
Stock Number:  2S592683
VIN:  1D7HA18N42S592683

Total Before Discount:    $26,230.00
Less Customer Preferred Discount:  $550.00
Less Factory Incentive:  $1,500.00
Less Goodson Dodge Internet Discount:  $2,148.00
Total Discounts:   $4,198.00
YOUR PRICE:  $22,032.00
Price Good Through: 22-Jan-2002

Quoted price includes applicable incentives but does not include taxes,
title and registration.


Ken,

Per my voicemail, we are having an all employee meeting on next Monday at the
Hyatt Regency.  The purpose of this meeting is to pull everyone together for
an update on EGM and a brief presentation from all the business units within
EGM.  This includes about 1 hour of business and then drinks and food - we
expect about 500 people.

We have made a lot of progress on changing the nature and profitability of
these businesses and we want to make sure everyone sees just how far we have
come in a few months.

I believe they will be motivated to see the growth and profitability.  We had
a record Q1 with $100 million of gross margin.  That was 50% of what they
made in all of 2000.  Combined with the fact that in December of 2000 alone
we made $87 million in gross margin, I believe it will have a big impact.

If you could attend the meeting even for a few minutes it would go a long way
in helping us drive our other point which is that the EGM businesses are now
core to Enron and has the attention of both you and Jeff.

Thanks for considering this and let me know if you need any other information
or assistance.

Mike


---------------------- Forwarded by Larry F Campbell/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000
03:53 PM ---------------------------

"Englander, Scott" <sle@tca-us.com> on 10/26/2000 02:25:52 PM
To: "Daniel Staines (E-mail)" <dstaine@ect.enron.com>, "Howard Fromer
(E-mail)" <hfromer@enron.com>, "Scott Monson (E-mail)"
<Scott.A.Monson@enron.com>, "Charles Decker (E-mail)" <cdecker@enron.com>,
"Dennis Benevides (E-mail)" <dbenevid@enron.com>, "Gautam Gupta (E-mail)"
<Gautam.Gupta@enron.com>, "George Hopley (E-mail)" <ghopley@enron.com>,
"George Wood (E-mail)" <George.Wood@enron.com>, "H. Jeffrey Ader (E-mail)"
<jeffery.ader@enron.com>, "Janelle Scheuer (E-mail)"
<janelle.scheuer@enron.com>, "John Llodra (E-mail)" <John.Llodra@enron.com>,
"John Zurita (E-mail)" <jzurita@enron.com>, "Kayne Coulter (E-mail)"
<kcoulte@enron.com>, "Larry F. Campbell (E-mail)"
<Larry.F.Campbell@enron.com>, "Paul Broderick (E-mail)"
<Paul.J.Broderick@enron.com>, "Paul Thomas (E-mail)"
<Paul.D.Thomas@enron.com>, "Richard Ring (E-mail)" <richard.ring@enron.com>,
"Robert Stalford (E-mail)" <robert.stalford@enron.com>, "Suneet Sharma
(E-mail)" <ssharma@enron.com>, "Tom Dutta (E-mail)" <tom.dutta@enron.com>,
"Tom May (E-mail)" <tom.may@enron.com>, "Zal Masani (E-mail)"
<Zal.Masani@enron.com>
cc: "Christi Nicolay (E-mail)" <Christi.L.Nicolay@enron.com>

Subject: NYISO Newsflash: External load a good deal

All,
?
You may already be  aware of this, but NYISO staff just revealed in a meeting
that significant  opportunities exist to purchase in real time from the NYISO
LBMP market at the  PJM proxy bus (i.e., as an external load), due to the
impact of ECA 1006B.?  When the tie is import constrained in BME, prices
there since the 1006 ECAs were  implemented have been as low as -$1000.? In
this case the BME price would  be used for settlement, and you would be paid
$1000/MWh to export power there  (as your export would offset inbound
congestion).
?
As more people begin  to take advantage of this, the BME prices can be
expected to be less  negative.
?
Caution!? If  you schedule a transaction DA, but it fails the DA checkout,
when there is  congestion on the ties in BME, you will have to settle the
difference at the BME  price, and could get hammered.
?
NYISO will probably  issue a bulletin about this later today.
?
Scott


I changed the end date on CGLF k#42789 (deal 156388) to 10/31/2001.


---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT on 06/14/2000 02:14
PM ---------------------------
From: Greg Wolfe on 06/08/2000 03:48 PM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Richter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: *DJ Calif. PUC Approves Utilities Buying Pwr Out Of CalPX

---------------------- Forwarded by Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT on 06/08/2000 05:52 PM
---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "Pergher, Gunther" <Gunther.Pergher@dowjones.com>
     06/08/2000 01:10 PM

To: "Pergher, Gunther" <Gunther.Pergher@dowjones.com>
cc:  (bcc: Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT)
Subject: *DJ Calif. PUC Approves Utilities Buying Pwr Out Of CalPX

17:46 GMT  8 June 2000
 *DJ Calif. PUC Approves Utilities Buying Pwr Out Of CalPX

 Mandatory Buy Requirement Ends For Utilities

 LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--The California Public Utilities Commission
approved a controversial plan Thursday morning that
 will allow the state's three investor-owned utilities to buy power outside
the Caliifornia Power Exchange market structure.

 The commission voted 3 to 2 in favor of the measure. Commissioners Henry
Duque, Richard A. Bilas and Josiah Neeper voted
 in favor of the draft order.

 The decision relieves the three investor-owned utilities, Sempra Energy
unit San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE), Pacific Gas &
 Electric (PCG) and Edison International unit Southern California Edison
(EIX), from their mandatory buy requirement that
 became effective in March 1998 when the state moved to a deregulated
competitive market. Originally the mandatory buy
 requirement was set to end in 2002, when all three utilities recovered
their stranded costs.

 "This decision is not as earth shattering as it sounds," Commissioner
Bilas, one of the author's of the draft order, said at
 Thursday's meeting. "I am not criticizing the power exchange. But this will
result in lower prices patched through to bundled
 customers."

 Trading platforms likw Automated Power Exchange and the New York Mercantile
Exchange can now compete directly with the
 CalPX, which currently controls 85% of the state's wholesale power market.
The utilities can buy power from other "qualified
 exchanges" through an advice letter process.

 Utilities Can Trade With Other Exchanges Now

 California's big three utilities can buy power outside the CalPX market
structure immediately, through an advice letter process,
 which means the utilities have to notify the commission of their intent to
trade power with qualified exchanges such as APX,
 Nymex or Bloomberg.

 The commission said the exchanges have to offer the same services as the
CalPX - forward, daily and monthly trading, and
 anonymity to prevent self dealing between the buy side and sell side - in
order to meet the criteria for a qualified exchange.

 Exchanges would also have to be independently owned from the utilities.
Enron Online would not meet the criteria for a
 qualified exchange, commissioners said.

 The advice letter only needs to be filed once and s merely a formality that
would not need to be approved by a majority of the
 commission.

 Mark Huffman, PG&E senior attorney for regulatory affairs, told Dow Jones
Newswires that his company "will quickly start
 looking at other exchanges and see what's out there. We're going to start
the advice letter process."

 SoCal Edison and SDG&E said they will do the same.

 Ed Cazalet, chairman and founder of APX, said Thursday's controversial
three-to-two vote in favor of the draft order "creates a
 tremendous opportunity for APX."

 "It allows us to bring the benefits of Silicon Valley technology to
California," Cazalet said. "This is really about bringing
 e-commerce to the market."

 E. Jesus Arredondo, however, disagreed, saying "selling into our market
doesn't cost anything and selling into the APX market
 costs 20 cents per megawatt-hour."

 Commissioner said having other exchanges will not only result in lower
electricity prices, but it will allow the buyer and seller
 the chance to see prices before making the purchase.

 CalPX's block forward prices are not immediately published, Commissioner
Bilas said.

 Reacting to the ruling, CalPX Chief Executive Officer George Sladoje said
"Today's split vote by the CPUC in favor of
 accelerating the introduction of other qualified exchanges is not
well-reasoned and it may in the end prove counterproductive."

 -By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires (323) 658-3874;
jason.leopold@dowjones.com Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones &
 Company Inc

G_nther A. Pergher
Senior Analyst
Dow Jones & Company Inc.
Tel.  609.520.7067
Fax. 609.452.3531

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

 <<Gunther Pergher (E-mail).vcf>>
 - Gunther Pergher (E-mail).vcf


&Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail.8  -  Ralph Waldo Emerson

Watch the Enron Building lobby on Thursday, April 26th, from 11:30am to
1:00pm for information
on Enron,s unique ways to express itself through our employee communicate
tools and our workplace environment.

Featuring:
eThink, Planet Enron, Expert Finder and GIS

Special Afternoon Workshop - 3:30pm to 5:30pm
&The Painting Experience8 with Mr. Stewart Cubley
You do not have to be an artist... no training or knowledge of art is
required....  simply participate in a unique,
supportive environment where you can explore the &process8 of creativity and
risk-taking completely free from the
barriers of comparison, evaluation, judgment, success, failure or awards.
The only prerequisite is a spirit of inquiry.
There is no fee for this class.  Please RSVP to Jessica at x31918 - space is
limited.

Word of the Day
verve (v-rv) n. Energy and enthusiasm in the expression of ideas,
especially in artistic performance or composition.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 08/24/2000
03:03 PM ---------------------------

Vasant Shanbhogue
08/21/2000 09:32 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: cost of equity analysis

Vince,

 please call me if you need me to walk through the spreadsheet

Vasant

---------------------- Forwarded by Vasant Shanbhogue/HOU/ECT on 08/21/2000
09:28 AM ---------------------------

Vasant Shanbhogue
08/17/2000 06:59 PM
To: Jeff Nogid/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:


Jason,

I'd like to talk to you sometime soon (today?) regarding a cash trading position in the Midwest to see if you might find it interesting.  Let me know by phone...x 3-9684

Fletch


EOL Deals	 From: 10/1/2001   To: 10/15/2001	  	 EnPower	 From: 10/1/2001   To: 10/15/2001
 	 Desk	 Total Deals	 Total MWH	  	 Desk	 Total Deals	 Total MWH

 	 EPMI Long Term California	 252	 4,836,400	  	 EPMI Long Term California	 41	 2,041,375
 	 EPMI Long Term Northwest	 213	 3,232,600	  	 EPMI Long Term Northwest	 211	 9,163,479
 	 EPMI Long Term Southwest	 366	 5,718,002	  	 EPMI Long Term Southwest	 212	 11,254,654
 	 EPMI Short Term California	 1,699	 2,750,401	  	 EPMI Short Term California	 711	 1,989,092
 	 EPMI Short Term Northwest	 903	 776,975	  	 EPMI Short Term Northwest	 417	 674,908
 	 EPMI Short Term Southwest	 1,219	 1,842,371	  	 EPMI Short Term Southwest	 573	 2,692,035
 	 Real Time	 898	 23,050	  	 Real Time	 413	 37,313

 	 Grand Total	 5,550	 19,179,799	  	 Grand Total	 2,578	 27,852,856

 	 EOL Deals	 From: 10/15/2001   To: 10/15/2001	  	 EnPower	 From: 10/15/2001   To: 10/15/2001
 	 Desk	 Total Deals	 Total MWH	  	 Desk	 Total Deals	 Total MWH

 	 EPMI Long Term California	 0	 0	  	 EPMI Long Term California	 0	 0
 	 EPMI Long Term Northwest	 16	 238,800	  	 EPMI Long Term Northwest	 11	 491,096
 	 EPMI Long Term Southwest	 28	 331,800	  	 EPMI Long Term Southwest	 23	 504,097
 	 EPMI Short Term California	 161	 277,195	  	 EPMI Short Term California	 78	 227,257
 	 EPMI Short Term Northwest	 79	 33,000	  	 EPMI Short Term Northwest	 39	 46,114
 	 EPMI Short Term Southwest	 112	 107,356	  	 EPMI Short Term Southwest	 53	 280,705
 	 Real Time	 146	 3,650	  	 Real Time	 53	 4,197

 	 Grand Total	 542	 991,801	  	 Grand Total	 257	 1,553,467

 	 EOL Deals	 From: 10/15/2001   To: 10/15/2001
 	 EES	 Total Deals	 Total MWH
 	 Daily	 7	 1,400
 	 Month-to-Date	 63	 11,600

 	 ICE Volumes	 From: 10/15/2001   To: 10/15/2001
 	 Delivery Point	 Total MWH	 EPMI MWH	  Price

 	 Cob (P, Next Day)	 400	 0 	 $     24.00
 	 Mid C (P, Next Day)	 2,800	 400	  $     23.01
 	 Mid C (OP, Nov-01)	 8,000	 0	  $     23.25
 	 Mid C (P, Nov-01)	 30,000	 0	  $     27.18
 	 Mid C (P, Dec-01)	 10,000	 0	  $     34.50
 	 Mid C (P, Jan-02)	 10,400	 0	  $     34.50
 	 NP-15 (OP, Next Day)	 1,800	 400	  $     17.86
 	 NP-15 (P, Next Day)	 5,600	 800	  $     25.79
 	 NP-15 (OP, Bal Month)	 11,475	 0	  $     19.00
 	 NP-15 (P, Bal Month)	 20,800	 10,400	  $     25.75
 	 NP-15 (P, Nov-01)	 20,000	 0	  $     28.20
 	 NP-15 (P, Q1 02)	 30,400	 0	  $     34.25
 	 NP-15 (P, Q3 02)	 30,800	 0	  $     47.15
 	 NP-15 (P, Q4 02)	 30,800	 0	  $     37.25
 	 Palo (P, Next Day)	 5,600	 0	  $     27.41
 	 Palo (OP, Next Day)	 600	 0	  $     14.62
 	 Palo (P, Bal Month)	 62,400	 0	  $     25.72
 	 Palo (P, Nov-01)	 10,000	 0	  $     25.75
 	 Palo (P, Dec-01)	 10,000	 0	  $     30.00
 	 Palo (P, Q3 02)	 61,600	 0	  $     51.43
 	 Palo (P, Q4 02)	 30,800	 0	  $     33.50
 	 Palo (P, Q1 03)	 30,400	 0	  $     35.00
 	 SP-15 (OP, Next Day)	 1,600	 200	  $     16.37
 	 SP-15 (P, Next Day)	 4,400	 800	  $     26.37
 	 SP-15 (OP, Bal Month)	 3,825	 0	  $     17.55
 	 SP-15 (P, Bal Month)	 67,600	 5,200	  $     26.03
 	 SP-15 (P, Nov-01)	 10,000	 0	  $     26.75
 	 SP-15 (P, Q3 02)	 30,800	 0	  $     47.00
 	 SP-15 (P, Q4 02)	 30,800	 0	  $     36.25

 	 Grand Total	 573,700	 18,200	  $   841.44


For the EOL location Carthage Hub, the information is as follows:

	pipe		ETXG  		East Texas Gas Systems

	zone		East Texas Gas Systems

	facility		04607001	Easttrans (Carthage Hub)

O'Neal

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dawn C Kenne
Sent:	Monday, May  14, 2001 10:10 PM
To:	O'Neal D Winfree
Cc:	Tara Sweitzer; Melba Lozano
Subject:	FW: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

O'Neal,

Any word on this yet?

Dawn

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kenne, Dawn C.
Sent:	Friday, May 11, 2001 2:42 PM
To:	Winfree, O'Neal
Cc:	Sweitzer, Tara
Subject:	FW: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

Can you please provide the pipe, zone and facility for the EOL location listed below, requested by Eric Bass.

Thanks,
Dawn

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lozano, Melba
Sent:	Thursday, May 10, 2001 1:07 PM
To:	Sweitzer, Tara; Kenne, Dawn C.
Cc:	Cass, Robert B.; Walker, Chris; Meredith, Kevin
Subject:	FW: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

Please map the following Location in TEST:

Carthage
The transaction is for delivery at the tailgate of the Carthage Hub.

Trader: Eric Bass

Thanks,

Melba

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bass, Eric
Sent:	Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:26 AM
To:	Lozano, Melba
Subject:	RE: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

Carthage.

Thanks,

Eric

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lozano, Melba
Sent:	Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:25 AM
To:	Bass, Eric
Subject:	FW: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

what do you want to call this product?

Let me know.

Thanks,

Melba
58986

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cass, Robert B.
Sent:	Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:30 AM
To:	Lozano, Melba
Subject:	FW: New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bass, Eric
Sent:	Wednesday, May  9, 2001 1:48 PM
To:	Cass, Robert B.
Cc:	Farmer, Daren J.
Subject:	New Carthage Phys Product for EOL

Hey Rob,

The Texas desk needs to create a new product that is similar to the Exxon Katy Phys product.  The product will be identical to the Exxon Katy product except for the location.

This product should be "for delivery at the tailgate of the Carthage Hub".

Please call with questions.

Thanks,

Eric
x3-0977


Let's just meet in the Enron Lobby.  Right around the escalators.

See ya at 11:30.
Robin


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	Meeting - PRC - CANNOT CANCEL

Date:		8/21/2000
Time:		4:30 PM - 5:30 PM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Outlook Migration Team

Detailed Description:


Attached please find a copy of volumes delivered to  Columbia Energy Services
for March 1 thru March 9, 2000.  I downloaded this directly from Michcon's
system  and the actual volumes Columbia received at each meter point is in
the ADJ NOM VOLUME column.  It is broken out in what was delivered in dth and
what was delivered in mcf.    I have also added a column to show the
difference between what was delivered in dth vs mcf.

We had numerous problems with nominations on Michcon's system for the dates
of 3/2 thru 3/7, however Tom Butzon with Michcon worked very hard to make
sure that all of our markets were kept whole.   After reviewing deliveries to
CES per Michcon's system this is the breakout per day:

   Per CES Request  Per Michcon  Difference
3/1/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/2/00   11,417    11,240   (177)
3/3/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/4/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/5/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/6/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/7/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/8/00   11,417    11,417   0
3/9/00   11,450    11,450   0

I spoke with Tom this afternoon regarding the cut on 3/2/00 and he cannot go
back and reallocate that point.    Regarding the increase for 3/8/00 it is
imperative that Donna calls us to let us know that she sent an email due to
the fact that we do not always have time to check email in time to get the
gas put in the position for the next day.  Also in the event that someone is
out and that person cannot check their email, a simple telephone call to the
scheduler would help tremendously.

Reqarding Doug's letter dated 3/7/00 regarding insufficient volumes at
acceptable points for the Michcon Select Program, it is my understanding that
a volume of 7,300 mcf is the requirement CES has to the Select Program.  On
the attached spreadsheet I have broken out the points Enron delivered gas to
CES on the acceptable points and we have met those requirements every day
with the exception of 3/8 and 3/9 where Enron shorted CES volumes at required
Map #'s by 272 mcf.  This was due to late changes we received by our
suppliers.   If CES did incur penalties on 3/1 thru 3/7 then CES needs to
look at how they are allocating each point since certain points are to be
delivered to the Select Program first.   When CES receives all their points
for the day they should first allocate the SELECT points to their SELECT
customers, the remaining points  can then be divided up between their other
non specific customers.   I apologize for the confusion but I believe we have
made a valiant effort to keep CES whole at the proper points as best we
could.

Should you have any questions, please call me at 713-853-9138.

Cora Pendergrass


Norma,

I am sending you preliminary rankings for my entire
group, based on the results of a meeting we held on Tuesday.
We have ranked Shalesh Ganjoo and Clayton, in case
it's still our responsibility.

Vince

Permanent goup members, manager and below:

Superior:

1. Martin Lin
2. Joe Hrgovcic
3. Tom Haliburton
4. Jose Marquez

Excellent

1. Paulo Issler
2. Robert Lee
3. Chonawee Supatgiat
4. Amitava Dhar
5. Alex Huang
6. Kevin Kindall
7. Praveen Mellacheruvu
8. Shanhe Green
9. Stephen Bennett

Strong

1. Lance Cunningham
2. Clayton Vernon
3. Youyi Feng
4. Yana Kristal
5. Sevil Yaman

Permanent goup members, directors:

Superior

1. Krishnarao Pinnamaneni

Excellent

1. Osman Sezgen
2. Tanya Tamarchenko
3. Zimin Lu

Satisfactory

1. Maureen Raymond

Associates, analysts

Superior

1. Shalesh Ganjoo
2. Gwyn Koepke

Excellent

1. Hector Campos
2. Kate Lucas
3. Sun Li
4. Roman Zadorozhny
5. Charles Weldon


Appeals court declines to order energy price caps

Updated: May 29, 2001 - 12:22 p.m.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court declined Tuesday to order federal
energy regulators to cap wholesale electricity prices.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
came hours before California Gov. Gray Davis was to urge President Bush in
Century City to cap wholesale power costs, which have been spiraling out of
control.

The panel, in a brief statement, said last week's appeal by state Senate
President John Burton and state Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg does not
warrant "intervention of this court."

The lawmakers, both Democrats, were joined by the city of Oakland in their
appeal to the 9th Circuit.

"The citizens of California are suffering immediate irreparable harm as a
result of FERC's abrogation of its duty to establish just and reasonable
rates for electricity," they wrote to the 9th Circuit, which has
jurisdiction over FERC.

The lawmakers said California's looming threat of continued blackouts "are
an imminent threat to the health, welfare and safety of every California
citizen."

The suit came after more than a year of wholesale power prices reaching
historically high levels. In December, prices in California reached $200 per
megawatt hour -- and they have skyrocketed to as much as $1,900 per megawatt
hour during peak times since then.

The Bush administration ardently opposes price caps and President Bush has
declined Davis' requests to urge FERC to impose strict caps.

Vice President Dick Cheney, chief architect of the administration's energy
plan, has said capping prices would not increase energy supplies or reduce
demand.

"We get politicians who want to go out and blame somebody and allege there
is some kind of conspiracy ... instead of dealing with the real issues,"
Cheney has said.

Cheney criticized Davis, a Democrat, for what he called a "harebrained
scheme" to use the state's budget surplus to buy power because California's
two largest utilities face enormous financial problems.

For the short term, the Bush administration has approved Davis' request to
expedite permits for new power plants and has ordered federal facilities in
California to reduce energy consumption 10 percent this summer.

Sacramento and the White House appear locked in a high-voltage war of
rhetoric over energy policies. There is broad bipartisan dissatisfaction in
Sacramento with Washington's response to California's energy crisis -- the
result of its own 1996 deregulation rules.

Last month FERC did order a one-year cap on electricity sold into California
during power emergencies, when power reserves fall below 7 1/2 percent. The
agency did not set a price and also required the state to join a regional
transmission organization, which could limit California's ability to control
its own power grid.

Davis called the plan a "Trojan horse," and state power regulators dismissed
the cap as inadequate, saying it would profit power generators at
ratepayers' expense.

In addition, Davis and state lawmakers sharply criticized FERC for
considering requiring the state's power grid operator to add a surcharge on
power sales to pay generators the money they are owed by the state's two
large financially strapped utilities.

The case is Burton v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 01-70812.

-- Associated Press

Richard Costigan, III
Chief of Staff
Office of the Assembly Republican Leader
California State Assembly
Phone:(916) 319-2005


Looks great!

gracias


580280 - Jeff had this in with Bloomberg. I changed it to Natsource.

Kate

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
04/12/2001 01:56 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: natsource

sell ees
may
25 mw
335.05
np15
on peak

missing this deal for jeff


Vicki, how much $$ are we talking about for the bankruptcy and the class
action suit? It does not seem inappropriate for us to share the bankruptcy
costs given the CTC issue.  I agree with you on the class action suit.  Lets
discuss further before we approach ENA.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 02/20/2001
07:43 PM ---------------------------
From: Vicki Sharp@EES on 02/20/2001 05:01 PM
To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: California bankruptcy expenses

I would like some guidance about  outside counsel fees related to the
California situation.  We ( EES and ENA) retained joint counsel in early
January. As you may recall, in January a substantial amount of work was done
with the attempted rescue effort by the US Department of Treasury, and the
managing down of the trading positions with PG&E's unregulated entity.

I would say that  EES and ENA have used this counsel relatively equally, and
it would not be inappropriate to split the bills on a  50/50 basis.  However,
there are two other issues that we should consider: (a) on an overall basis,
I would say that ENA will have more  issues  that will come out of the
bankruptcy, and (b) certainly, they will be easier able to absorb as  a
company  the increased legal expenses.

Please let me know whether we should go forward with the 50/50 arrangement or
whether we should adopt another approach.

One other fact:  We also have joint representation in the class action
lawsuits filed against the power marketers.  To date, no sharing  has been
agreed to, based on EES' position that in is improperly named in the lawsuit
(i.e., it is not a participant in the wholesale markets and did not  benefit
from the  volatility this summer).


<TITLE>Power Indices - IntercontentalExchange</TITLE>

IntercontinentalExchange

Firm Power Price Bulletin

For Power Delivered on Wednesday, November  21, 2001

(Trade Date of Tuesday, November  20, 2001)

Click here to access index history.

* volume represents sell-side only *

Hub
High
Low
Wtd Avg Index
Change ($)
Vol (Mwh)

Cinergy	         $22.50	         $18.75	         $20.89	-   2.59	          69,600

Comed	         $16.00	         $16.00	         $16.00	-   3.61	           1,600

Entergy	         $23.25	         $18.25	         $20.32	+   3.12	          21,600

Nepool	         $32.00	         $32.00	         $32.00	-   1.00	             800

Palo Verde	         $22.00	         $17.50	         $19.99	+   4.33	          16,800

PJM-West	         $25.60	         $25.05	         $25.46	+    .01	          73,600

SP-15	         $23.95	         $20.00	         $22.75	+   5.26	          28,800

TVA	         $21.75	         $18.00	         $20.33	-   1.42	          10,400

Includes all trades done from 6 AM to 11 AM Central Prevailing Time on the trade date specified for financially firm power delivered during the on-peak hours (6 AM - 10 PM CPT for Eastern hubs / 6 AM - 10 PM Pacific Prevailing Time for Western hubs) on the delivery date(s) specified.

IntercontinentalExchange is the world's most liquid trading platform for over-the-counter energy and metals.  Active markets include North American power and natural gas, global crude and refined oil products, and precious metals.  Traded instruments include forwards, swaps, and options.

In order to receive the proprietary information contained in this email, you acknowledge and agree that you shall not further disseminate the IntercontinentalExchange Market Data contained herein to any person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.    Furthermore, you acknowledge that (1) IntercontinentalExchange has exclusive and valuable property rights in this data; (2) IntercontinentalExchange's data is being made available to you only for your own business or personal activities; and (3) you cannot communicate the data, in any form, to any other person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.

This data is provided to you free of charge.  IntercontinentalExchange reserves the right to cancel this service at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

You agree that IntercontinentalExchange does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the data.

To become an Exchange Participant or inquire about the indices, please contact sales@intcx.com.

To unsubscribe from this service, click here unsubscribe.

©Copyright IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2001, All Rights Reserved.


FYI

----- Forwarded by Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 05/11/2001 09:30
AM -----

	"Roger Yang" <ryy@mrwassoc.com>
	05/10/2001 06:56 PM

		 To: Robert.Neustaedter@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Update on Securitization

Robert,

The following is an update of bond issues for California:

The SCE MOU would allow SCE to issue bonds to recover $2 billion in 15 year
bonds;
SB 1X 31 would allow DWR to issue bonds to recover $13.4 billion in purchases
for 2001; and
Under a similar ratemaking treatment and transmission purchase agreement in
the SCE MOU for PG&E, PG&E would need to issue $4 billion in bonds.

This would result in over $6 billion in bonds for PG&E and SCE
undercollections through January 31, 2001.

The $13.4 billion in bonds for DWR appears reasonable to the extent that the
FERC soft price caps recently approved by the FERC does not result in market
prices that exceed $300 per MWH and gas prices used to determine QF prices
average $7.4 per mmbtu.? Also, the reasonableness of the $13.4 billion is
also predicated on QFs generating their full capability under their QF
contracts.? These conditions do not appear to be materializing.? However,
conservation impacts and recently approved CPUC retail rate increases may
decrease demand to lower costs by lowering the overall net short for the
utilities.

In terms of other benchmarks for assessing the reasonableness of the $13.4
billion amount, the CPUC proposed decision in the rate design proceeding
cites that DWR expects to incur $9.2 billion for PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E through
June 2001.? If we extrapolate this number to $18.4 billion for all of 2001
and subtract out $3.3 billion for the rate increases for PG&E and SCE that is
expected for the remaining year, the result is $15.1 billion that would need
to be securitized.? However, SDG&E will also be contributing revenues to
reduce the net amount needed to be securitized.? Putting this all together,
demonstrates that the $13.4 billion could be a reasonable amount and any
additional shortfalls would need to be funded through the State's general
fund surplus.? The issue of using State surpluses in lieu of securitization
was an issue in the legislature that prevented Republican support for a
super-majority approval.? It looks at the end of the day, both securitization
and the use of the State's surplus will be needed to fund the revenue
shortfalls in 2001 and both Democrat and Republican solutions will eventually
be implemented.

Roger??


Dear Mr. Kester,

We are in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2001, regarding a
sponsorship opportunity at Energy West's Summer Energy Conference.  Upon
review, we have decided to decline participation.

We thank you for extending the invitation to Enron and send best wishes for a
successful conference.

Regards,
Sherri Sera
Assistant to Jeff Skilling
713.853.5984
713.646.8381 (fax)
sherri.sera@enron.com


To Everyone on the CPUC Web-Based Service List Proceeding No. I. 99-07-003
Showing an e-mail Address:

Attached are the materials filed today with the CPUC by this firm on behalf
of Calpine Corporation, less the Service List itself.  Please contact me if
you have any questions.

 <<CPUCCOVERLETTER073100a.doc>>  <<Gas Phase II Reply Brief.doc>>
<<CPUCPROOF073100.doc>>

Barbara L. Nielsen
Paralegal
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600
San Francisco, California  94111-3834
415-276-6553 direct
415-276-6599 facsimile
barbaranielsen@dwt.com

 - CPUCCOVERLETTER073100a.doc
 - Gas Phase II Reply Brief.doc
 - CPUCPROOF073100.doc


Today's IssueAlert Sponsors:

[IMAGE]

Looking for a billing engine to meet your company's complex billing needs?
Itron has the technology and industry knowledge it takes to deliver an
advanced and automated solution. Visit us at the CIS Conference to learn more
about the MV-PBS Billing and Financial Settlement System, the industry proven
solution for the critical needs of large revenue customer billing and
financial settlements.

www.itron.com
[IMAGE]

Are you looking to invest in, attract investors for, provide services to or
understand the business and technology dynamics of the hottest companies
emerging in the energy sector?   Attend the Energy Venture Fair, June 25 &
26, 2001, in Boston, MA and hear CEOs from 75 hot energy companies present
their business plans.  Complete event description available at
www.energyventurefair.comor call Nannette Mooney at (818) 888-4445, ext. 11.

[IMAGE]

"Global Power & Western U.S. Coal:  Domino Factors at Play in Today's Energy
Markets" is the theme of the 2001 Spring Pacific Coal Forum (Coal Forum'2001)
to be hosted by the Western Coal Council, June 4-6, 2001 in Park City, Utah.
Keynote Speakers include: Honorable Mike Leavitt, Governor, State of Utah;
Hitoshi Tagawa, Tokyo Electric Power Company; Eng. Jesus Buentello, Comision
Federal de Electricidad; Malcolm Thomas, Kennecott Energy Company; Manfred
Raschke, International Strategic Information Services (ISIS).
Contact Janet Gellici at (303) 431-1456 or info@westcoal.org
www.westerncoalcouncil.org.

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]
May 17, 2001

Presidents Bush (Former and Current) Speak on Energy Issues

By Will McNamara
Director, Electric Industry Analysis

[IMAGE]Introduced and sponsored by LODESTAR Corp.'s CEO Chris Hamilos,
President George Herbert Walker Bush delivered the keynote presentation this
morning at the 25th Annual CIS Conference being held in Albuquerque, N.M. The
41st president of the United States spoke mostly from a personal perspective
about the highlights of his illustrious business and political career, and
reiterated his strong support for his son, President George W. Bush, whom he
affectionately refers to as "43" (as in 43rd president).

The former President Bush made it clear that he is now enjoying his
retirement and avoids making public statements regarding political policy.
However, the former president did field questions from the audience regarding
a few energy issues and acknowledged the parallels between the issues he
faced in his administration, and those that are presently challenging his
son. Much of the buzz throughout the conference focused on the current
president's just-released energy task plan, a 165-page report that outlines
approximately 105 steps that the new administration will take to address
current energy problems.

Former President Bush recalled the Gulf War and how one of the key issues
during that time was ensuring energy supply from Saudi Arabia. The former
president acknowledged that he felt compelled to launch the battle against
Saddam Hussein, who threatened the energy supplies needed to serve the world.
Further, President Bush referred to the political challenges he faced in his
presidency, during which time a predominantly Democratic Congress "that saw
the big picture issues in a different light" often made it difficult to find
common ground.

The former president made only brief (but rather significant) references to
his son's new energy policy. Having talked with Vice President Dick Cheney
last evening, former President Bush said he was aware that the new,
broad-based plan focused heavily on new supply, along with secondary measures
for conservation efforts. This is an approach that the former president fully
supports as he noted that "if you want to lower energy prices, you need to
establish more supply." In addition, the former president offered that
additional drilling efforts, an element of the plan that has sparked a great
deal of controversy, "has to happen" if the nation is truly committed to
increasing supply. However, former President Bush did suggest that the nation
must be patient as it will take "several years" to see any significant
decrease in energy prices as economic forces must be allowed to support new
development efforts.

Meanwhile, the energy task plan released by the current President Bush this
morning holds few surprises but continues to spark a great deal of debate. As
expected, the administration supports efforts for increased drilling of oil
in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, easing of clean-air rules that
should support increased power plant production and streamlining the permit
process for oil refinery expansion and construction. These platforms have
been in place for months and form the foundation for the energy plan.

However, new elements of the plan that have emerged just within the last few
days are raising the most eyebrows. For instance, the extent to which nuclear
power factors into the administration's energy plan is perhaps greater than
was previously anticipated. Specifically, the Bush plan proposes the
extension of the life for aging nuclear plants and the use of so-called
"breeder reactors," which use spent nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors, although
rather common in Europe and Japan, have not been used in the United States
since the 1970s, when it was discovered that the reactors tend to produce
nuclear weapon-grade plutonium as a by-product.

Other key elements of the plan include:

Providing eminent domain authority to the federal government, which would
supersede states' rights to approve new transmission line capacity.
Expediting the license procedures for hydroelectric and geothermal plants.
Streamlining the approval process for power plant siting, and speeding up the
relicensing requirements for nuclear plants.
Drafting legislation to cap emissions of nitrogen oxide and mercury, which
are common by-products of coal-fired production. In turn, the Bush
administration supports exploring new clean-coal technologies, which should
increase production by coal-fired generating plants.
A further study of the current restrictions put into place by the Clean Air
Act, which presently limits the production at oil refineries and power
plants. The issue here is whether or not such restrictions should be lifted
or reduced so that additional oil and power production can be pursued.

As has been the case since the start of the new administration, the
continuing criticism of the new Bush plan is that it is overly specific and
strong on new supply efforts, while remaining vague and noncommittal to
conservation efforts. However, the specific conservation proposals in the
energy plan include providing consumers $4 billion in tax credits through
2007 to encourage the purchase of high-mileage, gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
In addition, President Bush has proposed providing tax benefits to
co-generation plants, which produce both heat and electricity. Others,
including the current president's father, might argue that conservation
efforts have received just the right amount of attention in the new plan as
market forces (high prices) already are driving renewed conservation across
the country.

Just as former President Bush faced a predominantly Democratic Congress that
often thwarted his policy measures, the current President Bush continues to
buck heads with Democrats in Washington who are crafting their own energy
plan. In fact, just two days ago, a group of House Democrats led by House
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Miss.) outlined a plan that calls for
increased oil drilling and building new pipelines to transport natural gas
(both of which run rather parallel to the Bush plan). However, Democrats have
focused more heavily on conservation efforts in their own plan, as
illustrated by a series of tax incentives to help consumers build energy
efficient homes and purchase hybrid gas and electric automobiles.
Consequently, the energy issues continue to sharply divide the two parties,
although in reality there may enough commonality among Republicans and
Democrats to support cooperation in Congress. That cooperation may be
necessary as Congress must approve President Bush's energy plan in order for
it to take effect.

TOMORROW: Summary of CIS Conference and analysis of key IT issues facing the
energy industry.

An archive list of previous IssueAlerts is available at
www.scientech.com

[IMAGE]
The most comprehensive, up-to-date map of the North American Power Systemby
RDI/FT Energy is now available from SCIENTECH.

Reach thousands of utility analysts and decision makers every day. Your
company can schedule a sponsorship of IssueAlert by contacting Nancy Spring
via e-mail or calling (505)244-7613. Advertising opportunities are also
available on our website.
SCIENTECH is pleased to provide you with your free,  daily IssueAlert. Let us
know if we can help you with  in-depth analyses or any other SCIENTECH
information  products. If you would like to refer a colleague to receive our
free,  daily IssueAlerts, please reply to this email and include  their full
name and email address or register directly on our site.

If you no longer wish to receive this daily email, send a message to
IssueAlert, and include the word "delete" in the subject line.
SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts(SM) are compiled based on the  independent analysis
of SCIENTECH consultants. The opinions expressed in  SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts
are not intended to predict financial performance  of companies discussed, or
to be the basis for investment decisions of any  kind. SCIENTECH's sole
purpose in publishing its IssueAlerts is to offer  an independent perspective
regarding the key events occurring in the  energy industry, based on its
long-standing reputation as an expert on  energy issues.

Copyright 2001. SCIENTECH, Inc. All rights  reserved.


Market Participants:

Attached please find the Agendas for the upcoming CMR Stakeholder Meetings,
being held August 16-18.

 <<Agenda August 162000.rtf>>  <<Agenda August 172000.rtf>>  <<Agenda August
182000.rtf>>

If you plan to attend these meetings, and would like to eat, please don't
forget to RSVP  to Colleen Grant via email or telephone. cgrant@caiso.com or
(916)608-7069.

Regards,

Byron Woertz
Director, Client Relations

 - Agenda August 162000.rtf
 - Agenda August 172000.rtf
 - Agenda August 182000.rtf


We have length again in NP (on-peak) for 04/24/01 and EES long/short in SDG1
to take care of as well.  There is 25 mws of ST-WBOM length at $266 in
NP-15...there is also 50 mws of ST-Cali length(50/50 over $266) in NP-15.
EES2 is alternatively long off-peak and short on-peak in SDG1.  Enpower deals
need to be made under the appropriate books in NP (buy from imbalance/sell to
?...) and with a $5 spread as normal for EES.  If you have questions, please
let me know.

Thank you,

Bill


Attached is an position for a development manager at Project GRAD.  This requires a dynamic person who can do it all.  The pay is high 40's to 50's depending on the person's experience.

Interested individuals should email resume to Pam Williford at pwilliford@projectgrad.org

Check out Project Grad at http://projectgrad.org.

I know that all of you are dynamic and associate with other dynamic people.  Check it out and forward this email to interested parties.

 - Development Manager.doc


Tomorrow, Grace begins her vacation to Hawaii (lucky gal!).  She will be out of the office for a little over a week.   During this time, I will also be out of the office for Assoc/Analyst recruiting for several days.  To insure that an HR resource will be available for you, Josie Jarnagin will be in our office for the next two weeks.

Josie worked with me at EBS as our HR Coordinator.  She is familiar with all of the Enron systems including payroll, SAP and Benefits.  Josie will be able to answer questions, problem-solve with you and help support our team.

Please drop by and say "Hello" to Josie.

Julie K
x7404


Te quiero tambien.


Charlene/Cindy/Charles:
Can either of you answer Darren's question to me below? My sales deal is under ENA.
Thanks,
Tess

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Farmer, Daren J.
Sent:	Thursday, April 26, 2001 3:20 PM
To:	Ray, Tess
Subject:	RE: FW: March 2001 Invoice

Tess,

We probably should be invoicing selling to Dow at IF.  However, we should also have purchased the supply from Spinnaker (#144271 & 144264) at IF.  Did Spinnaker bill us at Index or Gas Daily?  What did we pay?  Let me know this and we can proceed from there.  Nelson Ferris did these deals.  I will talk to him after I hear from you.

D

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ray, Tess
Sent:	Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:43 AM
To:	Farmer, Daren J.
Cc:	Meyers, Julie
Subject:	FW: FW: March 2001 Invoice
Importance:	High

Daren -
Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources, Inc.,  stated  on 4/24/01, re: ENA deal # SA 639615, that their 03/01 price for ENA  sales on CSGT @ B368-Brazos # 368 (i.e. cowtrap), is IF - $.06.  We are invoicing them at HSC GDP DA.  Need to know which price is correct and copy of confirmation.

Thanks,
Tess

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Meyers, Julie
Sent:	Tuesday, April 24, 2001 10:53 AM
To:	Ray, Tess
Cc:	Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ENRON; Bellamy, Liz
Subject:	Re: FW: March 2001 Invoice

Tess there is a deal out there for the blue dolphin S#745589.  And there are three deal out there for CSGT #639612, #639615, #745589.  The problem is that none of these deals have actuals.  It looks as though they have not been nom'd.

Daren are these deals real or what?  Why have they not been nom'd?  Could they be under another Dow company?

Tess, I'm leaving the office for a little bit today.  But I'll be back this afternoon.

Julie

From:	Tess Ray/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/24/2001 08:11 AM
To:	Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	FW: March 2001 Invoice

Julie -
Please help!  Per Dow Hydrocarbon's Accountant, Marilu Trochta's e-mail below, (with attachment), there are volume and price discrepancies with what  ENA billed them and what she reflects in her system. ENA Invoice # 24636SA invoiced Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources, Inc, on CSGT @ B368-Brazos, per deal number SA639615, @ 685 per day (3/1/01 - 3/31/01) @ HSC GDP D.A. - $0.07/mmbtu. Vs. the 18,457 mmbtu @ $4.960 that Dow has and ENA did not invoice them for sales on Bluedolphin 250 and 249 vs. the 5,459 mmbtu @ $4.960 & 18,218 mmbtu @ $4.960 that Dow reflects.  I realize that the volumes ENA billed on the Brazos are estimates or noms. Problem: I need to confirm the March 2001, sale @ Brazos (volume & price) in addition to the sale @ Blue Dolphin 250 & 249 (volume & price).  Can you print the confirmations for me? Also, Sitara does not show me who the trader is for this deal, and by chance do you know who the scheduler(s) are?
Thanks,
Tess

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Trochta, Mary (ML)" <MLTrochta@dow.com <<mailto:MLTrochta@dow.com>>>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Trochta+2C+20Mary+20+28ML+29+22+20+3CMLTrochta+40dow+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, April 23, 2001 5:52 PM
To:	Ray, Tess
Subject:	March 2001 Invoice

 - Book2.xls << File: Book2.xls >>


Many thanks. Trying to get Petro-Canada and Hunt Oil Canada to sign before
the deadline. Peter.


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 04/02/2001 06:55 PM -----

	Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com>
	04/02/2001 06:13 PM

		 To: Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@govadv.com>, Mike Day <MDay@GMSSR.com>, Bev
Hansen <bhansen@lhom.com>, Jeff Dasovich <jdasovic@enron.com>, Susan J Mara
<smara@enron.com>, Joseph Alamo <JAlamo@enron.com>, Paul Kaufman
<paul.kaufman@enron.com>, Michael McDonald <Michael.McDonald@enron.com>,
David Parquet <David.Parquet@enron.com>, Rick Johnson
<rick.johnson@enron.com>, Marcie Milner <mmilner@enron.com>, Sandra McCubbin
<Sandra.McCubbin@enron.com>, Tim Belden <Tim.Belden@enron.com>, Rick Shapiro
<rshapiro@enron.com>, Jim Steffes <james.d.steffes@enron.com>, Alan Comnes
<acomnes@enron.com>, Chris Calger <ccalger@enron.com>, Joe Hartsoe
<Joe.Hartsoe@enron.com>, Donna Fulton <Donna.Fulton@enron.com>, Steven Kean
<Steven.J.Kean@enron.com>, Karen Denne <kdenne@enron.com>, Beverly Aden
<beverly.aden@enron.com>, Bill Votaw <bill.votaw@enron.com>, Carol Moffett
<carol.moffett@enron.com>, Debora Whitehead <debora.whitehead@enron.com>,
Dennis Benevides <dennis.benevides@enron.com>, Don Black
<don.black@enron.com>, "dblack@enron.com" <dblack@enron.com>,
"emelvin@enron.com" <emelvin@enron.com>, "ehughes2@enron.com"
<ehughes2@enron.com>, "gweiss@enron.com" <gweiss@enron.com>,
"gsavage@enron.com" <gsavage@enron.com>, "Harry.Kingerski@enron.com"
<Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, "kgustafs@enron.com" <kgustafs@enron.com>, Mike
D Smith <msmith1@enron.com>, "sgahn@enron.com" <sgahn@enron.com>,
"vsharp@enron.com" <vsharp@enron.com>, "wcurry@enron.com" <wcurry@enron.com>,
"William.S.Bradford@enron.com" <William.S.Bradford@enron.com>, Leslie Lawner
<Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>, John Neslage <john.neslage@enron.com>, Ken Smith
<ken@kdscommunications.com>, Bob Frank <bfrank@enron.com>, Jennifer Thome
<Jennifer.Thome@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Priority Legislation

Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg has circulated the following list of
priority bills which he would like to pass out of the Assembly this
week:

SBX 5 (Sher) - This bill provides a total of $1, 039,500,000 from the
General Fund to implement energy efficiency programs and supplement
existing energy efficiency programs.

SBX 43 (Alpert) - This bill extends the SDG&E rate freeze to users over
100kw.

ABX 29 (Kehoe) - This bill This bill creates a variety of new programs
relating to energy
efficiency and distributed generation.

SBX 6 (Burton) - This bill creates the California Consumer Power and
Conservation Financing Authority (CPCFA), (2) authorizes the issuance of
bonds up to $5 billion, and (3) specifies that the CPCFA shall not
undertake any new projects after January 1, 2007.

SBX 28 (Sher)   This bill contains a series of provisions intended to
accommodate increased construction and operation of power plants.  The
bill also provides a 10-year waiver of standby charges for specified
distributed generation (DG) installations.


Pick a first and second choice:  Feb. 8, 14 or 15.

From: Jeff Dasovich on 01/23/2001 03:56 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan
Scott/ET&S/Enron
cc:

Subject: Re: Response to ORA/TURN petition

Leslie:  Jeff and Susan might be able to help with the pipeline charges.
Susan:  I'm not ignoring you.  Of course I'll come.  Give me a call and let's
figure out a date for me to address your illustrious group.  Jeff:  How's
married life treating you.  Leslie:  Sorry for all the extraneous babbling.

Best,
Jeff

	Leslie Lawner
	01/23/2001 03:20 PM

		 To: mday@gmssr.com
		 cc: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Frank Ermis/HOU/ECT@ECT,
James Shirley/HOU/EES@EES, Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES,
Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 Subject: Response to ORA/TURN petition

Mike - Here is the situation.  Between ENA and EES, we sell gas to core and
non-core customers, and also have gas in storage as well as in the park and
lend service.  I think we can be sympathetic to the ORA argument that the
diversion tariff penalties did not anticipate OFOs and EFOs in situations
such as we face here (shortages due to credit problems rather than lack of
supply).  Assessing extreme penalties, as the OFO/EFOs would do, on users who
are not perfectly imbalance under this situation certainly seems unfair.
However, I think we should argue that limiting the payments to
shippers/customers whose gas is diverted to serve core customers to a market
index may not fully compensate for the diversion.  The pay back specifically
does not include interstate pipeline charges, and there may be other costs as
well to the marketer/customer who had supplies taken away.

I need an estimate of the cost to make this filing and follow it up for the
RCR process, and I would also like any feedback anyone has on what our
position should be in this matter.  The response is due Friday.


Dear Jason -

I'm sure that Mr. Lay would love to do this, but his travel schedule is such
now that it is very difficult.  Would you be interested in meeting with
someone from Enron Energy Services?

Rosalee

"Jason Hoelscher" <j_hoelscher@hotmail.com> on 04/03/2001 02:41:59 PM
To: kenneth.lay@enron.com
cc:
Subject: University of Houston

Dear Mr. Lay,

We value our partnership with Enron. It is our objective to provide value
and solution to your business issues. Our purpose is to take 15-20 minutes
of your time to share with you more about the University of Houston,s
Program for Excellence in Selling.  At our meeting, our objective is to do
the following:

? Thank you for your support.
? Get your opinion on how to improve the program.
? Inform you of the Program for Excellence in Selling, and how it can
benefit your company.
? Present a brief description about our upcoming event.

Since you are a successful University of Houston Alumni member we would love
the opportunity to meet with you.  In the past, these appointments have
proven to be mutually beneficial.

Mr. Lay, our team and our professor are looking forward to meeting with you.
  Our team will call you on April 5 to arrange for a convenient time and
date.

Thank you,
Jason Hoelscher
Michelle Schaper
Patrick Bilnoski

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Steve Thome can be contacted in Houston at (713) 853-5786. His office is
located in EB 3115.


Yahoo! News	Edit Breaking News Alerts - Yahoo!

	Breaking News Alert	 edit
BRUSSELS, Belgium _ European Commission announces opening of diplomatic
relations with North Korea

	 [IMAGE]
	[IMAGE]

If you no longer wish to receive this alert, click here to unsubscribe.
If you have questions, send us feedback.

Copyright , 1994-2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Yahoo Privacy Policy


looks good

	Meredith Philipp
	10/13/2000 09:30 AM

		 To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joseph W
Sutton/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc: Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Pam
Benson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: i2 Bandwidth Management Agreement Press Release

Attached is a draft news release announcing Enron's bandwidth management
agreement with i2.  EBS is planning to issue this release on Monday, Oct. 16
prior to Enron's earnings release on Tuesday, Oct. 17.  Please review and let
me know if you have any comments by end of day today, Friday, Oct. 13.

Thank you.

Meredith Philipp


I am faxing you separately three pages from Don Ray George, reflecting
calculations that I asked him to do concerning each individual plaintiff's
damages shown by the Rhodes study.  Specifically, Don Ray, with Marianne's
help:  (i) tried to determine the specific wells in which each individual
plaintiff had an interest; (ii) located, from Rhodes' study, the 2-page
sheets for each of those wells; (iii) added up all the over- and undertake
"values" (dollar amounts) shown for that well in the Rhodes study; and (iv)
applied plaintiffs' percentage interest to that amount.  He then added up the
individual well amounts for each plaintiff, to arrive at that plaintiff's
"actual damages per Rhodes."

The purpose of this exercise was to make a rough cut determination as to
which plaintiffs will be claiming the most damages, and therefore, to help us
decide which method of choosing ten representative plaintiffs would most
benefit us.

In doing so, we gave plaintiffs the benefit of the Rhodes Study's
methodology, with two exceptions:  (1)  for a given plaintiff, Rhodes added
up only the undertaken "values," disregarding entirely and thus failing to
offset overtaken "values;" in the scenarios on p. 1 and p. 2, we credited a
given plaintiff's overtaken values against that plaintiff's undertaken
amount;  (2)  Rhodes also added an "interest" calculation" to his numbers; we
did not use his interest calculations at all, because they are totally wrong
under the law.

But of course, Rhodes' methodology is totally flawed in numerous other
respects as well -- so much so, in our opinion, that it is utterly defective
-- and furthermore, plaintiffs have now indicated they want to rerun numbers
using different (Intratex) data.  This is just our best effort to get our
arms around some numbers at this stage based on plaintiffs' theories, with no
consideration of most of our defenses as to each individual plaintiff and to
all plaintiffs in general.

Page 1 shows the results for each individual plaintiff, crediting overtakes
against undertakes.  DISREGARD the $27 million total; that is the total only
if net overtakes from all of the overtaken plaintiffs combined are credited
against net undertakes from all of the undertaken plaintiffs combined.  At
least as of this stage, since we are not seeking contribution from overtaken
plaintiffs, that number is not valid even under our current theories.  (It
may become valid at some point, but for now, let's disregard it entirely).

Page 2 shows the cumulative total for all plaintiffs with damages, when
offsets are not considered.  The total is: $50,528,850.

Page 3 shows the cumulative total for all plaintiffs, when overtake values
are NOT taken into account.  The total is: $66,402,761.

A few observations about these numbers:

1.  First, many plaintiffs -- approximately half -- have no damages at all
under the Rhodes methodology, when undertaken values are taken into account.

2.  If my hurried calculations are right, of the $50 million shown on page 2,
$45 million represents the damages of only 8 plaintiffs (nos. 1-8).

3.  There are significant individualized defenses with respect to these
plaintiffs.  It appears at this stage that Southwest Royalties is another
Beeson -- i.e., that it acquired its interests in the wells after the 1978-88
time period at issue.  We do not yet know that SW Royalties acquired the
right to sue on the contracts.  With respect to Eclipse (Beeson's company),
we're pretty sure it did not.  American Trading and Production (ATAPCO) had
Panhandle gas, and litigated its "fraud" claim re: Panhandle; thus, all
damages as of the time of the Panhandle agreements (1985) are plainly
barred.  Almost all of Staley's damages would be foreclosed by a settlement
he entered into in 1987 (I think that's the date).  We know Joe O'Neill
deliberately underproduced a lot of the time.  Those are just a few examples
from my memory, all of which underscore that these numbers are inflated.

4.  Of course, at trial -- since the court has not certified, and they are
entitled to prove up individualized types of damages -- plaintiffs could try
for damages over and above those shown by the Rhodes study, such as
"reservoir damages" for certain individual plaintiffs, etc.  So these are not
a ceiling, necessarily.

5.  Again, using the Rhodes study as a basis is very iffy to begin with,
since plaintiffs have indicated they're going to redo their ratability
analysis using Intratex numbers -- which may yield entirely different results
-- and the Rhodes study's methodology is utterly wrong.  But at least it
gives us a rough basis with which to work at this stage of the game.


Shirely,

Please, send the bio.

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/13/2000
05:19 PM ---------------------------

"Vicky Windsor" <vicki@risk.co.uk> on 04/13/2000 01:00:18 PM
Please respond to "Vicky Windsor" <vicki@risk.co.uk>
To: <vkamins@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Maths course

Dear Vince,
?
I just wondered whether you have had chance to  look at your bullet points
and bio for the maths course. If so please could  could email them to me as
soon as possible. Could you also let me know whether  your company
affiliation should now be Enron North America.
?
Thanks Vince and best regards,
?
Vicky


---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 08/30/2000 08:47
AM ---------------------------

Lloyd Will@ECT
08/29/2000 08:07 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: VEPCO contact list

lloyd will
713-853-3383
3101ka
lloyd.will@enron.com
713-806-6294

	From:  Kay Mann @ ENRON                           08/29/2000 09:01 AM

To: Reagan Rorschach/NA/Enron@Enron, John Moore/Corp/Enron@Enron, Christi L
Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri Austin/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
nwodka@bracepatt.com, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Larry Soderquist/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Matthew F Gockerman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Herron/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mitch
Robinson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Gautam Gupta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian
Kerrigan/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Ozzie Pagan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Heather Kroll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey
Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Herman Manis/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: VEPCO contact list

I'm going to have an updated contact list prepared.  Please email me with
your telephone, location, email address, and cell phone number, if desired.

Please let me know who should be added to this list.

If you are receiving this vis a cc, I have your information.

Thanks,

Kay


pls print for my Tues. am mtg in Houston.  thanks df
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 05/14/2000
10:02 AM ---------------------------

Gail Tholen@ECT
05/12/2000 01:24 PM
To: John Allario/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Paul Bieniawski/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jin Guo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Garry D
Wilson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Davis Thames/HOU/ECT@ECT, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON,
Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roger Ondreko/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Enron Gas Storage Deal Structure Working Notes for LRC

I just wanted to clarify a few points mentioned in this diagram:

1.  The reason that gain recognition may be precluded under the equity sell
down if Enron maintains a guarantee is because guarantees are considered
"continuing involvement" under FAS 66 : Sale of Real Estate.  We would
essentially own an interest in an asset which is considered real estate (per
accounting rules). By maintaining a guarantee, Enron has not given up all of
the risks and rewards of ownership and therefore true sale treatment would be
precluded.

2.  The lease versus executory contract  debate is centered around the nature
of the offtake agreement coupled with our involvement in the project.
Involvement that requires us to take operational risk coupled with taking
capacity leans toward a lease.  However, each deal is different and there
isn't a bright line test for determining lease vs. executory; although, it
certainly looks better if our offtake is minimal.  As well, LD language
should not only be present but should be significant or market based.  In
addition, the contract should not mention the storage facility, only that
capacity will be provided.  Determining whether we are in a lease versus and
executory contract is based on a preponderance of the evidence (more facts
pointing toward executory contract versus lease).

3.  In the General Notes section, you mention the Trust being funded by all
debt and contribution to the project being considered equity.  I'm unsure
where this conclusion was reached.  This is not something I believe we fully
discussed.  Whether of not it can be funded by all debt is something I will
have to digest and get back to you about.   How much money is coming in
through the investment trust?  From the diagram is looks like Enron ownership
would be 30% instead of 12% if that piece is considered debt.  30% ownership
does not necessarily lead to consolidation of Project Co. LLC.

4.  Two more items of interest that we did not discuss are our Affiliate
Rules and FAS 98 Sale Leaseback.  Under our affiliate rules, if the capacity
contract is deemed an executory contract and qualifies for MTM Accounting, we
can only mark the portion of the contract we do not own.  So long as we
maintain a 12% interest, we could probably only MTM 88% of the contract.
However, there is debate in this area depending on our level of "control".
Affiliate rules normally cover greater than 20% ownership investments unless
we exert significant influence.  I believe we will be in control of the
structure.  This will require more discussion later.

-FAS 98 Sale Leaseback is not a good place to be but is something to keep in
mind.  However, we can be proactive and work toward keeping ourselves out
lease land and structure this as and executory contract.

Per my request, please allow me sometime to digest this structure and consult
with my colleagues.  I will be in touch.

	From:  John Allario                           05/11/2000 06:54 PM

To: Paul Bieniawski/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jin Guo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Garry D
Wilson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Gail Tholen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Davis Thames/HOU/ECT@ECT, Drew Fossom, Steve Van
Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Enron Gas Storage Deal Structure Working Notes for LRC

Team

I have summarized in the margins of our DRAFT deal structure the "high level"
issues that Gail Tholen, Jin and I discussed on Thursday.   These are
preliminary guidelines and as our deal evolves and our partner's desires
change, we will have to potentially address completely different accounting,
regulatory and tax issues.     We hope to touch on some of the issues that
this structure may raise from a Regulatory perspective with Drew Fossom when
we meet next Tuesday at 10:00AM.

Please comment and advise as you see fit.

Thanks

-John


---------------------- Forwarded by Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT on
09/27/99 03:06 PM ---------------------------

"Richard H. Bernero" <richard.bernero@rhinere.com> on 09/22/99 06:35:01 PM
To: Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd:Phoenix AZ//Rhine Re(Bermuda)confirm 00003.01.01]

2nd try

Rgds

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <37E938EA.D7121E01@rhinere.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:15:39 -0400
From: "Richard H. Bernero" <richard.bernero@rhinere.com>
Organization: Rhine Re Financial Ltd.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark.Taylor1@enron.com
CC: Shari.Stack@enron.com, Julie Perron <j.perron@rhinere.bm>
Subject: [Fwd:Phoenix AZ//Rhine Re(Bermuda)confirm 00003.01.01
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------045A27362C8B147FA5DE4466"

Mark,

I spoke with Lynda Clemmons today at the NY roadshow, and understand
that in Shari Stack's absence that you are the best one to follow up in
ref: draft confirmation sent to Shari a few weeks ago.

See attached final draft, in case you do not have it readily available.

I will be out of the office Friday 9/24, but will otherwise be available
to discuss.  PLease review the attached, and if it makes sense, perhaps
we can schedule a call to discuss and wrap things up.

Rgds

Richard H. Bernero
VP & Treasurer
Rhine Re Financial Ltd.
(p) 212-454-1893
(f) 212-454-5916
email: richard.bernero@rhinere.com

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <37D594A3.FA2F5D0@rhinere.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:41:39 -0400
From: "Richard H. Bernero" <richard.bernero@rhinere.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sstack@ect.enron.com
CC: George Judd <george.p.judd@db.com>
Subject: Final comments - draft confirmation for the Phoenix deal
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4B4F4BBA192D7D583B306096"

See attached for your review, which has been approved/reviewed by George
Judd as well.  Other than meetings tomorrow (Wed)  morning, I will be
reachable so we can wrap this matter up.  Perhaps we can touch based in
the p.m., so we can discuss the nature of the changes from our end.  Let
me know what works for you.

Rgds

 - Cn030101.doc


---------------------- Forwarded by Joe Quenet/NA/Enron on 11/22/2000 10:12
AM ---------------------------

"Stephanie Blackman" <sblackman@futuresource.com> on 11/22/2000 09:54:55 AM
To: <Joe.Quenet@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Re: Fw: Mistress

NOT A PROBLEM!  WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN SOMETIME!!  HAVE A HAPPY TURKEY DAY!

STEPHIE
----- Original Message -----
From: <Joe.Quenet@enron.com>
To: Stephanie Blackman <sblackman@futuresource.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Mistress

>
> good one...................
>
>
>   thanks again for the cocktails last night ,   have a good
> thanksgiving........
>
>
>   Joe

what  am I supposed to read into this.......I checked the distribution list
on her e-mail....I thought I was special except it went out to 65 guys in
this business.....anyway, can you send me that e-mail on bush and gore.....


Hi Anita,

 How are you?  I arrived yesterday late morning from the London Gatwick
airport.  Due to rush hour traffic, etc. it took a while to get into the city
to the hotel.

 Also, due to May Day (May 1st) protests/riots, etc., the hotel management
strongly recommended that we remain in the hotel.

 However, I am in the office today.  I can be reached via email or via
telephone at 44 (0) 207 783 5647.

Take care,
Iris

 -----Original Message-----
From:  DuPont, Anita
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 5:23 PM
To: mmumford@enron.com
Cc: Mack, Iris; Crenshaw, Shirley
Subject: I. M. Mack 30Apr-15May **Plse Review for Accuracy**   AGENT CE/CE
BOOKING REF X7W882    MACK/IRIS EB 1972 ENRON CORP
Importance: High

See Iris's itinerary below.  I thought her initial plan was to land this
morning and come in to Enron House in early afternoon.  See itinerary for
phone number of hotel.  Let me know if I can help in any
other way.  Thanks.  Anita

SERVICE                 DATE    FROM             TO               DEPART
ARRIVE

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES    30 APR   HOUSTON TX       LONDON GATWICK  350P
655A
CO 34      J           MON     G.BUSH IAH  GATWICK                   01 MAY
                               TERMINAL DOM     TERMINAL S
DINNER/SNACK                  NON STOP
 RESERVATION CONFIRMED         9:05 DURATION
VEGETARIAN MEAL, NON-DAIRY CONFIRMED
AIRCRAFT: BOEING 777-200/300

HOTEL               30 APR  ATHENAEUM HOTEL AND APARTMENTS
                       11 MAY  116 PICCADILLY
                              LONDON ENGLAND, W1V 0BJ
                              UNITED KINGDOM
                              TELEPHONE: 44-(0)-207-499-3464
                              FAX: 44-(0)-207-493-1860
                              CONFIRMATION: CLAIRE25APR
                                              RATE: RAC GBP 270.00 PER NIGHT
                              GUARANTEE GIVEN
                              PREREG ACTUAL ARR 1MAY 655AM APARTMENT
                 TO AVOID BILLING CANCEL BY 6PM 24HRS PRIOR

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES   11 MAY   LONDON GATWICK  HOUSTON TX       1200N
415P
CO 5       J           FRI     GATWICK          G.BUSH iah
                               TERMINAL S       TERMINAL DOM
 LUNCH/SNACK                   NON STOP
RESERVATION CONFIRMED         10:15 DURATION
  VEGETARIAN MEAL, NON-DAIRY CONFIRMED
                  AIRCRAFT: BOEING 777-200/300


The attached is a monthy table w/ a summary of line pressures and production.
Take a look and see if this is what you need.
Notice the sheet called "Summary by month and average", especially the last
few columns with averages calculated.

Remember, most of the Entrada Production went off-line beginning in 1998,
with final production in August 99.
Call me @ 3-1888 if we need to discuss.
Arvel


This awesome picture was taken in Bitteroot National Forest in Montana on
August 6, 2000.  The photographer, John McColgan, is a fire behavior analyst
from Fairbanks, Alaska.  He took the picture with a digital camera.  Because
he was working at the time he took the picture he cannot profit from it;
however, we feel the picture is a once-in-a-lifetime shot and should be
shared.

 - MontanaFire.jpg