Alright guys, here is the final version, try it in your P&L today.  Thanks.
PL

---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT on 02/26/2001
10:23 AM ---------------------------

	Gregory A Mausser
	02/26/2001 09:32 AM

To: Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FINAL PHYSICAL TEMPLATE FOR FEBRUARY 2001

Phillip,  Not sure why you did not receive last Thursday.  Can your group
bring the template into the P&L by end of day?

GM
---------------------- Forwarded by Gregory A Mausser/HOU/ECT on 02/26/2001
09:29 AM ---------------------------

	Gregory A Mausser
	02/22/2001 10:54 AM

To: Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kam
Keiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrick Ryder/NA/Enron@Enron,
Kevin P Radous/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: John Valdes/HOU/ECT@ECT, James Hungerford/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: FINAL PHYSICAL TEMPLATE FOR FEBRUARY 2001

Here is the final version of the template to be used in February 2001
+Regions, P&L.  Please re-link cells pulling information from other tabs
within your file (i.e. Third Party Sales, Third Party Purchases, CPR Fuels,
CPR Imbalance, CPR Cash Out, CPR Pipeline Exchange, and CPR Storage).

Keep in mind that if you have multiple physical tabs in your P&L each must be
replaced with the template.  Also, if your region has multiple physical tabs
under a single P&L, they should be rolled into one total physical tab named
"physical".

In future months, I will send each of you a revised template inclusive of all
CPR desk names and CPR couterparty names by the end of each month.  Please
copy future templates to your file to ensure consistency across all regions.

Thank you all for your patience and cooperation while we implement this
process improvement.  Please let me know how I can help.

Regards,
Greg (37299)


Hey,

I haven't heard from you.  Have you bought your Padre tickets?

Mat


Here are the days I have discrepancies with PG&E.  Please let me know which
numbers are good.  Thanks

Thu
3-7159

 Day PG&E HPL
 12-05 145833 120000
 12-10 60000 35000
 12-11 70000 80000
 12-17 3125 3100
 12-21 50000 70000
 12-22 0 20000
 12-25 0 30000
 12-26 0 30000
 12-27 31375 63000


Start Date: 4/7/01; HourAhead hour: 22;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001040722.txt


Rain,

Please sign me up for the class on Fri. (8/11).  Thanks,

Fletch

---------------------- Forwarded by Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT on 08/01/2000
09:28 PM ---------------------------

Jeffrey T Hodge
07/27/2000 10:46 AM
Sent by: Jenny Helton
To: Alonzo Williams/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea Ring/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrew H
Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrew R Conner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ashton
Soniat/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Bhavna Pandya/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill
Berkeland/Corp/Enron@Enron, Bill Rust/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bob Crane/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Brad McKay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian O'Rourke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce
Hebert/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron, Chad
Starnes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Charles H Otto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Charlie
Jewell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Gaskill/Corp/Enron@Enron, Chris
Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Lenartowicz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Clint
Dean/Corp/Enron@Enron, Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Corry
Bentley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Craig Breslau/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cyril Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan
Junek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel Reck/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Darren Delage/HOU/ECT@ECT, David J Vitrella/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Ryan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Zaccour/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dean Laurent/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Diana Allen/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Dick Jenkins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Don
Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Douglas Miller/ECF/Enron@ENRON, Douglas
SMITH/ENRON@Gateway, Ed Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Elsa Piekielniak/Corp/Enron@Enron, Eric Saibi/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Erik
Serio/Corp/Enron@Enron, Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank
Ermis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fred Lagrasta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gary Hickerson/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Geoff Storey/HOU/ECT@ECT, George Hopley/HOU/ECT@ect, George
McClellan/HOU/ECT@ECT, George N Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, George
Wood/Corp/Enron@Enron, Gerald Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg
Trefz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg Woulfe/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Gretchen Lotz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, James E
Terrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jane M Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janelle Scheuer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jared
Kaiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason Choate/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jason
Crawford/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jay Reitmeyer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jay
Wills/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff King/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Kinneman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer
Fraser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer Shipos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe
Errigo/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joe Parks/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe
Stepenovitch/Corp/Enron@Enron, John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Berger/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Craig Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, John D Suarez/HOU/ECT@ECT,
John Grass/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John Greene/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Kinser/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Llodra/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John M
Singer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John Zufferli/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Zurita/HOU/EES@EES,
Juan Hernandez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kate
Fraser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kayne Coulter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Keith
Comeaux/Corp/Enron@Enron, Keith Holst/HOU/ECT@ect, Keller
Mayeaux/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kelli Stevens/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin
Cline/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin
McGowan/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kyle Schultz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Larry
Jester/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Larry May/Corp/Enron@Enron, Larry
Valderrama/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura Podurgiel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lawrence
Clayton/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lisa Burnett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lisa
Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lucy Ortiz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Madhup
Kumar/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Madhur Dayal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marc Bir/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Maria Valdes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Anthony Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Dana
Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Smith/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Symms/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Martin Cuilla/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matt Lorenz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew
Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew Goering/HOU/ECT@ECT, Maureen Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Michael W Bradley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michelle D Cisneros/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike
Carson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mike Curry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike
Fowler/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike
Maggi/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mitch Robinson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Nelson
Ferries/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Patrice L Mims/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrick
Hanse/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Pizzolato/HOU/ECT@ECT, Per Sekse/NY/ECT@ECT, Peter F
Keavey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pushkar Shahi/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Hrabal/HOU/ECT@ect, Robert
Benson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Robin Barbe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rogers Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect,
Ronald Acevedo/LON/ECT@ECT, Sandra F Brawner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott
Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Hendrickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott
Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Olinde/Corp/Enron@Enron, Steven Kleege/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Steven P South/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan W Pereira/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan
Wood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sylvia S Pollan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sylvia S Pollan/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Tammi DePaolis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Terri Clynes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Theresa
Branney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Todd DeCook/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tom Donohoe/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Tom Dutta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom May/Corp/Enron@Enron, Tom Mcquade/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Troy Black/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Wayne
Herndon/Corp/Enron@ENRON, William Patrick Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT, William
Stuart/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark
Frevert/NA/Enron@Enron, David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J
Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Antitrust Training Update

Attached is a memo detailing Antitrust Training.


Attached are the BGE filings at the US District Court in Baltimore.  They are
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, both of which were summarily
rejected by Judge Matsch in Denver, who is treating CSU's claim as an APA
review. They are also making virtually identical legal claims as CSU - their
central claim is that they have the exclusive right to operate electric and
gas systems inside Fort Meade. BGE has also brought in the issue of state
jurisdiction over other entities such as EFSI:  they cite an opinion letter
from the General Counsel of the MD PSC as an "official decision"  - which it
is not.  In any case, Randy Rich and I had  subsequent meeting with GC
regarding that letter in which she "clarified" her position in various
respects contrary to BGE's claims.  But I see that aspect of BGE's complaint
as favorable from our standpoint - the District Court can rule on this issue
instead of the state courts.  Vicki/Andrew, please let me know how you want
to proceed.  I have a few ideas that we could discuss with whomever handles
the case as outside counsel.    -Bob 3-3180
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Frank/NA/Enron on 09/01/2000 08:46
AM ---------------------------

"Randall Rich" <rrich@bracepatt.com> on 09/01/2000 08:34:47 AM
To: <rfrank@enron.com>
cc: "Albert Krachman" <akrachman@bracepatt.com>, "Charles McNeish"
<cmcneish@bracepatt.com>

Subject: Fwd: FW: Fort Meade Privatization

The BGE peititon is attached.
Received: from mcafee.bracepatt.com by bracepatt.com; Fri, 01 Sep 2000
08:27:05 -0500
Received: FROM smtp1.bge.com BY mcafee.bracepatt.com ; Fri Sep 01 08:28:46
2000 -0500
X-Proxy: keymaster.bracepatt.com protected
Received: from ex-ge-r01.ge.cec (unverified) by smtp1.bge.com (Content
Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <T011405c44e61c71924@smtp1.bge.com>
for <rrich@bracepatt.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:18:07 -0400
Received: by smtp2.bge.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id
<R97K9V2L>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:25:26 -0400
Message-ID: <82D020D6E0D8D311BD830004AC4CF564010F4B66@ex-ge-m05.ge.cec>
From: "Gahagan, Daniel P" <Daniel.P.Gahagan@bge.com>
Sender: "Hertsgaard, Heidi L" <Heidi.L.Hertsgaard@bge.com>
To: "'rrich@bracepatt.com'" <rrich@bracepatt.com>
Subject: FW: Fort Meade Privatization
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:25:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C01418.12A70440"

* BGE-Army Cover letter to Clerk.doc
> * BGE-Army Complaint.doc
> * BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.doc
> * BGE-Army Memorandum Table of Contents.doc
> * BGE-Army Motion for Preliminary Injunction.doc
> * BGE-Army Declaration of M. Bay.doc
>
> I have also attached the GAO decision.
>
>  <<BGE-Army  Cover letter to Clerk.DOC>>  <<BGE-Army Complaint.DOC>>
> <<BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.DOC>>  <<BGE-Army
> Memorandum Table of Contents Authorities.DOC>>  <<BGE-Army Motion for
> Preliminary Injunction.DOC>>  <<BGE-Army  Declaration of M. Bay.DOC>>
> <<GAO Decision Case No 285209 080200.pdf>>
>
> Please forward these documents to Susan Miller.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Monika

 - BGE-Army  Cover letter to Clerk.DOC
 - BGE-Army Complaint.DOC
 - BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.DOC
 - BGE-Army Memorandum Table of Contents Authorities.DOC
 - BGE-Army Motion for Preliminary Injunction.DOC
 - BGE-Army  Declaration of M. Bay.DOC
 - GAO Decision Case No 285209 080200.pdf


Louis,

The brother of the kids downstairs is renovating a house in the Heights and
needs an electrician to rewire or do a new fuse box or something.  Do you
think that your electrician would want to give them a bid on the job, or do
you have someone else to recommend?  They hired someone, who has in effect,
taken their money and run, and their house sits, unable to proceed on the
rest of the renovation work, until they can get the electric work done.

Thanks.


1st day of cong meeting


Tana:

Attached is a marked version of the FLAG/Enron, which changes FLAG has
agreed.  Please produce a clean version of the attached, put it on Enron
letterhead and provide to me so that I may arrange to have it signed by an
appropriate officer of ENW.

Please call if you have any further questions or comments.

Thank you,

Peter Feltman

Peter Feltman
Director
Enron Net Works
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: 713-345-4482
Cellular: 713-594-4009
Facsimile: 713-646-8583
E-Mail: peter.feltman@enron.com


Dear Jeff:
Thank you very much for your feedback.  I will try to facilitate future
discussions and keep the class on track.  Some of the discussion we had
yesterday are not quite closly relate to the course material (such as
valuation of internet stocks), but I decided to spend some time talking
about that just to enhance students' understanding regarding application of
the model.
I don't think I received the e-mail from your girlfriend.  Please ask her
to send it to me again today.  I will pass it on to the grader.
Regards,

At 10:56 AM 10/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>professor zhang:
>
>first, as i mentioned during the break, i apologize for having forgot to
>bring my homework to class, but my girlfriend (who coincidentally is in the
>day program) should have e-mailed it to you on my behalf during class last
>evening, which i hope meets the deadline.  if not, i understand.  and if,
>for some reason, you have not received it, please let me know.  (in
>addition, i apologize for having mis-labeled the homework as
>"macroeconomics."  i do know the difference between financial accounting
>and macro, so don't be alarmed.)  i assure you that such mix-ups will not
>happen again.
>
>second, since i'm writing, i thought i would take the opportunity to offer
>a very minor piece of feedback.
>
>first, let me say i'm very much enjoying the course, and from my
>perspective, it is fine that you choose to distribute the notes for a class
>after the class has taken place.  with that in mind, i think we as a class
>would benefit if you were a bit more "aggressive" in facilitating class
>discussion.  it is a fascinating group of individuals with very interesting
>questions and points of view.  and i have already benefited immensely from
>my association with my classmates.  but you happen to be fairly interesting
>as well, and some times the discussion can wander or go on for some time,
>which takes away from your instruction.  finally, some of us have many
>questions, while others have fewer.  striking a balance between the two is
>clearly a challenge, but attempts to do so may have some benefits.
>
>again, i think the course is going very well and this is a minor piece of
>feedback.
>
>best,
>jeff
>
Xiao-Jun Zhang
Assistant Professor
U.C. Berkeley, Haas School of Business
545 Student Services Building, #1900
Berkeley, CA  94720-1900
Tel: (510) 642-4789,  Fax: (510) 642-4700
E-Mail: xzhang@haas.berkeley.edu


CALENDAR ENTRY:	INVITATION

Description:
	Operational Risk Forum 30C2

Date:		8/6/2001
Time:		11:30 AM - 1:00 PM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Stacey W White

Detailed Description:


If you have not logged onto the PEP system to designate reviewers, or
approve reviewers for those in your organization, please do so today.

 The deadline for completing performance evaluation information is November
17.  The performance review process is critical to year-end evaluations and
bonus, promotion and compensation decisions. This year, as in previous review
periods, the system enables "360 degree" feedback throughout the organization.

 Please take some time today to get the process started.


October electric supply needs are:
1.	10/1 to 10/10-25mw
2.	10/10 to 10/31-40mw

Patrick R. Clevenger
Materials & Services Manager
PO Box 4707
Missoula  MT   59806
406-626-4819

	 -----Original Message-----
	From: 	Clevenger, Patrick
	Sent:	Monday, August 27, 2001 11:18 AM
	To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
	Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com'; 'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com';
'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com'; 'Audrey.Cook@enron.com';
'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
	Subject:	RE:  September Schedule for Smurfit-Stone

	Please continue at 25mw until 9/17.  On 9/17 at 6AM MST please
increase to 32mw.

	Patrick R. Clevenger
	Materials & Services Manager
	PO Box 4707
	Missoula  MT   59806
	406-626-4819

		 -----Original Message-----
		From: 	Clevenger, Patrick
		Sent:	Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:02 AM
		To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
		Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com';
'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com'; 'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com';
'Audrey.Cook@enron.com'; 'Valarie.Sabo@enron.com'; 'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
		Subject:	RE:  August Schedule for Smurfit-Stone

		August schedule is for 25mw beginning 8/1 through 8/31.

		Patrick R. Clevenger
		Materials & Services Manager
		PO Box 4707
		Missoula  MT   59806
		406-626-4819

			 -----Original Message-----
			From: 	Clevenger, Patrick
			Sent:	Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:53 AM
			To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
			Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com';
'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com'; 'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com';
'Audrey.Cook@enron.com'; 'Valarie.Sabo@enron.com'; 'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
			Subject:	RE: June Schedule for Smurfit-Stone

			July schedule is for 27mw from 0100 7/1 to 2400
7/31.  John: Please confirm the buyback price for 3mw.

			Patrick R. Clevenger
			Materials & Services Manager
			PO Box 4707
			Missoula  MT   59806
			406-626-4819

				 -----Original Message-----
				From: 	Clevenger, Patrick
				Sent:	Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:48 PM
				To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
				Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com';
'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com'; 'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com';
'Audrey.Cook@enron.com'; 'Valarie.Sabo@enron.com'; 'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
				Subject:	RE:June Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				June schedule will be for 20mw starting 6/1
through 6/30.  John:  Please call me with confirmation of buy-back price of
the 5mw.  I am assuming $225.

				Patrick R. Clevenger
				Materials & Services Manager
				PO Box 4707
				Missoula  MT   59806
				406-626-4819

				 -----Original Message-----
				From: 	Clevenger, Patrick
				Sent:	Monday, April 23, 2001 2:40 PM
				To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
				Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com';
'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com'; 'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com';
'Audrey.Cook@enron.com'; 'Valarie.Sabo@enron.com'; 'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
				Subject:	RE: May Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				May schedule will be 25mw all month.
				Patrick Clevenger
				Material & Services Manager
				PO Box 4707
				Missoula, Mt. 59806-4707
				Fax 406-626-4805

				-----Original Message-----
				From:	Clevenger, Patrick
				Sent:	Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:19 PM
				To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
				Cc:	'Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com';
'Diana.Scholtes@enron.com'; 'Caroline.Emmert@enron.com';
'Audrey.Cook@enron.com'; 'Valarie.Sabo@enron.com'; 'Sean.Crandall@enron.com'
				Subject:	RE:April Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				It was announced today that our mill will go
to one machine indefinitely starting 4/1.  April schedule needs to be 25mw
beginning 4/1, midnight MST.  Let me know if you have any questions.
				Patrick Clevenger
				Material & Services Manager
				PO Box 4707
				Missoula, Mt. 59806-4707
				Fax 406-626-4805

				-----Original Message-----
				From:	Clevenger, Patrick
				Sent:	Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:17 AM
				To:	'John.Malowney@enron.com'
				Cc:	Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com;
Diana.Scholtes@enron.com; Caroline.Emmert@enron.com; Audrey.Cook@enron.com;
Valarie.Sabo@enron.com; Sean.Crandall@enron.com
				Subject:	RE: March Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				April schedule is to continue at 29mw, as we
have been since 3/21.
				Patrick Clevenger
				Material & Services Manager
				PO Box 4707
				Missoula, Mt. 59806-4707
				Fax 406-626-4805

				-----Original Message-----
				From:	John.Malowney@enron.com
[SMTP:John.Malowney@enron.com]
				Sent:	Monday, February 26, 2001 3:33 PM
				To:	Clevenger, Patrick
				Cc:	John.Malowney@enron.com;
PCLEVENGER@SMURFIT.COM; Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com; Diana.Scholtes@enron.com;
Caroline.Emmert@enron.com; Audrey.Cook@enron.com; Valarie.Sabo@enron.com;
Sean.Crandall@enron.com
				Subject:	RE: March Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				Pat, thanks for getting back to us.... we'll
schedule 31 MWs for the month
				of March.  Thanks,  John

				 (Embedded     Enron Capital & Trade
Resources Corp.
				 image moved

				 to file:      From:  "Clevenger, Patrick"

				 pic06902.pcx) <PCLEVENGER@SMURFIT.COM>

				               02/26/2001 01:43 PM

				To:   John.Malowney@enron.com, "Clevenger,
Patrick"
				      <PCLEVENGER@SMURFIT.COM>
				cc:   Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com,
Diana.Scholtes@enron.com,
				      Caroline.Emmert@enron.com,
Audrey.Cook@enron.com,
				      Valarie.Sabo@enron.com,
Sean.Crandall@enron.com
				Subject:  RE: March Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone

				I am in agreement with your resolution for
the shortfall from 8mw.  March
				schedule needs to be 31mw beginning March
1st for all of March.

				     -----Original Message-----
				     From:     John.Malowney@enron.com
[SMTP:John.Malowney@enron.com]
				     Sent:     Monday, February 26, 2001
12:24 PM
				     To:  Clevenger, Patrick
				     Cc:  Mike.Swerzbin@enron.com;
Diana.Scholtes@enron.com;
				Caroline.Emmert@enron.com;
Audrey.Cook@enron.com; Valarie.Sabo@enron.com;
				Sean.Crandall@enron.com
				     Subject:  RE: March Schedule for
Smurfit-Stone
				     Importance:    High

				     Pat, this is to confirm our earlier
discussions regarding reduced MWh
				     consumption.

				     The present situation that is not
subject to change is 25 MW "flat" @
				MPC @
				     $54.65/MWh terminating 8/31/05.

				     The other "leg" is a minimum of 8 MW
"flat" @ MPC @ Mid-C Index plus
				(+)
				     $.25/MWh terminating 9/30/02.

				     Out of the 8 MW minimum obligation, the
EPMI Trader has agreed to
				reduce
				     and financially settle on a
pre-schedule basis any "un-wanted" excess
				     energy at a cost to Smurfit-Stone of
$2.50/MWh for the desired time
				period.

				     Using your request of scheduling a
total of 31 MWs for the month of
				March,
				     25 MW would be priced at $54.65/MWh, 6
MWs would be consumed and
				priced at
				     the MC Index plus (+) $.25/MWh, the
remaining 2 MWs would not be
				scheduled
				     and or consumed, but would be
financilly settled at a cost to
				Smurfit-Stone
				     of $2.50/MWh times the total MWhrs. for
the month of March.  (2MWs x
				$2.50
				     x 744 hours =$3,720).

				     Please confirm your March nomination at
your earliest convenience and
				let
				     me know if you have any questions and
or concerns.

				        Thanks,  John

				 << File: pic06902.pcx >>


Certainly understand the tradition you have with OU/Texas and it would be
hard. I imagine David is starting to feel a little cocky, given we should be
undefeated going into Texas, but he may still need to seek the shelter of
the study, as I know Texas is not going to roll over and play dead.

Sounds like Meagan has a full agenda this Fall and a trip to Norman would
only get in the way. I'm sure David will not let the fire die, if she is
truly interested in OU. FYI, OU's Spring Break is March 17-25 next year. So
you can plan accordingly. Let me know if you decide when you decide to come
up and I can get you lined up with Prospective Student Services for a tour.
Also, I remember you telling me about your concerns about grades. I know
that OU requires a 24 on the ACT, or finish in the top 1/3 of your
graduating class. It is my understanding that will soon be increasing to 26
or top 30% of graduating class. Looks like OU is following UT on tightening
entrance requirements.

I can get you shirts caps, sweatshirts, etc. for OU, UT and Tech. You can go
to Bigtimesports.com and look at the styles. I think they are also in the
school colors. If you see a style you like, let me know the size shape and
school and I can order it. If some of it is for you, let me know, as they
have different styles for women. Also, I can have logo's etc. reduced (like
I did on your Bevo on your shirt) so they are not so big. I always have them
reduce the OU from 1 3/4" to a
1 1/4" size, so I don't look like a "poster boy" for OU. Anyway, let me know
and I will order them for you.

Let me know when you hear back from Lexi about your discussion relative to
summer internship recruiting.

Ted K. Jacobs
Director of Energy Management
The University of Oklahoma
307 West Brooks, Room 218
Norman, OK  73019-4007
(405)325-0758
Fax (405)325-2096
E-mail: tjacobs@ou.edu
Website: www.ou.edu/business/em

-----Original Message-----
From: Sally.Beck@enron.com [mailto:Sally.Beck@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:23 PM
To: Jacobs, Ted K
Subject: RE: Oklahoma Trip

Thanks for looking into the OU/Texas tickets for us.  With the ages of the
kids, I think that we will pass on those single tickets.  The kids love our
home tradition for the game, and weren't sure that they wanted to give that
up. (I have cake pans in the shape of the state of Texas and the state of
Oklahoma - one daugther decorates one, and the other decorates the second
cake - add some bean dip and chips and it's our own version of a tailgate
party!)

We were hoping to bring Meagan up to look at OU this fall, with our eye on
that last game of the season. However, Klein High School has started the
football season very strongly, winning all games to date.  That means that
we may be headed for high school playoffs again this year.  Meagan is on
the drill team and must be at all games.  Last year, we played right up to
Thanksgiving in the playoffs.  So, we have decided to pick a weekend in the
spring after drill team contest season is over to make that trip with
Meagan.

We are interested in caps, shirts, etc. for UT, OU and Texas Tech.  Do you
have a list of what is available for those schools?

"Jacobs, Ted K" <tjacobs@ou.edu> on 09/23/2000 03:07:11 PM

To:   "'Sally.Beck@enron.com'" <Sally.Beck@enron.com>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Oklahoma Trip

Thanks for the nice words. I hope Enron will be able to look at some
students for summer internships, as I am sure they will be gone by Spring.

As far as Texas tickets go, I can come up with 5 singles, but not 5
together
or even 3 and 2. Let me know if interested and I will try to get them.
Might
be able to trade up or something.

Let me know what other schools you are talking about and I can find out for
you.

Again, thank you for taking time out your schedule to come up and be a part
of the OU recruiting effort. It has been your support and efforts that we
have to thank for Enron coming to OU. Keep me posted on what you work out
with HR with regards to summer interns.

"Hook Em"

Ted K. Jacobs
Director of Energy Management
The University of Oklahoma
307 West Brooks, Room 218
Norman, OK  73019-4007
(405)325-0758
Fax (405)325-2096
E-mail: tjacobs@ou.edu
Website: www.ou.edu/business/em

-----Original Message-----
From: Sally.Beck@enron.com [mailto:Sally.Beck@enron.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:30 PM
To: Jacobs, Ted K
Subject: Oklahoma Trip

It was good to see you in Norman earlier this week.  As always, I
appreciated your attendance at the presentation and at Coach's afterwards.
I am sure that it is rewarding for you to see former students such as Jody
and Nate participating on the other side of the recruiting table.  You have
done a great job in changing and promoting the program.

I am pushing Lexi to resolve the question around interview dates for summer
interns ASAP.  I have also left Mike McConnell a message to make him aware
of the issue.  I should be able to get back with you next week, hopefully
with a change in our strategy!

If you do become aware of five OU /Texas tickets, please let me know.  We
will certainly purchase them, I just made the assumption that all tickets
may already be sold.

On another note, David has worn his OU shirt to work and has gotten lots of
compliments.  He has a number of people that have asked him about school
shirts, caps, etc.  Do you have a list of the schools that you can get
merchandise for and the types of merchandise that you can get?  Let me know
-- we can probably place a few orders through you!


where are you with your family?  i went to vegas and lost money.  watch out
for that  hurricane.  if it strenthens think of me b/c i will be happy b/c
that will mean that gas prices increase.  we will go out and party when you
get back.


The information contained herein is based on sources that we believe to be
reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete.  Nothing
contained herein should be considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation
of an offer to buy any financial instruments discussed herein.  Any
opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.  As such, they
may differ in material respects from those of, or expressed or published by
on behalf of Carr Futures or its officers, directors, employees or
affiliates.  ? 2001 Carr Futures

The charts are now available on the web by clicking on the hot link(s)
contained in this email. If for any reason you are unable to receive the
charts via the web, please contact me via email and I will email the charts
to you as attachments.

Distillate     http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/hoil63.pdf
Unleaded     http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/unlded63.pdf


Here is the latest and greatest ER for Red Rock Expansion.  I am
overnighting a hard copy to Bret's attention. Let me know if anyone has any
questions.

Terry.

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

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

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

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

 - Red Rock Expansion ER.doc


Just wanted to make sure everyone had a copy of the agendas for the ISO's
Congestion meetings this week.  Let me know if you have any questions

Katie Kaplan
Manager of Policy
Independent Energy Producers Association
(916) 448-9499
kaplan@iepa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Woertz, Byron [mailto:BWoertz@caiso.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 6:13 PM
To: ISO Market Participants
Cc: TEIF Web-Webmaster
Subject: CAISO Notice - CMR Stakeholder Meeting Agendas - September 26-27

ISO Market Participants:

Attached are draft agendas for the Comprehensive Market Redesign (CMR)
stakeholder meetings on September 26-27.  These agendas will also be posted
at http://www.caiso.com/clientserv/congestionreform.html.

 <<Agenda 000926.rtf>>  <<Agenda 000927.rtf>>

Byron Woertz
Director, Client Relations

 - Agenda 000926.rtf
 - Agenda 000927.rtf


Enjoy!


need to chk w/Tribolet, but does 9:30 AM CDT on Monday work for you?  jeff


Dave

I'm thinking of hiring Kim Hillis.

I would like your opinion.

Lavo

713-853-7991


That's fine.  Did you talk to Scott?
--
Angelica Paez <ampaez@earthlink.net>
From: John.Griffith@enron.com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:06:02 -0600
To: ampaez@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: pick up
How about 6:45, tomorrow is settlement (bid week) is that okay?  let me
know.
Love you
The pigs
   -----Original Message-----
  From:   Angelica Paez <ampaez@earthlink.net>@ENRON
  Sent:   Monday, November 26, 2001 3:56 PM
  To:     Griffith, John
  Subject:  pick up
  Hi piggy.  What time do you want me to pick you up?  Love you and hope
  your
  belly is ok.
  --
  Angelica Paez <ampaez@earthlink.net>
**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************


Christine -- Here's a brief answer to your questions.

With regard to segmentation, Order 637 is completely silent with regard to
rates to be charged for segmented capacity, so we would have considerable
leeway here.  The order is also silent with respect to the effective
restriction of segmented capacity by making discounts inapplicable to certain
alternate (or primary) points.  Hopefully TW will be able to avoid the
segmentation issue altogether by invoking the Global Settlement, as we plan
to do in our rehearing request and compliance filing.  (Our Global Settlement
argument is that we should be able to rely on tariff provisions, including
our current restriction on changing primary points, that were implemented to
mitigate the effects of turnback on TW).

On hourly service, I believe that we could put an hourly service into place
on TW without  running afoul of the Peak and Off-Peak Rates (i.e., seasonal
rates) provisions of the order.  In other words, I think the Commission would
see them as two separate kinds of service.

As for how to communicate with our customers, I believe Regulatory has
offered to have a meeting with TW customers in early April to make a
presentation on Order 637 and provide a forum for discussion.  I realize the
order becomes effective March 27; however, compliance filings are not due
until May 1, and some requirements do not even become effective until
September 1.  Before the beginning of April, the GPG pipelines will simply
not have their positions fully formed enough to make a very well-organized
presentation to persons outside the company.  The meeting is still in the
planning stages and I will fill you in on details as they are available.  In
the meantime, if your customers have questions, I'll be happy to help answer
them.

Christine Stokes
03/02/2000 10:32 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Jeffery
Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lorraine Lindberg, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON,
TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: 637 Summary Items

Thanks Susan for the 637 summary.  Here are a couple of items that I need
additional clarification on:

1)  Segmentation -  You summarized " Pipelines must allow segmentation to the
extend operationally feasible and cannot hide behind current tariff
provisions ...  "    Does this mean, for example, an Ignacio to California
contract (i.e. 40,000 Dth/d at a $.20 total path rate) could be segmented by
the shipper such that on any single day they could nom 40 MM/d from Ignacio
to El Paso Blanco as well as 40 MM/d from Blanco to California?  If they
could, would the $.20 apply to each segment such that we could bill them 80
MM/d ($.20) for the time period that they flowed on a segmented basis or
would they only pay the $.20 applied to the contract's 40 MM/d MDQ?
Another scenario would be if the shipper is allowed to flow based on this
segmented basis, but unless the discount letter providing the $.20
specifically provides for a negotiated segmented transport rate the shipper
will be billed MAX rate for some or both of the segmentated paths (?) if
these paths are not already provided as "alternate" receipt or delivery
paths?

2)  Peak & OFF-Peak Rates. - You summarized " The policy does not apply to
long-term shippers with contracts for 12 or more consective months of
service."

 TW will eventually file for hourly rates, however, the parties most
interested in this service will be marketers serving a generation station, or
the generation station's own gas supply manager/purchaser.  Most likely these
contracts WILL BE of a longer term nature than month to month or even
seasonal.  I need to reconcile your summarized comment to what we will expect
from the marketplace.

Thanks for your feedback.  Since 637 is effective March 27th, I am eager to
be able to speak intelligently to my customers regarding some of these more
critical issues.  Thanks.


Kate Prebon shows $114.95 as the price and we show $214.95

   Kate Symes @ ECT                12/04/2000 12:31 PM

To: Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Missing deal for Jeff Richter for Dec.1

This is actually deal #471975, which I just fixed because Jeff forgot to put
the broker name in there. It is with Prebon.

Thanks,
Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
12/04/2000 10:18 AM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Missing deal for Jeff Richter for Dec.1

JEff Richter
Prebon sent over a statement where:
Enron buys from EES 12/5-12/30 25 mw of SP-15 at $114.95


NETWORK WORLD FUSION FOCUS: PHIL HOCHMUTH
on LINUX
Today's focus: Will Linux be a hit or miss on the corporate desktop?
03/15/00

Dear Wincenty Kaminski,

Today's focus: Will Linux be a hit or miss
on the corporate desktop?
---------------------------------------------
By Phil Hochmuth

So far this year, the buzz about Linux in enterprise networks has
focused on servers and embedded systems, with the growth of Linux
severs being most heralded. According to IDC, a research firm based in
Framingham, Mass., Linux was the fastest-growing server operating
system last year, with a 93% growth rate over the year before. Linux
was the second most-shipped operating system in 1999 after Windows NT,
capturing 24% of new licenses shipped.

As for the embedded market, Linux has emerged as an ideal platform for
network appliances, because the system can be modified to handle
specialized, dedicated tasks very well. Companies such as Cobalt
Networks, Picazo and Progressive Systems have announced Linux-based
appliances, ranging from Web servers to PBXs to firewalls.

But what of the open source hacker,s dream of &Linux on every desktop?8

Sure, Linux on the desktop has become more accessible than ever, with
colorful, shrink-wrapped boxes of Caldera, Red Hat and Corel Linux now
available at places like CompUSA. However, analysts have said that
Linux,s growth in the enterprise will be limited to the macro and micro
areas of network servers and embedded operating systems.

According to IDC, Linux currently runs on only 4% of U.S. desktops. The
hold Microsoft Windows has on the desktop market will remain strong,
analysts say, despite such factors as Microsoft,s antitrust problems
and the surging popularity of Linux.

Even some Linux executives are skeptical of their product,s desktop
future. Recently, SuSE CEO Roland Dyroff downplayed Linux,s future on
desktops. Dyroff said, &given the lack of applications available, we
really can't claim it as being competitive on the desktop yet.8

A recent survey by Survey.com gives more hope for Linux desktops.
According to the survey of 1,640 enterprise network managers, open
source operating systems are used on 10% of desktops, with the number
jumping to a surprising 23% of enterprise desktops by 2002.

Despite the mix of numbers being thrown around, two important factors
that will determine the success of Linux as an enterprise client
desktop are: a standardized, easy-to-use graphical user interface (GUI)
and available applications.

One company that is working to make Linux more user friendly is Palo
Alto-based Eazel, which is designing a next-generation file management
system and user interface to run on top of the Linux kernel. According
to Eazel,s Web site, the company,s goal is to bring Linux to the masses
and &do it in a way that appeals to today's Linux users and to mere
mortals.8

The company was founded by a group of former Apple executives, and is
allied with the Gnome project, which has been doing extensive Linux
desktop environment development for several years. Eazel is due to have
a product out by the middle of this year. With an intuitive, icon-based
file management environment, Eazel is hoping its user interface will be
an improvement over the two current Linux GUIs, Gnome and KDE, and will
help standardized the look and feel of Linux for &regular8 users. For
enterprise mangers who have already embraced Linux on the server side,
this development will be worth keeping an eye on.

On the applications side, several office productivity suites have been
available for some time, such as Sun,s StarOffice suite and KOffice for
the KDE desktop. Corel has also ported its office products, such as
WordPerfect, over to Linux to complement its own distribution of the
operating system. While there have been recent rumors (started by Linux
Care Vice President Arthur Tyde) that Microsoft is working on a port of
MS Office to Linux, Microsoft officials deny this.

While Linux may never supplant Windows as the industry-standard desktop,
there should be plenty of opportunity for Linux PCs in enterprise nets
in the future.

To contact Phil Hochmuth:
-------------------------
Phil Hochmuth is a writer and researcher for Network World, and a former
systems integrator. You can reach him at mailto:phochmut@nww.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOR RELATED LINKS -- Click here for Network World's home page:
http://www.nwfusion.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Staroffice Software from Sun
http://www.sun.com/staroffice

Corel Linux OS
http://www.corel.com/freedom/freedom.htm

Eazel
http://www.eazel.com

GNOME -- the GNU Network Object Model Environment
http://www.gnome.org

KOffice -- the integrated office suite for KDE, the K Desktop
Environment
http://koffice.kde.org/

Cobalt Networks, Inc.
http://www.cobaltnetworks.com

Progressive Systems
http://www.progressive-systems.com

Picazo
http://www.picazo.com

Other Linux-related articles from Network World:

Active Directory upgrade requires strong game plan,  Network World,
03/13/00
http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2000/89629_03-13-2000.html

*********************************************************
Subscription Services

To subscribe or unsubscribe to any Network World e-mail newsletters,
go to:
http://www.nwwsubscribe.com/news/scripts/notprinteditnews.asp

To change your email address, go to:
http://www.nwwsubscribe.com/news/scripts/changeemail.asp

Subscription questions? Contact Customer Service by replying to this
message.

Other Questions/Comments

Have editorial comments? Write Jeff Caruso, Newsletter Editor, at:
mailto:jcaruso@nww.com

For advertising information, write Jamie Kalbach, Account Executive,
at: mailto:jkalbach@nww.com

Network World Fusion is part of IDG.net, the IDG Online Network.
IT All Starts Here:
http://www.idg.com

Copyright Network World, Inc., 2000


The next time the man starts bringing your work group down, just try this.
 <<realbored.mpe>>

 - realbored.mpe


Don't know how I missed this.  Must have put it in my Midway file without
looking.

Thanks,

Kay

From: Ben Jacoby/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/06/2001 01:24 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: FW: Draft LOI

Kay:

Here's another copy...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacoby, Ben
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:49 AM
To: "Douglas Turner" <dcturner@tecoenergy.com>@ENRON; Mitro, Fred
Cc: Michael Carlson; Becky Alex; Mitro, Fred; Mann, Kay
Subject: RE: Draft LOI

Attached are clean and marked versions of our comments to the LOI. We should
have the referenced Tolling Agreement term sheet to you by Wednesday.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience when you will be prepared to
discuss our comments. Thanks much.

Regards,

Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: "Douglas Turner" <dcturner@tecoenergy.com>@ENRON
Sent: Thu 5/24/2001 2:40 PM
To: Jacoby, Ben; Mitro, Fred
Cc: Michael Carlson; Becky Alex
Subject: Draft LOI

Gentlemen,

At the request of Becky Alex, attached for your review is a draft of a Letter
of Intent relating to the Midway project located in Central Florida.   Please
respond with questions or comments to Becky at 813-228-1107.

Cordially,
Doug Turner

 - Enron LOI.v1.522.doc <<Enron LOI.v1.522.doc>>


Can you lend whatever assistance you, or Louise can provide, in getting me
assistance from Mike Neves on adding the Contract Database for EnronOnline.
His boss's name is Scott Cleverly.


Vince/Tanya:

I interviewed Charles today 10:30 AM. Here are my impressions:

 1) Excellent professional and managerial experience.
 2) Very good technical background.
  Deal Valuation and
  Model Implementation
 3) Promisses to fit very well into the group's culture.

The only issues I see is that he would have to leave a high level position at
his current employee.

Paulo Issler


FYI, a Master Firm Purchase/Sale Agreement for Crosstex Energy Services, Ltd.
is fully executed as of May 10, 2000, and routed  to Contract Administration
for  handling.

DP


PennFuture's E-cubed is a commentary biweekly email  publication concerning
the current themes and trends in the energy market.

July 16, 2001
Vol. 3, No. 13

Market Lessons from 2000

School's still out for summer, but just as the new and improved  Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a watershed RTO decision last
week which could lead to substantial expansion of PJM into the Northeast, PJM,
s  State of the Market Report 2000 contains some interesting information and
lessons for us.

After the California experience demonized spot electricity  markets, it would
surprise many that PJM,s 2000 spot energy market was a  bargain. Spot prices
in 2000 were below $30.00 per megawatt-hour (MWh), or three  cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), 70.88 percent of the hours in the year. The  single
highest hourly price was $810 per MWh or 81 cents per kWh, but prices
reached or exceeded $200 per MWh during only 13 hours in the entire year
(download charts on our website by typing
www.pennfuture.org/items/hourlypricecharts_71601.pdf in your browser). By
contrast, California experienced spot  prices that often exceeded $200 per
MWh for most of the last 12 months.

Authored by the PJM Market Monitoring Unit * but likely reviewed  and edited
by top PJM management * the Report delivered to FERC concludes that  all of
the markets operated by PJM were "reasonably competitive." It cautions,
however, that,

"there are potential threats to competition in the energy,  capacity and
regulation markets that require ongoing scrutiny and in some cases  may
require action in order to maintain competition. Market participants do
possess some ability to exercise market power under certain conditions in
PJM  markets."

In order to maintain and improve the functioning of the PJM  markets, the
Report recommends:

Retention of the $1000/MWh bid cap in the PJM energy market  and
investigation of other rule changes to reduce incentives to exercise  market
power.

Retention of the $100/mw bid cap in the PJM regulation market.

Evaluation of additional actions to increase demand-side  responsiveness to
price in both energy and capacity markets.

Modification of incentives in the capacity market to require  all Load
Serving Entities (LSEs) to meet their obligations to serve load on a
longer-term basis, and require all capacity resources to be offered on a
comparable longer-term basis.

The Report uses several analytical methods to reach these  recommendations
and conclusions, including looking at the net revenue for  generation from
all sources, the increase in bid amount over marginal cost,  market
concentration (as measured using the HHI index), and lastly an analysis  of
the resulting prices.

See Spot go to market
Perhaps the Report,s most intriguing  information on price trends concerns
the spot energy market, where average  prices declined by 9.81 percent from
1999 levels. Driven by lower peak prices in  the most expensive 100 hours of
the year, the average locational marginal price  (LMP) in 2000 was $30.72 per
MWh (3.072 cents per kWh), falling from the 1999  average of $34.06 per MWh
(3.406 cents per kWh). This average price decline in  the spot market was
more significant because it occurred even though fuel costs  were sharply
higher in 2000. Indeed, the average fuel-adjusted LMP in 2000  declined to
$24.78 per MWh, or 27.25 percent from the 1999 price of $34.06 per  MWh.

And when one compares 2000 spot market prices to competitive  future prices
for the year 2000 and to 1996 regulated rates for generation, it  becomes
clear that spot market prices in 2000 were significantly lower than 2000
future contracts. Even with appropriate price adjustments to facilitate
comparison, they were also much lower than 1996 regulated residential
generation  rates for all hours charged by Pennsylvania,s six major electric
utilities,  which ranged from about $51 dollars to $85 dollars per MWh, or
5.1 to 8.5 cents  per kWh.

The lesson
Spot market prices, which received so much bad  publicity as a result of the
California fiasco, can be a bargain and customers  who are able to manage
their demand to reduce or avoid the hours of high spot  prices can reap major
savings by purchasing electricity from the spot  market.

In fact, spot market prices in 2000 were below most of  Pennsylvania,s
shopping credits or "prices to compare." That's saying something,  since the
shopping credits in turn are as much as 4.0 cents per kWh less than  the 1996
regulated rate for just generation paid by customers to the monopoly
utilities.

But(
Since spot market prices in 2000 were well below both  the 1996 generation
rate paid to monopolies and the much lower shopping credits,  why were energy
suppliers increasingly unable to offer electricity at prices  below the
shopping credits?

ICAP pricing and reliance by electricity suppliers on higher  priced future
or forward market contracts supply most of the answer.

The spot market gives a good indication of what the forward  markets should
be under typical circumstances. As the data below indicate, the  average spot
market price for all market locations in 2000 was $30.72/MWh,  almost 10
percent less than during 1999, and more than 27 percent lower upon  adjusting
for higher year 2000 fuel prices.

			PJM Load-Weighted Average LMP ($/MWh)

	1999

		2000

			Change

Average LMP

	34.06

		30.72

			-9.81%

Median LMP

	19.02

		20.51

			7.83%

Standard Deviation

	91.49

		28.38

			-68.98%

?

	?

		?

			?

Average Fuel Adjusted LMP

	34.06

		24.78

			-27.25%

Median Fuel Adjusted LMP

	19.02

		16.80

			-11.67%

Standard Deviation

	91.49

		22.04

			-75.91%

While the dramatically lower standard deviation in 2000 indicates  that
prices were much less volatile than in 1999, there remained a substantial
gap between average and median prices, indicating that extreme prices during
a  small number of hours continued to substantially skew overall average
prices.

Grading on a curve
The PJM 2000 price duration curves,  measuring the percent of time prices
were at or below a particular level, tell  an interesting story. As one would
expect with higher fuel prices, especially  for natural gas, the general
trend was for prices to be slightly higher during  periods where natural gas
was the marginal fuel. For approximately 99 percent of  all hours, 2000
energy prices were more expensive than in 1999. Yet, with  relatively low
peak demand, the price for the most expensive 1 percent of demand  during
2000 was considerably lower in 2000 than in 1999, accounting for the  entire
9.81 percent average reduction in 2000 prices from 1999. If not  for the
reduced prices for the most expensive 1 percent of demand, overall  prices
for 2000 likely would have risen approximately 18 percent over 1999, due
largely to higher fuel costs.

For these reasons, the Report recommendation to "evaluate"  additional
actions to increase demand-side responsiveness is SEVERELY  understated. PJM
and all consumers have an essential interest in implementing  demand-side
response programs to the maximum economic level, with dramatic  implications
for saving individual consumers money, improving system  reliability, keeping
market prices lower for everyone, and improving market  competitiveness.

Can everyone say I-C-A-P?
So with the lower wholesale  energy prices and plenty of supply, why did the
retail market sputter?

Installed capacity (ICAP) price increases are a partial  explanation. In
addition to energy, the controversial charge for ICAP is the  other
significant cost born by electricity consumers within PJM. ICAP represents  a
call option on physical generation resources by PJM during system
emergencies.  All LSEs are required to purchase an amount of installed
capacity equivalent to  their customer,s peak load contribution plus an
adequate reserve margin,  currently 19 percent. But although it exists for
reliability purposes, PJM  curtailed the export of energy outside PJM from
PJM-committed installed capacity  on only one day during 2000.

Logically, the price for installed capacity, like the price of  energy, might
have been expected to decrease during 2000. Yet that didn't occur.  As energy
prices decreased within PJM, they remained high or continued to  increase in
surrounding control areas. Higher prices in the surrounding markets  led some
generation owners to de-list their generation committed to PJM in order  to
sell out to other control areas without the risk of being curtailed by PJM.
The result was an increase in ICAP prices from an average of $52.86 in 1999
to  $60.55 in 2000. The increase was concentrated over the summer with prices
in the  daily markets rising to $177 or more for most of June, July and
August. The  increase in ICAP prices raised the cost of supplying many retail
customers by  about 1 cent per kWh. The Market Monitoring Unit concluded that
the price spikes  over the summer months were a direct result of the
opportunity cost associated  with the prices in neighboring control areas.

But the Report,s finding that the ICAP market was "reasonably  competitive"
seems inconsistent with PJM,s conclusion last year that the 2000  ICAP market
performed so poorly that it needed a major overhaul. This  inconsistency
raises questions about the reasonableness of that portion of the  2000 Report
or giving the 2000 ICAP market the PJM seal of approval.

PJM has invested substantial time and resources since last summer  in an
extensive stakeholder process to revise its ICAP rules, especially
concerning the allocation of deficiency revenues and the interval over which
ICAP is purchased. But since the "reformed" ICAP market began operating only
recently on July 1, 2001, it's too soon to know whether it is functioning
well  or competitively. We remain skeptical that the PJM prescription cures
the  disease, or is merely life support for a dying program.

See Spot offer lower prices
Apart from the ICAP market, the  differing prices in forward and spot markets
provide substantial explanations  for why electricity suppliers have found it
easy to beat the 1996 regulated  generation rate for most utilities but
difficult or even impossible to beat the  lower shopping credits. (Shopping
credit = 1996 regulated generation rate )  stranded generation cost). Prior
to the 2000 summer season, prices in the  forward markets, before anyone knew
how mild the weather was going to be,  substantially reflected the
high-priced experience of 1999. Because of the high  prices in 1999, energy
that was purchased through forward markets * about 82  percent of all energy
* was considerably more expensive than the spot prices  turned out to be.
Since customers often prefer to lock in a price in advance,  competitive
suppliers generally didn't want to provide fixed prices below the  retail
shopping credits. If suppliers had relied on the spot market, they could
have offered lower prices. Also, customers who can reduce or shift demand
may  well benefit from purchasing more power from the spot market.

Recent developments
Both in the East and West coast markets  this week, electricity in daily
trading has been near its low for the 52-week  period. Several developments
are pushing down the price of wholesale  electricity. Mild weather, falling
gas prices, new generation coming online,  increasing demand response and
conservation as well as a FERC which understands  that competition must exist
prior to price deregulation, are all pushing prices  lower. Moreover, forward
market prices for 2002 within PJM are beginning to fall  and are under
downward price pressure.

The new downward trend in forward markets partially results from  moderate
prices this summer, even during high demand periods, with prices  generally
staying under $150 MWh/$0.15 kWh. A good example of this was July 10,  a
relatively hot day with significant demand, which saw prices reach $150 per
MWh for one hour but average $62.78 per MWh for all on-peak hours.

What's driving forward prices lower?

More efficient generation being installed (below 8000 btu/kWh  as opposed to
11000 btu/kWh).

More ICAP in the market (new capacity estimated at over 4000  MW with load
growth at only 1.5 percent or 1000 MW).

More demand-responsive load in the form of 300 additional MW  of Active Load
Management.

The addition of PJM West slated for 2002, with lower prices  generally.

Lower natural gas prices * falling from $4.0561 /mmBtu in July  2000 to
$3.29/mmBtu as of July 12, 2001.

This good news, which suggests that retail customers in late 2001  or 2002
may again see retail competitive offers below the Pennsylvania shopping
credits, must be weighed against the troubled ICAP market. ICAP remains an
anachronism. ICAP prices have not returned to competitive levels and remain
one  of the significant obstacles to serving retail customers. The forward
prices for  ICAP alone have remained above 10 percent of the typical shopping
credit.

Yet even in the world of ICAP there is hope. ICAP prices may be  beginning to
soften in the face of a substantial amount of new generation that  is coming
online and increased demand response from customers. PJM has  instituted both
an emergency and an economic demand-response program, through  which more
customers can respond to prices and reduce the price that all  customers pay
for electricity.

Tomorrow's homework
The State of the Market Report contains  plenty of data which confirms that
PJM is the country,s best-run independent  system operator and best (though
still flawed) wholesale market. Prices in the  spot energy market were well
below 1996 regulated generation rates, even with  appropriate adjustments.
But none of this warrants complacency. Only when PJM  becomes the first
market to give consumers the tools they need to change their  demand for
electricity, will the wholesale and retail markets within PJM be  FULLY, as
opposed to "reasonably," competitive.

A link to download (in .pdf) the PJM MMU Report can be found on  the Internet
at: http://www.pjm.com/market_monitoring/reports.html.

E-cubed is available for reprint in  newspapers and other publications.
Authors are available for print or  broadcast.

PennFuture (www.pennfuture.org), with  offices in Harrisburg, Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh, is a statewide public  interest membership organization,
which advances policies to protect and improve  the state's environment and
economy. PennFuture's activities include litigating  cases before regulatory
bodies and in local, state and federal courts,  advocating and advancing
legislative action on a state and federal level,  public education and
assisting citizens in public advocacy.

To  unsubscribe, simply reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the
subject.

 - vol3no13_71601.doc


Sara-

An agency agreement has been contemplated between Tokyo and Houston.  I
believe it would be best to have Susan Musch advise on this issue, as she is
handling the tax aspects relating to these activities and was also involved
in the arrangements between Sydney and Houston.  I have copied Susan on this
correspondence.

As to the netting issue, please confirm my understanding, that the issues
are; (i) that we do not want different Enron entities (i.e. Enron Japan Corp.
and ENA) entering into ISDAs with the same Japanese counterparties; and (ii)
that if Enron Japan Corp. is transacting with a bank, with which ENA has an
ISDA in place, we would amend such existing ISDA to cover the multibranch
situation.

I have not yet had detailed discussions with Mark regarding the issues you
have raised.

Best regards,

John

	Sara Shackleton@ECT
	08/28/2000 10:48 AM

		 To: John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Madhur Dayal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Enron Japan agreements (ISDA/futures/brokerage)

John:  I just wanted to stay in the loop for Japan as to Gary Hickerson's
FX/rate/equity counterparties.  My understanding from Gary is that  EGM
(through ENA) will continue to hedge the business originating in Japan,
subject to tax and any regulatory input.  I don't know if this has
necessitated an agency arrangement  between Japan and Houston (or another
office, similar to London or Australia).  Also, for netting reasons, Japan
would not duplicate existing counterparty  ISDA's with ENA, and to the extent
Japan is transacting with a bank having an agreement with ENA, we could amend
the agreement for multibranch purposes if necessary (e.g., Bank of Montreal
if the bank is transacting from multiple locations that need to be added to
ENA's agreement).

Please advise if you have already had these discussions with Mark Taylor.  I
look forward to hearing from you.  Sara


more fallout
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike A Roberts/HOU/ECT on 05/04/2001
03:03 PM ---------------------------
From: Lee Ferrell/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/04/2001 02:26 PM
To: Mike A Roberts/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Technical Analysis

Mike,

Our department has been using your technical analysis to support commercial
decisions.  You stated that these services would be discontinued.  We opted
to use your technical analysis in lieu of outside services.  Please continue
to provide technical analysis data with regard to natural gas (candlestick
and Elliot wave).

Lee Ferrell
Director, Risk Management and Reporting
ETS


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/23/2001 10:48 AM -----

	Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com>
	01/22/2001 04:19 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>, David Parquet <David.Parquet@enron.com>, Marcie
Milner <mmilner@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>, Mary Hain
<mary.hain@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: ABX1 1 - Hearing

The Senate Energy Committee met today to discuss ABX1 1.  They are not
scheduled to meet tomorrow but that is subject to change.

Senator Bowen does not intend to move the bill until the committee is
able to review the short term bids mandated in SBX1 7 this Wednesday.
Several Senators suggested that today's hearing may be moot until they
are able to get a better idea of the costs associated with a long term
contract.

Page 4, lines 20-21 - Will add language to enable the state to obtain
security interest in IOU assets.

Page 5, lines 35-40 - Legislative Counsel will review indemnification
language to determine if it is necessary in legislation, or, if can be
utilized in contracts.

Page 5, line 32, strike "or" and insert "and"

Sunset remains an issue with Republicans who are urging a sunset of the
bill's provisions instead of a sunset review.

With respect to the section of the analysis entitled "Issues Not
Addressed in Mock-Up"

1) Will not discuss bidding procedures at this time
2) Will not discuss bid evaluation process at this time
3) Will continue to discuss the sunset review provisions
4) Will not require DWR to sell excess power back to hour-ahead market
5) The financing mechanism does provide adequate assurance of repayment
6) Will not discuss additional stranded costs at this time
7) Will not discuss state contracting provisions at this time

PG&E suggested that it would make more sense for the DWR to sell power
directly to consumers.  They also want the state to assume QF contracts
(Bowen said this was a non-starter)

SCE suggested that DWR be responsible for ancillary services.  They also
suggested that DWR should, at their discretion, be able to assume
certain existing contracts.

Dynegy, in addition to the comments raised in the analysis, needs a
guarantee regarding the state's full faith of credit. They also
requested a waiver of sovereign immunity.

The only new opposition came from Women's Energy Matters who collected
10,000 signatures, all of whom refuse to pay the CPUC mandated 9%
increase.  They see no guarantee that the state will recoup its money in
the bill and advocate for condemnation of everything.

Scott


Kim

Print this guys resume and then hand it to me.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Irfan Ali" <iali.mba2002@ivey.ca>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Irfan+20Ali+22+20+3Ciali+2Emba2002+40ivey+2Eca+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:26 PM
To:	Lavorato, John J.
Subject:	RE: Advice / Information....

Dear John,
Thank you for getting back to me.
Please find  attached my resume and cover letter stating my career objective for your  perusal.
I really appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to  follow up on this.
Best Regards
Irfan Ali
-----Original Message-----
From: Lavorato, John J.  [mailto:John.J.Lavorato@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001  6:27 PM
To: iali.mba2002@ivey.ca
Subject: RE: Advice /  Information....
Email me a resume and your career goals.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Irfan Ali"  <iali.mba2002@ivey.ca>@ENRON
Sent: Mon 1/29/2001 10:57 PM
To: Lavorato, John J.
Cc:
Subject: Advice /  Information....
 D ear  John,
 I  am  first  year MBA student at Richard Ivey School of Business, University  of Western  Ontario.
I  have a bachelors degree in  electrical engineering and prior to returning to the  business  school Iworked in oil &  gas and telecom industries. I was interested in  finding out  oppertunities for summer internships at Enron that will eventually lead towards Enron's   Associate program for full time employment.
I  understand that you must have a  very busy schedule due to your position. I would  appreciate any kind  of advice and  guidanceand will look forward to  hearing from you.
Regards
Irfan  Ali
Irfan   Ali
MBA Class of 2002
Richard Ivey School of  Business
Tel : (519) 642 3052 mailto:iali.mba2002@ivey.ca

 - winmail.dat


Good luck today,  hope today is it.

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


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/11/2001
02:20 PM ---------------------------
   ENA Public Relations
From: ENA Public Relations@ENRON on 03/22/2001 09:25 PM
Sent by: Enron Announcements@ENRON
To: All_ENA_EGM_EIM
cc:
Subject: EnTouch Newsletter

BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS

US Natural Gas Teams
The US Natural Gas Marketing Originations Teams have had a successful 1Q
2001.  In addition to Mid Market Activity led by Fred Lagrasta, new
Origination Desk Heads and Marketing Teams have been set up across the US and
are led by the following: West Gas Origination - Barry Tycholiz, Central Gas
Origination - Laura Luce, East Gas Origination - Frank Vickers.  These teams
have made significant inroads in 2001, focusing on Customer Coverage, New
Accounts, Transportation Syndication, Risk Management Products and Market
Intelligence.  All of these individuals are open to any questions regarding
the new businesses.

Siebel Summary
EIM's ability to rapidly transform its designated forest products and steel
markets is dependent upon its ability to effectively manage the market
participants and accelerate their adoption of EIM's business strategy.  To
achieve this objective, EIM will implement Siebel Sales Enterprise, a
customer-focused centralized database that effectively leverages all
information learned about our customers and enables sharing of this
information throughout the front, mid and back offices.  Siebel is designed
to help in-house and mobile sales professionals in large organizations manage
accounts, contacts, activities and opportunities associated with the sales
cycle.  EIM Fundamentals is leading the Siebel implementation effort.

IN THE NEWS

Enron is hosting the New York Energy Risk Management Seminar at the St. Regis
Hotel in New York City on April 5, 2001.  Topics include: Power Outlook,
Natural Gas Outlook, and Weather Risk Management. To RSVP, contact Laura Pena
at x 3-5376.

WELCOME
New Hires
EGM  - Sherman Franzen, Fariba Karimi, Ryan Krogmeier, Lawrence Marcus
EIM   - Ronald Barnes, Paul Hanks, Chad Ihrig, Stella Pedroza, Linda Silva
ENA  - Hagar Kedem, Steven Merriss, Courdney Williams, Diane Fellers

Transfers
ENA ) Tammie Schoppe, Lynna Kacal, Johnna Kokenge, Karen Jones, Stuart
Zisman, Anne Labbe
EGM ) Justin Cornett, George Thomas, Richard Yeboah, Phi Khanh Wolfe, Alan
Harvey, Philip Berry, Ethan Schultz, Sanjeev Khanna, Mingcheng Lian

NUGGETS & NOTES

 "We have to move paper, make money AND move the industry."  -- Rodney
Malcolm,  Vice President/Forest Products EIM

Congratulations to Angela and Chris Connelly, manager in Coal Trading. They
are the proud parents of Nicholas Connelly, born on March 17 and weighed
7lbs.11oz.  (Rumor has it that at 48 hours of age, he had more hair than his
father!)

Congratulations to Carmen and Glenn Wright, director in Steel Origination who
welcomed little Lauren Nicole born March 12.  She weighed in at 7lbs.13oz.and
debuted with a full head of hair and "making lots of noise."

LEGAL STUFF
The information contained in this newsletter is confidential and proprietary
to Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries.  It is intended for internal use only
and should not be disclosed.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 02/16/2001
05:27 PM ---------------------------

"Btu" <subs@Btu.net> on 02/16/2001 04:21:08 PM
To: "Btu's Weekly Power Report" <>
cc:
Subject: Btu's Weekly Power Report

Attached is the latest issue of Btu's Weekly Power Report

e-mail: info@Btu.net
phone: 732-758-8222
fax: 732-758-8286

 - wp021901.pdf


Thanks all - I'm sorry for all the confusion.  Reyna - I will call you next week.  I just have a couple questions.  Thanks again.  I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.  MW

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cabrera, Reyna
Sent:	Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:39 AM
To:	Bodnar, Michael; Medeles, Gerry; Winckowski, Michele; Blair, Lynn
Subject:	RE: SBA Contracts

In a discussion with Steve Kirk, prior to changing the priorities, it was agreed that SBA shippers should have priority over Interruptible and Alternate shippers only.  Firm shippers would continue to have priority over SBA shippers.  Since Gerry's group implemented the changes, we have not been in a situation where a SBA was called to come in (or go out) at an allocated point.  Gerry's system requirements as to how the system would operate under these conditions would be the support you need to verify that Firm shippers have priority over SBAs.

Gerry, would you forward Michelle a copy of the System Requirement?   Thanks.

Reyna Cabrera
X33072

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bodnar, Michael
Sent:	Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:28 AM
To:	Medeles, Gerry; Winckowski, Michele; Blair, Lynn
Cc:	Cabrera, Reyna
Subject:	RE: SBA Contracts

Michele,
I'm not sure the information is readily available, if available at all. TMS data is only maintained, without extraordinary measures, for 6 months. It is my recollection that there may have been an allocation at a point where SBA gas was scheduled and when that occurred the standard allocation procedures were enforced. I think once we asked the shipper  to move the SBA activity to another point, but that was pre GISB. Unfortunately, because of the how the SBA's work, the pack, draft and peak points are negotiated in advance which limits the points to use. Also, the 28-30 hr lead time required for notification means that we have to anticipate what system conditions will become and therein use SBAs to improve system conditions. Sometimes we miss the mark, either cold weather does not materialize or moves in late or shipper activity increases and in hindsight, an SBA was not necessary.

Reyna may have some additional insight in more recent SBA activities.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Medeles, Gerry
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:31 PM
To:	Winckowski, Michele; Bodnar, Michael; Blair, Lynn
Cc:	Cabrera, Reyna
Subject:	RE: SBA Contracts

I am not sure I understand the question.  Do you mean at anytime we call on SBA volumes, we never/should not allocate the location?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Winckowski, Michele
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:32 PM
To:	Bodnar, Michael; Blair, Lynn
Cc:	Cabrera, Reyna; Medeles, Gerry
Subject:	RE: SBA Contracts

	I guess the question is - have we ever actually reviewed when we call on the SBA volumes and what the system conditions have been during those periods.  We want to verify that we are not allocating a point when we have SBA gas flowing.  Theatrically, we argue that we would not call on SBAs if the gas was not needed to meet system requirements.  We' want to verify that the theory and the actual match up.  I hope this makes sense.  Thanks MW

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bodnar, Michael
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:15 PM
To:	Winckowski, Michele; Blair, Lynn
Cc:	Cabrera, Reyna; Medeles, Gerry
Subject:	RE: SBA Contracts

Yes, you are correct. The changes in the business requirements for the scheduling priority of SBA contracts will not impact NNG's primary firm shippers. What do you need to verify and support this fact?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Winckowski, Michele
Sent:	Monday, November 12, 2001 2:53 PM
To:	Blair, Lynn; Bodnar, Michael
Subject:	SBA Contracts

	Contract	Shippers			Contract Date

	107018		Tenaska Marketing Ventures	Nov 1 2000
	107019		Texaco Gas Marketing		Nov 1 2000
	107021		OGE Energy Resources		Nov 1 2000
	107989		Tenaska Marketing		Jun 1 2001
	108021		Arkla Energy Marketing Co.	Jul 1 2001
	108284		Tensaka Marketing Ventures	Nov 1 2001
	108290		Texaco Gas Marketing		Nov 1 2001
	108281		El Paso Merchant Energy	Nov 1 2001
	108282		UtiliCorp United, Inc.		Nov 1 2001
	108283		Engage Energy American	Nov 1 2001

	These are the SBA contracts that were provided during the due diligence.  I'd like to be able to verify and support that the changes in the business requirements for the scheduling priority for these SBA contracts do not result in an impact to NNG's primary firm shippers.  Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks MW


I think it can be accomplished so long as we have no obligation to agree to
any particular terms in the definitive docs.  I don't see why we would need
to DASH exclusivity.

See you soon,

Kay

	From:  Ben F Jacoby @ ECT                           02/16/2001 11:30 AM

Sent by: Ben Jacoby@ECT
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Fred Mitro

Subject: Re: PSEG - Exclusivity Letter & Comments

Isn't that accomplished by having the agreement be simply an exclusivity
agreement wherein the consideration for the duration of exclusivity is the
$300k? Fred's checking with credit to see if we need to DASH exclusivity
(although I find it hard to believe that we would).

Kay Mann@ENRON
02/16/2001 08:41 AM
To: Ben F Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Healy/SF/ECT@ECT, Rusty
Stevens/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carlos Sole/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: PSEG - Exclusivity Letter & Comments

Gentlemen,

I think we also need to be certain that we have a decent amount of discretion
in whether we close, otherwise we have to consider the DASH process at this
time.

Kay

	From:  Ben F Jacoby @ ECT                           02/16/2001 01:12 AM

Sent by: Ben Jacoby@ECT
To: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Scott Healy/SF/ECT@ECT, Rusty Stevens/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carlos
Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: PSEG - Exclusivity Letter & Comments

From a commercial perspective, I don't have a problem leaving out the
exercise price during the 30 day option period, so long as our obligation to
sell is contingent upon the negotiation of a purchase agreement and the
agreement on purchase price. $300k seems fair for a 30 day exclusivity.

Regards,

Ben


Please revise the document as Aleck's changes indicate.  With respect to the
alternative responses shown near the end of the document, leave both
alternatives in.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/HOU/EES on 07/31/2000 08:58
AM ---------------------------

Richard Shapiro
07/31/2000 07:08 AM
To: Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT
cc: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Eric
Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Hemstock/CAL/ECT@ECT, Ginger Dernehl/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Re: Project Stanley

I am comfortable w/ the changes. On question of whether we colluded W/
Powerex, I would opt for simpler alternative and say we complied w/ all rules
of the pool. Thanks.

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Eric Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Hemstock/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc: Ginger Dernehl/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Project Stanley

Privileged and Confidential - For Instruction of
Counsel                                                 Attached is a revised
copy of the Background note discussed earlier this week.  The revisions are
based on comments  from Frontier Economics and GPC, and further reflection by
Rob Hemstock and myself. I have also attached the  raw calculations from
Frontier that underlie several of the revisions.  I have not  sent the
revised document to outside counsel for review.


Our friend is living in sin.


Here is the EGM headcount report.  Please let me know if you have any
questions.

Thanks,
Laurel


More info on use of GE's form for our lease with Hanover in the Oakhill deal.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Knippa, Mark
Sent:	Monday, June 25, 2001 8:33 AM
To:	Nemec, Gerald
Subject:	FW: Enron/Hanover

Gerald,
Dave Gutierrez with Hanover provided the following response regarding the documents he forwarded to me regarding the GE Capital (Operating Lease).
I believe that I get the picture,  but it seems that he would have made the changes he has referenced.

Lets discuss,
mk

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Dave Gutierrez" <dgutierrez@hanover-co.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Dave+20Gutierrez+22+20+3Cdgutierrez+40hanover-co+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, June 25, 2001 8:06 AM
To:	Knippa, Mark
Cc:	Hilgert, Chris; jgill@hanover_co.com
Subject:	RE: Enron/Hanover

Mark,

The agreements you received are to cover the operating lease with the purchase option quoted for this transaction. Hanover will issue the contract whereby Hanover Compression Limited Partnership will be reflected as the Lessor and ECS will be the Lessee. Hanover will then assign the contract to GE whereby all monthly payments will be remitted to GE. Hanover will enter into a separate agreement to cover the maintenance and service portion of this transaction, of which Hanover shall invoice.

The documents forwarded to you are the actual documents you'll be require to execute however they will reflect Hanover as Lessor. Additionally, Hanover maintains all warranty obligations extended against the package regardless of the assignment to GE.

Please review the documents and advise of any exceptions or issues. Keep in mind that these documents are specifically for the monthly operating lease installments and that most of the language is required to comply with the FASB Accounting regs. which keep this transaction as an operating lease/off balance sheet transaction. This is a standard agreement we utilize with other companies seeking operating leases with purchase options while maintaining an off balance sheet transaction.

I'd be glad to visit with you or anyone from your office if necessary to clarify any questions or concerns.

>>> "Knippa, Mark" <Mark.Knippa@ENRON.com> 06/22/01 03:52PM >>>

Not sure I get the picture.  ECS is expecting to have an Operating Lease with Hanover that accommodates the new compressor station (equipment, packaging & installation).  ECS is also expecting to enter into a Maintenance Services Agreement with Hanover that covers the provided equipment and installation, bumper to bumper, for the 10 year term of the agreement.

What has been provided is blank documentation from GE Capital that requires maintenance services, delivery, use & operation, insurance, the return of equipment, etc. that does not fit the parameters of our discussions with Hanover.  Is ECS
expected to execute the agreements with GE Capital or with Hanover?  Is the Hanover Agreement expected to mirror this agreement 	less the services that Hanover is being hired to perform?

	?
	mk

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	"Stam, John (CAP, CEF)" <John.Stam@gecapital.com>@ENRON
> [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Stam+2C+20John+20+28CAP+2C+20CEF+29+22+20+3CJohn
> +2EStam+40gecapital+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
> Sent:	Friday, June 22, 2001 1:41 PM
> To:	Knippa, Mark
> Cc:	'jgill@hanover_co.com'; 'dgutierrez@hanover-co.com'
> Subject:	FW: Enron/Hanover
>
> Mark,
>
> Per Dave Gutierrez's request, I am forwarding to you our Master Lease
> Agreement and documents for a synthetic lease structure as an
> operating
> lease.
> Please let me or Dave know if you have questions or comments about any
> of
> these documents below.
> Best Regards,
> John Stam
>
> e       			GE Capital
> __________________________________________
> John W. Stam
> Commercial Equipment Financing
> 5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite # 1280
> Dallas, TX  75240
>
> * Mail to: john.stam@gecapital.com
>  *  Office:  (972) 419-3211
> *     Fax:   (972) 387-4439
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Anderson, William S (CAP, CEF)
> > Sent:	Friday, June 22, 2001 1:01 PM
> > To:	Stam, John (CAP, CEF)
> > Subject:	Enron/Hanover
> >
> >  <<retprov.DOC>>  <<Proptax.DOC>>  <<QMLA.doc>>  <<synth-lse.DOC>>
> >
> > William S. Anderson
> > Vice President/Risk Analyst
> > Commercial Equipment Financing
> > General Electric Capital Corporation
> > Phone:	(972) 419-3220
> > Fax:	(972) 419-3296
> > william.anderson@gecapital.com
> >
>
>  - retprov.DOC << File: retprov.DOC >>
>  - Proptax.DOC << File: Proptax.DOC >>
>  - QMLA.doc << File: QMLA.doc >>
>  - synth-lse.DOC << File: synth-lse.DOC >>


Thanks, Melissa.  That clears up most of my questions.  However, on Avista, they inadvertently included their ISO bill with their October bilat transaction invoice, and the full amount was paid.  Their ISO amount was $151,686.52, which, when compared to our actual, is $13,543.24.  They should be invoiced for that amount.

I will let you know when we can schedule a conference call.  I would imagine that all of Volume Management will need to be included in the conversation.

Caroline

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ratnala, Melissa
Sent:	Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:51 PM
To:	Emmert, Caroline
Cc:	Johnson, Donna; Reyes, Jim; O'Neil, Murray P.; Stokley, Chris; Allen, Thresa A.
Subject:	RE: October ISO Actualization

Caroline,

EES & PGES are requiring further research due to intercompany transactions.  It is unclear as to what exactly needs to be reversed, re-booked, etc. until I am able to pull and research 11/00 JV's for 10/00 production.  I am working with EES on these revisions/payments.
Avista will be invoiced the total actual amount, as no one, from what I can see, has been invoiced from our end.  All invoices for counterparties will be going out as soon as we are able to complete the payments requested for 11/00 production.  It is my understanding that the payments for each month are of a higher priority than the invoices...please let us know if that has changed.
Harbor was paid on 5/23/01 per Chris Foster's 5/21/01 spreadsheet in the amount of $185,631.38.  You may want to comunicate with him any questions you may have.  The ISO piece is included with the Gas and Energy pieces each month.  Their payments for 7/00-9/00 were also processed as such.

Again, please let me know your schedule, and who else you feel should be involved to discuss procedures for these actualizations to ensure they are processed and communicated in the most efficient manner.

Thanks, Melissa

From:	Caroline Emmert/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/23/2001 01:55 PM
To:	Melissa K Ratnala/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Donna Johnson/ENRON@enronXgate, Jim Reyes/ENRON@enronXgate, Murray P ONeil/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject:	RE: October ISO Actualization

Melissa,

I analyzed this report and have a few questions:

On Avista - Washington Water Power, were they invoiced for the $13,543.24?
On EES, I see a different actual amount than reflected in the report - my number is ($473,206) and this report shows ($707,388.86)? Also, are they invoiced on Estimates?  or should we be paying the actual only, not the difference?  It's not clear to me how they are handled.
On PGES, are they invoiced and do they pay on Estimates? Again, same question as for EES - pay actual or difference?
On Harbor, it says, "net with energy" - need clarification on how and when they will be paid.  Also, I don't show a payment based on estimates, so I show that they should receive the actual of ($192228.39) instead of the ($28,908.39) difference as shown in this report.

Thanks!

Caroline

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ratnala, Melissa
Sent:	Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:36 AM
To:	Emmert, Caroline
Cc:	Johnson, Donna; Reyes, Jim; O'Neil, Murray P.; Thresa Allen/Enron@EnronXGate
Subject:	RE: October ISO Actualization

Caroline,

Please see the attached file for payments made on 5/21/01 (highlighted in purple.)  All were paid according to the instructions in the email below.  In the future, we will incorporate this step into our process, but I would like to schedule a conference call with you and my coordinator for sometime this week to discuss all procedures related to the settlements of the Cal ISO actualization.  As we have had two different coordinators settling this piece since we last actualized in the summer of 2000, this will probably be beneficial to both groups in ensuring that we are meeting all expectations relating to actualization and invoicing/payments.

Also, in relation to your email regarding 9/00 Actuals, we paid those counterparties that were approved for payment per your email...those that have not been paid were held per those instructions that they required special handling and that we would discuss later.  I will ensure that payment is set-up for tomorrow, 5/23/01 for those mentioned, and will send you a verification via email.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Thanks, Melissa
 << File: ISO ACTUALS 1000 REVISED.xls >>

From:	Caroline Emmert/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/22/2001 10:29 AM
To:	Melissa K Ratnala/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Donna Johnson/ENRON@enronXgate, Jim Reyes/ENRON@enronXgate, Murray P ONeil/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject:	RE: October ISO Actualization

Melissa,

Please send to me within the next hour a list of the customers that were paid and the amounts wired on 5/21/00.  As a part of the normal process, a complete listing with amounts is to be sent to us prior to any funds actually being wired.  This allows us an opportunity to do a final cross-check and ensures accuracy in the payments.

Thank you,

Caroline

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ratnala, Melissa
Sent:	Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:20 AM
To:	Emmert, Caroline
Cc:	Johnson, Donna; O'Neil, Murray P.
Subject:	Re: October ISO Actualization

Caroline,

All payments, with the exception of VEA, have been issued monies due for October-00 California ISO actualization and received these funds on Monday, 5/21/01.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you, Melissa

From:	Caroline Emmert/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/15/2001 03:11 PM
To:	Melissa K Ratnala/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sharon Fredrick/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:	Donna Johnson/ENRON@enronXgate, Murray P ONeil/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject:	October ISO Actualization

Melissa and Sharon,

The final ISO Actualizations for October 2000 have been saved in the CALISO shared folder, and customers can be paid or invoiced according to the remaining amount shown  on the Flash file, except for the following:

Valley Electric
Colorado River Commission - Check with Paul Choi for actual amount to pay them

Please e-mail to me a listing of the anticipated payment amounts per customer prior to issuance of funds so that I may perform a final cross-check.

Thanks,

Caroline Emmert
Specialist


Molly,

We would like to hire Mr Bhalachandra Mehendale for a summer position.  He is
currently working on his MS Finance at U. of Wisconsin and is scheduled to
finish December 2001.   His resume is attached.

He will be available from about  May 28 until the end of August.   Please let
me know what additional info you need research to provide.

Regards,

Stinson

 - Bhala_Resume.doc


Attached please find the draft letter we sent to EnBW end of last week
summarizing our meeting we had with EnBW on March 8, 2000.

We are expecting EnBW to contact us this week to inform us about their
progress regarding the network operator that defaulted on EnBW with regard to
the Transaction Agreement between Enron and EnBW.

Regards,
Michael


Heres the spreadsheet I keep on the Lonestar nom, the points have been the same all month so far.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Germany, Chris
Sent:	Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:52 PM
To:	Dinari, Sabra L.
Cc:	Kelly, Katherine L.
Subject:	RE: Lone Star activity

I just spoke with Theresa Vos.  She handles the accounting for these deals and she said they have to do everything outside the system because ENA is not collecting the slaes revenue or making the payments to the suppliers.  Joe was very concerned about putting deals in Sitara because he was afraid that we might double bill TXU.  There is also a problem with the Feb activity because TXU recorded all the activity as ENA activity instead of Ponderosa Pine activity.  It also appears that TXU withholds payments for the smallest indiscretions in the billing too.  We can chat about that next week.

Sabra, do you know what points Apache/Cinergy and Williams is giving us the gas at?  I'd like to see that if possible.

Thanks

I'm taking off Friday.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dinari, Sabra L.
Sent:	Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:31 AM
To:	Germany, Chris
Cc:	Kelly, Katherine L.
Subject:	RE: Lone Star activity

yes, I am basically handling any "old" wholesale business which for now includes the FGT/Citrus, Lonestar and some Enron Compressor stuff on TW.  I do have a Sitara ticket that we are updating for the sale to TXU, just let me know the price and I'll update it.  I'm updating the supply tickets, I believe its a long term deal...I don't know all the details about all this.  Is Joe Parks leaving or something, why are you doing all this stuff now?

FYI:  I call it the Cleburne Plant and it is at the same point as it was for the first 3 days of the month.  The scheduler over there calls me every morning to verify.

Sabra

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Germany, Chris
Sent:	Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:19 AM
To:	Dinari, Sabra L.
Cc:	Kelly, Katherine L.
Subject:	Lone Star activity

I don't know if I should call this the Ponderosa Pine plant, the Cleburne Plant, or what.  Think I'll refer to it as Cleburne.

Sabra, Joe Parks told me that you handling Lone Start in the future.

I sold 10,000 dth to TXU for tomorrow.  I believe we have sold TXU 10,000 dth everyday this month so far.  Lyn at TXU asked me if the gas was at the same point for tomorrow and I told her "sure" and I have no idea what points our gas is coming from.

I don't know how much time we need to spend on this.  But, I have not put anything in Sitara and I don't know if I should.  I believe Theresa Voss's (on 3 in Enron Center South) group is handling the accounting for this and I don't know what they need.  I'm going to try and meet her today.

Sabra, are you handling this?  Let me know.  If you are, do you want/need/care if this is in Sitara and Unify?  I believe all of the activity for this deal flowed through ENA before bankruptcy.  Now, I believe the partnership makes all the payments and billings and they probably pay ENA a fee.  Joe made it very clear that ENA is NOT supposed to send out an invoice.

thx
chris


What is the asking price of this vehicle?


The rumor is true!
Dick has two months to find another job within ENE.

PG&E declares Bankruptzy.
ENE goes from $1.50 up to $2.00 down.  Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Chris--At this date, CES has a large overhang of storage inventory on AGL.
To address this situation, I have asked David Scott to increase our IBSS
withdrawals to the maximum daily withdrawal quantities for the rest of
February.   Moreover, we also want to maximize our daily withdrawals on the
directly assigned storage services for the rest February.    We don't want gas
injected into storage unless it is necessary to avoid a penalty.   David will
contact Scott about the Directly Assigned storage withdrawals.

To the extent that maximizing our storage withdrawals requires us to cut back
on flowing gas, the cuts in flowing gas will be sold back to ENA  per our
contract.

Please call me if you have questions, etc.

Thanks.

Doug Kinney
Ph:  703-561-6339
Fax:  703-561-7317


The internet address for the Ercot Portal:

https://portla.ercot.com


_____________________DAVID COURSEY_____________________

XP COUNTDOWN: MORE OF YOUR TOP QUESTIONS ANSWERED

    In the last month and a half, I've been inundated
         with XP-related questions from faithful
         AnchorDesk readers. Can you upgrade? Is XP
         faster than 9x? What's the deal with licensing?
         Join me as I do some eXPlaining.

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/adt1023/2819476:8593142

   PLUS: NO APOLOGIES? THE RIAA SAYS IT'S MISUNDERSTOOD

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/adt1023/2819477:8593142

#

_____________________NEWS ANALYSIS_____________________

Patrick Houston

    SUN, MICROSOFT AND THE ROAD TO THE 'FRICTION-FREE ECONOMY'

    The Internet and World Wide Web gave
    birth to an idea--a hyperefficient
    economy that operates less like a heat-producing
    mechanical engine and more like a motor
    coiled with a superconductor. To understand
    this basic idea is to understand Sun,
    Microsoft and their dueling ambitions
    for Web services.

    PLUS:

    HEY COUCH POTATOES, SONY'S HANDHELD IS A CLICKER, TOO.
    NEW CRUSOE NOTEBOOK TO HIT U.S. SHORES

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/adt1023/2819493:8593142

_____________________EXPERT ADVICE_____________________

John Morris and Josh Taylor

  WHY INTEL COULDN'T MAKE ITS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS FLY

   Long the king of PC microprocessors, Intel
         thought it could rule the world of consumer
         electronics, too. Not so. Josh and John find
         Intel's decision to abandon consumer products
         disappointing, but not surprising.

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/adt1023/2819482:8593142

			> > > > >

Preston Gralla

  END THE BOREDOM! LEARN TO SPRUCE UP YOUR PLAIN OL' E-MAIL

   If you're sick of tired-looking e-mail, we've
         got the cure for you. Learn to dress up your
         messages with animations, sounds, and even
         a virtual personal assistant. Preston tracks
         down three downloads to add pizzazz.

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/adt1023/2819466:8593142

			> > > > >

_____________________CRUCIAL CLICKS_____________________
Make sure you see these features on ZDNet today!

IS XP'S NET SECURITY A RAW DEAL?
http://www.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2819126,00.html

GOODBYE ROLODEX, HELLO SCANNER
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/adeskclicks/www.zdnet.com/special/stories/sc/scanner/reviews/0,13296,2818302,00.html

FIND THE BEST WEB-PUBLISHING SYSTEMS
http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/adeskclicks/www.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2816173,00.html

******************ELSEWHERE ON ZDNET!******************

Get FREE downloads for IT pros at TechRepublic
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?153975:8593142

Need a new job? Browse through over 90,000 tech job listings.
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?153976:8593142

eBusiness Update: Content Management systems grow up.
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?153977:8593142

Access your computer from anywhere with GoToMyPC.
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?153978:8593142

Check out the latest price drops at Computershopper.com.
http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?153979:8593142

*************************************************************

AnchorDesk comes to you free of charge as a
service of ZDNet. On its companion Web site,
AnchorDesk includes full details on the stories
you see above, plus late-breaking news, links
to in-depth information, and much more. Visit:
http://www.anchordesk.com/

To subscribe, unsubscribe, or make changes to your subscription,
please go to:
 http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?130228

We are sending this news alert to the address:
pallen@ENRON.COM
Please make sure to provide this address in
all your e-mail messages to us.  Thanks!

Copyright ? 2001 ZD Inc. ZDNet is a registered
service mark of ZD Inc. ZDNet Logo is a service
mark of ZD Inc.

 ###