F.Y.I.

  PG&E Presses to End Freeze That Keeps
  Power Costs Low in Northern California
  By Rebecca Smith

  09/15/2000
  The Wall Street Journal
  Page A3
  (Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

  California's largest utility is pushing to end a four-year-old retail rate
freeze that has
  insulated millions of Northern Californians from the volatile wholesale
electricity prices that
  have rocked San Diego this summer.

  PG&E Corp., parent of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in San Francisco, said it
wants to end
  the freeze imposed in 1996 by the state legislature as soon as possible,
because it is
  losing money under the arrangement. In a filing with the Securities and
Exchange
  Commission, PG&E said it has collected $2.2 billion less from customers
this summer
  than it has shelled out to buy bulk power for them from the
state-sanctioned California
  Power Exchange, a central auction.

  PG&E's disclosure sets the stage for a major confrontation between the
utility and
  regulators. It will be up to the California Public Utilities Commission to
balance conflicting
  needs: the utility's desire to protect its shareholders from potentially
huge losses, and the
  commission's own duty, as regulator, to protect the public from a flawed
market that
  appears incapable of delivering the "just and reasonable" rates required by
law. Legislators
  now say they fear the state could be tipped into a recession if electricity
prices don't drop
  soon.

  Under the state's 1996 deregulation law, all California investor-owned
utilities were allowed
  to freeze rates at what seemed like high levels. Utilities were permitted
to use surplus
  revenues to pay down generation-related debts that regulators said would
render them
  uncompetitive in a deregulated world. It worked well until this summer.
PG&E charged
  customers, on average, $54 for each megawatt hour of electricity supplied
even though it
  paid only $26 and $31 a megawatt hour, respectively, for that power in 1998
and 1999. By
  June 30, it had collected enough surplus money to cancel $6.2 billion of
debts.

  But the situation went haywire this summer as wholesale power prices
lurched upward. The
  utility paid an average price of $163 a megawatt hour for electricity in
June, $110 in July and
  $187 in August. Prices may be higher yet this month. The average price of
power to be
  consumed today, for example, is $200 a megawatt hour, or nearly four times
the amount
  that PG&E can bill its customers.

  Until recently, it was assumed that the utility would be able to recapture,
in times of weaker
  demand, any shortfall that occurred in high-priced summer months. But that
is looking less
  and less certain. Power prices projected for coming months look higher than
the $54 a
  megawatt hour that PG&E now charges, particularly with natural-gas prices
roughly triple
  the price of two to three years ago. The latter pushes up generating costs
at natural
  gas-fired plants. Another problem is that there is less power available to
be imported from
  outside California. In fact, the Pacific Northwest is expected to run short
of power this
  winter, with less water available than in recent years for hydroelectric
generation, putting
  pressure on California's market right when plants normally are taken out of
service for
  maintenance.

  PG&E's chief financial officer now says he sees no reason to prolong the
pain. He wants
  the freeze ended or he wants protection from high wholesale prices. "People
did not
  envision the situation we have today," says Peter Darbee. Yesterday,
Moody's Investors
  Service Inc. issued a negative outlook on PG&E, Edison International and
their big utilities,
  citing the "increased supply risk" assumed by the utilities and "the
unsettled state of
  electric deregulation in California."

  But state officials are loath to let consumers feel today's market
volatility. Knowing that,
  PG&E may seek to strike a bargain in which it would continue some sort of
rate freeze in
  exchange for permission to recoup some of the money it has lost. But there
is no provision
  for that under current state law. The law simply says that when the
utilities have paid down
  certain categories of costs, the freeze ends. If they haven't paid down
these debts by March
  31, 2002, it ends anyway, and they have to swallow any loss.

  The wild card is what will happen with PG&E's 4,000-megawatt hydroelectric
network, the
  biggest such system in North America. The utility has offered to shave $2.8
billion from the
  tally of debts billed to ratepayers, if it is allowed to move its
powerhouses and dams into
  the hands of an unregulated affilate. Such a move would end the rate freeze
since the
  proceeds would be more than enough to offset the amount PG&E says it is
otherwise
  entitled to collect from ratepayers, some $1.6 billion.

  But so long as power prices are volatile, nobody really wants the freeze to
end but PG&E.

  In its SEC filing, the company said that it has no reason to believe, at
the current time, that
  it will be able to recover lost monies and said it may be "required to
write off the
  unrecoverable portion as a one-time charge against earnings" -- potentially
amounting to
  billions of dollars. The same scenario exists for Edison International's
Southern California
  Edison Co. unit, which serves most of the lower third of the state and has
run a deficit of
  roughly $1 billion this summer.

  Observers say both utilities are wary of inciting consumer anger, should
they be too
  aggressive in lobbying for an end to the freeze. A case in point: In
hearings before federal
  energy regulators on Tuesday, Steve Baum, chairman of Sempra Energy, owner
of San
  Diego 's utility, said the company's utility trucks are being defaced and
workers are being
  intimidated by customers who are furious about power bills that have
doubled and tripled
  since June. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. is the only utility, thus far, to
end its rate freeze
  and pass wholesale power costs directly through to customers.

  State Sen. Debra Bowen, chairwoman of the California Senate utilities
committee, said the
  legislature is reluctant to become involved. She said the legislature
"feels like somebody
  who's fallen into poison oak enough times that all we have to do is walk
past a bush and we
  break out in a rash. That's the way we react to these energy issues now."

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

  Business/Financial Desk; Section C
  A Dwindling Faith In Deregulation
  New Ways to Harness Electricity
  By NEELA BANERJEE

  09/15/2000
  The New York Times
  Page 1, Column 2
  c. 2000 New York Times Company

  Over a few sultry days in the summer of 1997, the state of Wisconsin got an
early taste of
  the electricity shortages that now threaten several other regions of the
country. An
  unusually large number of nuclear plants that supply the northern Midwest
were closed for
  maintenance just as an unexpected heat wave drifted into the area.
Wisconsin Electric,
  which serves Milwaukee, shut off electricity to 80 businesses; every few
hours, it
  beseeched consumers to limit their energy use.

  Wisconsin Electric averted blackouts, but the scare profoundly changed the
state's
  approach to deregulating the power industry, a process it had begun to
explore only a year
  earlier. Like many other utilities, Wisconsin Electric initially pushed for
what it and others
  called the Big Bang: state regulators giving up control over the production
and pricing of
  electricity almost immediately.

  But after the 1997 power shortage, Wisconsin Electric, along with most
local businesses
  and consumer advocacy groups, began to support a go-slow approach to
deregulation, first
  building in an extra margin of reliable power before encouraging the state
to remove its
  decades-old grip on the electricity industry.

  Lately, the rest of the country has been drawing the same conclusion. Just
like Wisconsin,
  several other states have lost their early faith in the instantaneous,
smooth creation of a
  free and fair electricity market. Deregulation has faltered as surging
consumer demand
  outstrips the supply of electricity, and regulators and utilities scramble
to cope with
  successive summers of price volatility and power failures.

  More than a year ago, the wholesale price of electricity charged by power
plants in the
  Midwest surged to $6,000 a megawatt-hour, compared with average costs of
$21 to $22 for
  the same amount of power. Con Ed customers in New York paid 43 percent more
for
  electricity this June than last year. Prices have spiked elsewhere as well.

  And when rolling blackouts rippled through Silicon Valley and electricity
bills doubled in
  San Diego over several weeks this summer, California's pioneering approach
to
  deregulation came to embody what many see as the failings of the process.

  Despite the second thoughts about deregulation, few experts expect a return
to the days of
  strict government control. A world in which various power generators
compete openly to
  provide electricity at market prices still offers the prospect of both
lower costs for business
  and consumers and higher profits for utilities than is possible under the
traditional, more
  inefficient system in which monopoly suppliers are supervised by government
regulators.

  ''California is an indication to the rest of us that we need to do our
homework to make
  deregulation work,'' said Dick Olson, legal counsel with the Wisconsin
Industrial Energy
  Group, an association of large companies. ''Some people want to stop the
process, but the
  genie is out of the bottle.''

  But getting from here to there is proving far more difficult than expected.
Lacking a clear
  federal approach, states are finding their own way and, in the process,
casting doubt on
  some early promises.

  ''Deregulation was definitely oversold to consumers by many people,'' said
Severin
  Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of
California at Berkeley. ''To
  economists and a few others, deregulation was a calculated experiment, and
we knew it
  would have its costs.''

  Historically, a regional electric utility, which was owned by investors and
regulated by the
  state, generated power, transmitted it over high-voltage lines and then
distributed it in
  low-voltage form into homes and businesses. In broad terms, deregulation
calls for
  separating generation, transmission and distribution into distinct
businesses.

  Deregulation advocates argued that if power plants were sold to private
owners, they would
  compete among themselves to sell power to transmission and distribution
companies at
  cheaper prices, driving down the cost of electricity. But that outcome was
predicated on the
  realities of the mid-1990's, when power plants had spare capacity.

  But with few power plants coming on line recently, particularly in
California and the
  Northeast, deregulation was introduced in the late 1990's at the worst
possible time. In the
  thriving economy, businesses demanded more electricity, and people built
bigger homes
  and bought more gadgets, sharply narrowing the gap between available
supplies of
  electricity and peak demand. Fuel for generation has also become more
expensive,
  especially natural gas, whose price has doubled even as it has grown
increasingly popular
  because it is cleaner than other fuels.

  ''I think that the expectation that deregulation will always give you lower
prices is
  unrealistic,'' said John B. Ramil, president of the Tampa Electric Company,
a unit of TECO
  Energy Inc. ''Consumers think that competition will lead to lower prices
automatically, when
  actually they will be paying market prices for power.''

  Advocates rallied support for electricity deregulation by asserting that it
would deliver the
  choice and the low prices that deregulation of telecommunications has
brought. But they
  forgot that the restructuring of the telephone industry, like power
deregulation now, angered
  consumers early on, when local calling rates rose and the proliferation of
choices baffled
  many people. Lawmakers and regulators took years to iron out the process,
which is still
  going on. And because electricity is even more vital than telephones, there
is far less
  tolerance for interruptions in service and volatile prices.

  ''You can't assume that you can deregulate in one year and sit back and
watch how things
  work,'' said Barry Abramson, senior utility analyst with PaineWebber.
''Regulators and utility
  officials have to come back frequently and correct problems they never
expected until the
  system gets it right.''

  Seeing an Example In Pennsylvania

  So far, 24 states have tried some form of deregulation, but regulators and
utilities in other
  regions say changes in their local electricity industry are inevitable, too.

  Among states where deregulation has occurred, Pennsylvania has emerged so
far as the
  place where the promises of competition and lower prices are being met most
successfully.
  The state began to draw up a deregulation blueprint in 1996, around the
same time
  California did, driven by electric rates in Philadelphia and other major
cities double the
  average in the United States.

  But Pennsylvania opted for a plan that calls for substantial government
involvement in the
  market at every step. The state protected the utilities against losses from
their older plants;
  in return utilities had to agree to freeze rates until 2006 at 1997 levels
to protect
  consumers.

  The state aggressively advertised a choice of new electricity providers.
More important, it
  set the benchmark generation rates for traditional utilities at a fairly
high level, which made
  some outside competitors' prices look favorable in comparison and which
spurred
  consumers to choose new power providers.

  As a result, more than 528,000 residential and business users, about 10
percent of the
  total, have switched to other providers that sell them power at a fixed
price over long
  periods. A recent study by the State of Pennsylvania estimated that
consumers have saved
  about $2.84 billion in energy costs over the last three years.

  As consumers sought new power providers, those same companies began to
build new
  plants in and near Pennsylvania, shoring up electricity reliability in the
area. About 19,000
  megawatts of power, adding 50 percent more capacity, are expected to come
on line in
  Pennsylvania in the next five years.

  Pennsylvania also cobbled together the independent system operator PJM from
a network
  of neighboring states that could transmit power easily to one another,
creating a grid third in
  size behind the entire transmission systems of France and of Japan.

  Trying Rate Caps In California

  Yet the lurching progress of deregulation in the country as a whole and the
loss of old
  certainties like reliable power at steady prices have ignited a popular
backlash in many
  areas, most vividly in California. There, the state has decided to cap
rates in San Diego at
  1999 levels for the next two years. Other Californians have urged a
rollback of deregulation,
  demanding that power plants sold to private owners be placed under
government control
  again.

  The widespread short supply of electricity and the peculiarities of the
commodity itself have
  given generation companies enormous leverage in the marketplace. Unlike
most other
  goods, electricity cannot be stored to be used when there is a shortage.
Nor is it something
  consumers can do without, which means the companies that supply people with
electricity
  will pay just about any price to keep the lights on.

  Most analysts say that the exercise of such influence is not illegal --nor
unexpected --
  since companies can be expected to try to maximize their profits. But
California's complex
  power buying mechanism has created a situation in which relatively small
players have
  extraordinary influence.

  On June 14, for example, the temperature in San Francisco hit 103 degrees
and heat
  records were broken all over the Bay Area. The state's Independent System
Operator,
  which coordinates transmission of electricity, predicted that during peak
use on that
  weekday afternoon, California would need 43,000 megawatts. But reports from
the power
  plants working that day showed only 36,000 megawatts available. As a
result, the California
  I.S.O. paid $1,500 a megawatt to various plants that were not running; some
of those plants
  had bet on a shortage and delayed generation until the price of power
reached the cap.

  ''The world knows we'll make up that energy shortfall somewhere,'' said
Spence Gerber,
  director of settlements at the I.S.O. ''People go in and make their bids
knowing we're not
  going to shut the lights off. We have no choice.''

  In California, rate freezes have prevented most utilities from passing on
much of the higher
  price of power to consumers. In San Diego , however, the rate freezes were
lifted just as
  the city strained under a heat wave. That led to the doubling of customers'
bills in the span
  of a month.

  One part of any long-term solution, experts say, is to increase the supply
of electricity,
  through building new power plants and transmission lines. But few
communities want power
  plants or transmission towers on their turf, adding to delays.

  So far, states have relied on caps on the wholesale price of power to keep
costs down. In
  California, the price cap, until recently, was $750 a megawatt, and in
Pennsylvania, it is
  $1,000. But California officials concede that power plants sometimes get
$1,500 a
  megawatt-hour -- $750 for being on standby and $750 for the power itself.

  Caps, if set too low, may dissuade companies from producing electricity and
from building
  new power plants. ''If you fix caps at $250, you have to realize that if in
a neighboring state
  someone is offering $251 for power, you will have a serious shortage,''
said Richard Priory,
  chairman of Duke Energy, a nationwide power generation and trading company.

  Given the complexities, deregulation, with its connotation of a
laissez-faire management of
  an industry, seems a misnomer. The focus is now on reorganizing the
electricity industry,
  rather than cutting it loose, and of using sophisticated forms of
regulation to foster
  competition and efficiency.

  ''What we're looking at is re-regulation, regulation in a different manner
than we had before,''
  said Douglas Hale, senior economist with the Energy Information
Administration in
  Washington. ''Electricity is not one of those commodities that you can walk
away from and
  let take care of itself. You need a central authority to make sure it
doesn't all come
  crashing down.''

  In Wisconsin, rather than having the legislature adopt an overall plan, the
central state
  authority has moved to revamp the transmission sector before tackling
generation, the
  reverse of what most other states have done. The Midwest price spikes in
1998 revealed
  that while neighboring states were willing to provide power, there were not
enough
  transmission lines in Wisconsin to bring it in. As a result, the Wisconsin
government has
  compelled the state's four major utilities to surrender operation of their
transmission lines to
  the Midwest Independent System Operator, which covers several states, to
make sure all
  companies have equal access to power lines.

  ''The problem with the big bang in an industry like ours is that you take a
large risk,'' said
  Larry Salustro, senior vice president of Wisconsin Electric. ''Maybe in
three years, the
  market will be better. But in those three years, people will go through
difficult personal and
  financial times.''

  The transmission company will be responsible for building new lines to
improve the
  importing of power, and though they own shares in the concern, no single
utility controls it.
  Wisconsin plans to double transmission capacity in the next four or five
years, by which
  time the state would be ready to deregulate generation.

  ''You won't have low prices unless you create an effective market
structure,'' said Lee
  Cullen, counsel for Customers First, a Wisconsin consumer advocacy group.
''Everybody
  can support competition as a superior system, but we're not rushing
headlong into it.''

  Building safeguards against the volatility deregulation brings will clearly
take years, as more
  generation -- mostly in small natural-gas-fired power plants -- starts up,
as more power lines
  are built to move electricity to where it is needed most and as business
and consumers
  respond to higher prices by finding ways to conserve power and limit use
during peak
  periods.

  Some businesses and the occasional residential customer have set up links
with their
  utilities to respond to electricity prices in real time, by turning down
lights or allowing air-
  conditioning to shut down briefly when a computer message informs them of
price spikes.
  So far, however, such operations are rare.

  ''Until consumers can see and respond to real-time prices, price caps will
remain a
  necessary evil,'' Mr. Borenstein said. ''The dirty secret of restructuring
is that it is replacing
  old forms of regulation with new ones.''

  Photos: Lee Cullen is a lawyer for Customers First, a Wisconsin consumer
advocacy
  group. He stands outside the switching station and coal yard of Madison Gas
and Electric
  in Madison, Wis. (Andy Manis for The New York Times)(pg. C4); Individual
states are trying
  to find answers to the problem of deregulating the electricity industry.
Power lines in
  Wisconsin, left, are symbols of a state that is trying to revamp the
transmission sector. In
  Pennsylvania, where a power plant is being built in Lebanon, below, the
government is
  involved with the market at every step. (John Zeedick for The New York
Times); (John Saller
  for The New York Times)(pg. C1) Chart/Graph: ''Shocks to The System'' In
deregulated
  electricity markets, prices have been far more volatile than expected, at
times jumping to
  extraordinary levels during shortages. *Volume-weighted wholesale spot
prices for on-peak,
  next-day delivery of a megawatt-hour of electricity. (Source: Bloomberg
Financial Markets;
  Cambridge Energy Research Associates)(pg. C1) ''Approaching Electricity
Deregulation
  More Cautiously'' As some states struggle with tight supplies and high
prices, others are
  moving more slowly on deregulation. Graph tracks supply and demand since
1980. Map
  tracks Deregulation by state. (Sources: Edison Electric Institute; North
American Electric
  Reliability Council; Energy Information Administration)(pg. C4)

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

  Metro; Letters Desk
  Bidding Rules Costly for Electric Rates

  09/15/2000
  Los Angeles Times
  Home Edition
  Page B-8
  Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company

  * Re "Davis Walks a Political Tightrope on Energy Prices," Sept. 12: The
deregulation of the California utilities
  didn't include a change in the strangling bidding rules to which these
utilities, unfortunately, are bound. They are
  required to buy their power through a state-sponsored day-ahead market,
rather than being allowed to bid on
  longer-range contracts on the free market, which would permit them to lock
in lower pricing.

  The California Legislature wanted to retain controls on pricing, thinking
it would result in the lowest costs. Well,
  the legislators were wrong! The real damage is that the public now believes
energy price increases were due to
  deregulation, but in fact the utilities still aren't deregulated enough to
permit freedom of bidding. Take the reins off
  the bidding prices, and prices will come down.

  JAN WINNING

  West Hills

  *

  Why do the state taxpayers have to pay to keep San Diego residents'
electric bills down to $68 a month? Either
  the power providers are ripping the people off, or they have had really
cheap electricity because San Diego Gas &
  Electric didn't invest enough in increasing power-generating capacity.

  They could shut off the air conditioning and probably keep their bill that
low. My parents never had any air
  conditioning, and they lived where it got over 100 degrees every year. In a
lot of cases we would be better off
  without it, just not as comfortable. There is no constitutional right or
guarantee that we have to have air
  conditioning or cheap electricity. It sounds like a good time to start
conserving.

  KEN WALTERS

  Apple Valley

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


Both Legal.

Rgds,

Sandra.

From: Tana Jones on 16/05/2000 13:08 CDT
To: Sandra Freeman/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: New Master Swaps Agreements Database

Are Micheal Khajeh-Hoori and Deepak Sitlani in Credit?  I know Michael Schuh
is in Legal.

	Sandra Freeman
	05/16/2000 11:37 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: New Master Swaps Agreements Database

Tana,

I have had a request from Michael Khajeh-Noori, Deepak Sitlani (London) and
Michael Schuh  (Frankfurt) to access to the NEW Master Swap Agreements
database, can you please confirm if they are allowed to access this database,
and if so what level of access they should have.

Thanks & Regards

Sandra Freeman
European Notes Administration


I spoke with her and got this information.  We are scheduling her to come in and meet with Mark Taylor, Cheryl Nelson, and others who have information about the position.

Molly, when is that interview scheduled?

Michelle

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Schuler, Lance
Sent:	Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:16 PM
To:	Cash, Michelle
Subject:	Contact information

New contact information for Kim Jacobson: home office is 713/666-1230; and email address is kajlaw@swbell.net  Any update on her taking a part-time position?  Thanks for all the help.  Lance.

W. Lance Schuler
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas  77002
Phone: 713/853-5419
Fax:  281/664-4890
Email:  lance.schuler-legal@enron.com


Team:

ABB will be here on Thursday, April 26 at 9:00am.  My recommendation is that Ozzie and I start out with them and perhaps pull Louise in at some point to show the flag.  Scott - we'll pull you in before we make any scheduling or engineering decisions - so if you could remain flexible for that period it would be greatly appreciated.

Steph - if you could please get us a room through lunch at least.  Thanks.

DTT

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	michael.o.sandridge@us.abb.com@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-michael+2Eo+2Esandridge+40us+2Eabb+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:40 PM
To:	Tingleaf, Drew; Svante Svensson/SEPOW/ABB%ABB_SE01%ABB_USTRA%ABB_NOTES <"Svante Svensson/SEPOW/ABB%ABB_SE01%ABB_USTRA%ABB_NOTES"@us.abb.com>; Lars E Carlsson/SEPOW/ABB%ABB_SE01%ABB_NOTES%ABB_USTRA%ABB_NOTES <"Lars E Carlsson/SEPOW/ABB%ABB_SE01%ABB_NOTES%ABB_USTRA%ABB_NOTES"@us.abb.com>
Cc:	karla.hesketh@us.abb.com; dan.davis@us.abb.com
Subject:	Enron / ABB meeting

Drew,
I spoke with Svante this AM and he and Lars would like to visit with you and the
team on Thursday 26 April 01 9:00 AM.  I think that they plan to fly in Wed.
evening, I will pick them up at the airport and take them to dinner.
We will come to your offices to discuss where the project is at this time, where
Enron expects it to go, what we can do to continue to support your efforts.  We
will look at options that are beneficial to both Enron and ABB regarding
schedule, whatever that may be in the future considering work load for all
concerned.  We will also will discuss some method (even a handshake) to keep the
contract in place so that we do not have to go through a negotiation next time.

Please let us know if there are any other issues that you would like to discuss,
we will be prepared.  Look forward to seeing you then.

MIKE


In reconciling with CES I have come across deal numbers 144284, 229286, and
232373 that have CES as the counterparty but in the terms they show the deal
is actually with Allied.  CES has paid everything we invoiced them, including
these three deals, but they have admitted that they are unfamiliar to them.
I have not said anything to CES yet.  Do we need to change the counterparty
or what action should we take?

Thank You,

Molly


Yes, call Mike Neves at x33363.

	Limor Nissan/ENRON@enronXgate
	06/07/2001 04:38 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Enron Canada isda with Transalta

I can,t get in.  I need IT to look at it.  Do you know the name of the IT guy
in Houston that I can call?

thanks

Enron Global Markets
520 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5283
Fax: 212.715.5608
E-Mail: Limor.Nissan@Enron.com

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Jones, Tana
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:54 PM
To: Nissan, Limor
Subject: RE: Enron Canada isda with Transalta

You should have read access to our Financial Trading Agreements database
which should allow you (since you are in legal and can view the confidential
comments section) access to the comments.  We are reducing counterparty's
threshold.  Take a look, and see if you can see comments now.

	Limor Nissan/ENRON@enronXgate
	06/07/2001 03:46 PM
		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Enron Canada isda with Transalta

Which way?

Enron Global Markets
520 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5283
Fax: 212.715.5608
E-Mail: Limor.Nissan@Enron.com

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Jones, Tana
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:19 PM
To: Nissan, Limor
Subject: Re: Enron Canada isda with Transalta

One note.  We are currently negotiating some credit amendments to this
agreement.

	Limor Nissan/ENRON@enronXgate
	06/07/2001 03:02 PM
		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Enron Canada isda with Transalta

Hi Tana,

The executed ISDA list says that we,ve got one b/t Enron Canada and
Transalta.  Can I get a copy of the docs faxed to me asap??

Thanks a lot,

Limor

Enron Global Markets
520 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212.715.5283
Fax: 212.715.5608
E-Mail: Limor.Nissan@Enron.com


Ben,

I have put together a quick estimate of the adder to get from the "two 7EA
open cycle peaker configuration" to the "2x1 combined cycle configuration",
adding the two HRSGs and 100 Mw steam turbine along with extra BOP equipment.
The estimate was quick and is therefore +/- 20% accuracy. Beyond this
accuracy, we would need a tasking letter.

Your CIPCO Proforma for EPC costs of two 7EAs Open Cycle = $57,580,000 or
$378.82/Kw

The rough cost estimate (+/-20%) of the 2x1 Combined Cycle  = $130,336,000 or
$493.70/Kw
 (See Attached Analysis)

The estimated adder for conversion to 2x1 Combined Cycle is therefore:

   $130,336,000
   -$ 57,580,000
   ____________
Estimated Adder is =  $72,756,000      +/- 20%

Hope this data is sufficient for your needs. Please call me at ext 67958 if
you need any clarification beyond the attached.

Dan


I think we need some clear indication that with Hogan on the Board this is
not going to turn into a diatribe about the benefits of LMP.  He's the most
informed of the bunch and I doubt he would find a general work of interest
(unless he can create a platform for his more detailed ideas).  If it stays
general, I think the study is a good idea.  One topic area might be to
explore how politicians mess up the basic idea of deregualtion and suggest
that the process needs to be handled in a more objective (and pure) fashion.

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	03/16/2001 10:54 AM

		 To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, skean@enron.com
		 Subject: Re: Analysis by Academics----Why De-regulation is the right policy
choice

Great points.  Teece---and the lion's share of the folks on the participants
list---are advocates of a minimalist role for government, particularly where
markets are a clear and preferably option, as in the case of electricity.

That said, I think we're going to have to make a fundamental decision about
what the goal of this "study" would be, which will determine, to a large
degree, whether we choose to pursue it.

I'll throw out for comment the notion that the study should be designed to
serve one purpose:  to influence the policy decision currently under debate
"To de-regulate or not."  As such, I wouldn't see issues like "PJM or APX" or
"competitive default supplier or not," or "divest generation with vesting
contracts or retain the assets" being the focus.

That debate over critically important implementation details, would seem to
come in "Round 2," once the initial debate over "deregulate or not" is won.
To try to do both, i.e., resolve in the broad policy issue AND make the case
for the specific, "right" implementation plan, would arguably bog the study
down, perhaps interminably.  And it seems that time is of the essence in the
current environment.  In addition, unless the fundamental policy issue is
won--and won rather quickly--debating  implementation may be moot.  Of
course, it will be impossible to avoid some level of dicussion on "how to do
it," but that would not be the emphasis.

In sum, I'd suggest for comment that it only makes sense to
proceed---particularly since time is of the essence---if we focus on the high
level policy level question of "to deregulate or not," and address
implementation in a second, or follow up, study.  I think we should try to
make a call on this swiftly, since the "go/no go" decision would seem to flow
from resolution of this issue.

Best,
Jeff

	James D Steffes
	03/16/2001 08:22 AM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, skean@enron.com
		 Subject: Re: Analysis by Academics----Why De-regulation is the right policy
choice

Jeff --

It would be helpful to get some feedback prior to starting to deal with the
fundamental question related to direct access for smaller customers.  I would
like to know Teece's perspective on the role of government in this
marketplace.  In addition, I think that the paper must deal with the
drawbacks of having mixed roles - utility default supply and competitive
markets.

Jim

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	03/15/2001 03:11 PM

		 To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, skean@enron.com, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Analysis by Academics----Why De-regulation is the right policy
choice

Greetings:

As I've mentioned, I've been discussing with a group of academics
(principally from UC Berkeley) the possibility of producing an analysis of
why it makes sense to move forward toward de-regulation, and makes no sense
to turn back to command-and-control regulation.  Clearly, we're at a fork in
the policy road---move forward, or go back.

I've (finally) gotten a proposal from the group.  It's attached.  Please take
a look.  I'd like to distribute more widely internally for comment, but
wanted to run it through a preliminary screen to guage whether folks think it
would be useful before cluttering up folks' in-boxes with more emails to
read.  Few points worth mentioning:

The majority of the academics that would do the report are affiliated with
LECG, Inc., the consulting group that I worked with prior to joing Enron.
List also includes Dan McFadden, UC Berkeley nobel prize winner who wrote the
recent op-ed piece in the WSJ.
The list also includes Hogan and Joskow  and Borenstein.  We could certainly
exclude these folks should we choose to go forward with the analysis.
However, the goal is to produce a high level analysis, i.e., "de-regulation
is good and can work; command and control regulation is bad and we know that
it does not work."  Once the study is released (if it is pursued), the
"authors" could tour the country, testifying before federal and state bodies
to advocate the virtues of de-regulation and the pitfalls of reversing
course.  The analysis would not be a debate over "To Poolco, or not to
Poolco, PJM, etc."  In this way, including folks like Joskow and Hogan could
offer the added benefit of creating a "Nixon goes to China" scenario.  Please
take a look at the list of participants.  Again, we can add to and subtract
from the list.
Laura Tyson would be one of the two project leaders. (The other would be
David Teece, Chairman of LECG.)
None of the folks on the list occupies either extreme of the political
spectrum.  It's a mix of D's and R's who are arguably centrist economist and
strong believers in markets (I won't vouch for Joskow and Hogan).
The idea would be to get a wide array of industry participants from across
the country to support the project.  This is for two reasons:  1) the more
diverse the group supporting the effort, the greater the credibility, and 2)
they are asking for about $1 million to do the study.
If you think it would be useful to pursue the study as part of our national
campaign to minimize the damage created by California, I would like to start
immediately to approach trade associations, companies, customers, etc.
nationwide to garner support for the project.

Let me know if you think the effort would be worthwhile.  Appreciate your
comments.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/15/2001 02:43 PM -----

 - REAFFIRMING THE CASE FOR ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION.doc


Here is the latest draft of the filing for transport options.  Significant
changes include:

- added definition of Counterparty
- added captions and reorganized the filing to more clearly reflect
compliance with 154.202
- included an explanation of how the option fee will be part of a negotiated
rate
- added an example of how options will work

I think we need to decide whether we are better off with the type of option
fee explanation I have in this draft, or whether we should instead state the
fee will be market based, and include an explanation that, pursuant to the
Commission's discussion in Order 637, market based rates are appropriate
because we are going to commit to an open season process that will be
nondiscriminatory and that will ensure we aren't withholding capacity from
the market.

Can we have a conference call to discuss your comments this week?  I will
have Janet call to determine your availability.


My supervisor is Ed Mc Michael.


<<scanned_.pdf>>

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

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

 - scanned_.pdf


Frank - I'm forwarding the email I received from Enserco regarding the
penalty for our failure to take the full volume on days 1 and 18 on deal
#423705.  As I explained to Suzanne, I would not have paid this had they
invoiced me for it but Enserco is a Netout customer and we were in a net
receivable position this month so they deducted this amount out of what they
paid me.  As the penalty seems to be legitimate, can I get you to set up a
new deal in Sitara to offset the receivable?  If you agree with their
calculations, can you set up a positive Demand charge of $2,405.03 with Enron
as the Purchaser and Enserco as the Seller?

Please reply to this email with your approval (or disapproval) of their
calculation and let me know when you have the demand charge set up (or not).

Call me if you have any questions.
...Chuck
x.36275
---------------------- Forwarded by Charles Jacobs/NA/Enron on 11/27/2000
04:15 PM ---------------------------

"Nancy Lissel" <nlissel@telusplanet.net> on 11/22/2000 04:24:51 PM
To: <charles.jacobs@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: October Malin Penalties

Charles
?
Please find attached the worksheet for the October  Daily Malin Penalty
calculation.
?
Please call with any questions or  concerns.
?
Darrell Danyluk
403-269-5522
 - oct enron penalties.xls


FYI.  These folks are really, really nice people.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  "Jim Geringer" <GERINGER@state.wy.us>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jim+20Geringer+22+20+3CGERINGER+40state+2Ewy+2Eus+3E+40E
NRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 5:35 AM
To: Kaufman, Paul
Cc: McVicker, Maureen; Steve Reynolds; Shawn Taylor
Subject: Re: Enron's Final Version-Wyoming

Paul -
Thanks for participating at the Wyoming Energy Commission meeting.  Your
presentation was very timely.   The Virtual Integration model really brought
the message home.
Our most sincere sympathies to Steve on the loss of his father.   A Dad is a
very special person.
Governor Jim

>>> <Maureen.McVicker@enron.com> 06/05/01 07:27AM >>>
Paul Kaufman asked that I forward this to you.

Here's a copy of the Wy presentation.

(See attached file: SK-Wyoming-0501.ppt)


Rob,

Let me think about a good topic. You may also contact Steve Kean and ask the
same
question.

Vince

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Rob Wilson @ ENRON                           07/24/2000 03:00 PM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Doctoral studies

Vince,
I'm Regional Mngr Gov't Affairs at NNG in Omaha and begin a doctoral studies
program this fall at NU. I plan a research emphasis in regulatory politics ,
specific to energy and telecom market convergence and the public interest.
I'd welcome any advice or suggestions you have regarding other potential
area's of research, based on your professional experience in the industry.

I appreciate your assistance, I'm in the earliest stages of forming a
supervisory committee and  curriculum of study.


I would think that the  LOC's for #s 2 and 3 should be for CA Energy
Development I and CA Energy Development II, since we will close on those
transfers next week.

ckm

From: Catherine Clark/ENRON@enronXgate on 01/11/2001 07:24 PM
To: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lisa Bills/ENRON@enronXgate

Subject: Letter of Credit from GE for LM6000s

The accounting group received a set of 3 faxes from GE with information on
Letters of Credit issued by GE with E-Next Generation as the beneficiary.
These documents need to be countersigned and I don't know if anything else is
required to "activate" the LOCs.  I'll fax copies to you all.
The documents are:
LOC 1: $4,289,200  (for the 6 Fountain Valley turbines, since the amount is
5% of the total turbine cost)
LOC 2: $717,600  (for Intergen turbine 1)
LOC 3: $717,600 (for Intergen turbine 2)

This is in accordance with the LM6000 purchase agreement (Section 6.1.3)
where GE must provide Retention Letters of Credit (the Retention Amount is 5%
of the purchase price) when E-Next Generation pays GE the final progress
payment (this final payment is scheduled to go out on 1/16/01).

The LOC docs need to be counter-signed within 30 days and then forwarded to
the E-Next Generation, since they are the beneficiary.

-Catherine
x3-9943


Is this on the calendar.  I think it is Dec. 6?  Call vince for details....
---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 11/09/2000
11:43 AM ---------------------------

Vince J Kaminski
11/08/2000 05:13 PM
To: FAP <FAP@management.wharton.upenn.edu> @ ENRON
cc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Enron Tiger Kick Off

Donna,

Jeff Shankman will join me for the kickoff.
We would like to invite the students and faculty members to dinner,
following the presentation.

Any recommendations regarding the restaurant?

Vince

FAP <FAP@management.wharton.upenn.edu> on 11/08/2000 12:15:10 PM
To:
cc: Weigelt <Weigelt@wharton.upenn.edu>, "'kemallor@wharton.upenn.edu'"
<kemallor@wharton.upenn.edu>, Thomas <Thomas@wharton.upenn.edu>,
"'vkamins@enron.com'" <vkamins@enron.com>
Subject: Enron Tiger Kick Off

Tiger Team Hosts, Faculty, Students and Teaching Assistants:

This is to confirm the date, time and location for the upcoming Tiger Team
Kick-Off.
The Enron project date will be Wed., Dec 6 at VH 210 from 3:00-5:00pm.
The purpose of the Kick-Off Meeting is for the teams, faculty, TA's and
hosts to meet, learn more about the hosting organization and to further
discuss the project.

For hosts who may need a campus map, please see
http://www.upenn.edu/fm/map.html
From the 30th Street train station, it is a quick taxi ride to Spruce St and
37th St.

The Inn at Penn, a new hotel, is one block from campus, if lodging is
necessary.  The phone number there is 215.222.0200.  Please mention you will
be at Penn for business.
The address is :
The Inn at Penn
Sansom Common
3600 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

Hosts, please let me know the names and titles of those representatives who
will be attending the Kick-Off.  Also, let me know if you will need
technology (laptop for ppt or overhead for slides) for presentation
purposes.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Donna Piazze
Program Director
Field Application Project
The Wharton School
Univ. of Pennsylvania
(215) 573-8394
(215) 573-5727 fax
fap@management.wharton.upenn.edu
piazze@wharton.upenn.edu


---------------------- Forwarded by Angela Barnett/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000
10:28 AM ---------------------------

Darlene C Forsyth
12/12/2000 10:07 AM
To: Darlene C Forsyth/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  (bcc: Angela Barnett/HOU/ECT)
Subject: Could it be we're not paying attention?

The man whispered, "God speak to me" and a meadowlark sang. But the man
did not hear.

So the man yelled "God speak to me" And the thunder rolled across the sky.
But the man did not listen.

The man looked around and said, "God let me see you." And a star shined
brightly, but the man did not notice.

And the man shouted, "God show me a miracle" And a life was born.  But
the man did not know.

So the man cried out in despair, "Touch me God, and let me know you are
here" Whereupon, God reached down and touched the man. But the man brushed
the butterfly away and walked on.

Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way that you
expect.  So many times we see miracles and do not recognize them for what
they are.

My instructions were to send this to four or more people that I wanted God
to bless and I picked you. Please pass this to people you want to be
blessed.


Attached is the updated exposure report for California.  There are four
spreadsheets: 1) PG&E Corp and affilate exposure, 2) Edison International and
affiliate exopsure, 3) CAISO and Cal PX exposure, and 4) Enron business unit
combined CA exposure.  We are continuing to make progress on the mitigation
of PG&E non-regulated exposures.  Please give me a call if you have any
specific questions on the numbers.

Bill
3-3831

Please note:
The numbers for the PX Credit have increased based on a more complete
valuation.
The P/X Credit MTM exposures are not netted against EES payables of T&D (with
netting there would be an estimated $200mm reduction in PX Credit exposure)
All MTM numbers are valued at the Mid Curves.
Enron Wind numbers are being reviewed.
Portland General, ISO and PX exposures are estimates from last week and need
to be updated.

---------------------- Forwarded by William S Bradford/HOU/ECT on 01/18/2001
06:26 PM ---------------------------

From:  Wendy Conwell @ ENRON
           01/18/2001 07:23 PM

To: William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: California Exposure Table

Per your request attached is the latest California Exposure Report.

Wendy


STIRMAN & KENNEDY, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COMPASS BANK BUILDING
25211 GROGANS MILL ROAD, SUITE 120
THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS 77380-2174

E-MAIL: stirman@flex.net
WEB PAGE: www.flex.net/~snk

DONALD S. STIRMAN, MEDIATOR
CLIFFORD L. PARMLEY, M.D., J.D., OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH T. KENNEDY
ERIC R. HIRD
KEVIN T. SHEA
TELEPHONE (281) 367-5955
FAX (281) 292-7905

February 22, 2001

Via e-mail

Mr. & Mrs. Mike McConnell
13451 Belhaven Drive
Houston, TX  77069

RE: Proposed Unimproved Property Contract by and between Flair Construction
Co., Inc., as Seller, and Mike and Chris McConnell, as Buyer

Dear Mike:

We have read and reviewed the above referenced Contract and your letter to
us regarding same dated February 20, 2001.  We want to respond to the
questions and issues raised in your letter as well as make some suggestions
and comments about the proposed Contract itself.

First, the Contract being used is the standard type of Contract used for the
proposed transaction.  The Contract is promulgated by the Texas Real Estate
Commission and is to be used by all licensed Real Estate Brokers and Agents.
We are interested in knowing, however, if the Contract was filled out by Mr.
Larry Williams of Prudential Gary Greene Realtors.  If so, does Mr. Williams
represent you or Flair Construction Co., Inc.?  Please advise us
accordingly.

As we discussed, we think it is most important that you have the opportunity
to read and review the Construction Agreement that Flair Construction Co.,
Inc. intends on using for the construction of your home.  The fact that
Flair is both the Developer, as well as the potential Builder, raises some
issues.  Usually, Builders have agreements with the Developer regarding the
purchase of lots and building on same.  Often, lots are reserved to certain
Builders and if you purchase those lots you are required to use the
designated Builders.  However, often lots are free to be purchased by
potential homeowners who then can choose the Builder they want.  We are
interested in knowing if the lots you are purchasing are actually reserved
to Flair Construction Co. Inc., or is Flair just requiring you to use them
to build your home since they are selling you the lots in question?  As you
point out in your letter, if you sign the Contract as it now reads, you are
captive to the Builder and are not free to negotiate with other Builders.

It appears to us that you will be one of the first homeowners in this new
subdivision.  We think it is critically important that you get a copy of the
Deed Restrictions even before you sign the Contract to make sure that there
are restrictions in place regarding the size of homes to be built, size of
lots, etc.  We want to make sure that your home is not horribly atypical for
the neighborhood.

We do not know if The Lakes of Sterling Gate Estates is in the City of
Houston or within its extraterritorial jurisdiction.  This is something you
may want to find out as soon as possible.  If it is outside the city limits,
is there already a MUD district in place to provide water and sewer
services?  Since this is a brand new subdivision your concern regarding its
future development and tax rate is very legitimate.  Usually, until the
subdivision is fairly well built out, the Developer controls the Community
Association as well as the Architectural Control Committee.  Therefore, if
this subdivision does not take off you will be under the control of the
Developer.

We recommend in the strongest terms possible that you talk with recent
customers of Flair Construction Co. Inc., to make sure that they were happy
with the construction of their homes, as well as warranty work.  Some
Builders are far better than others as it relates to follow-up warranty work
after their customers move into their homes.  We normally recommend that
homeowners do not move into their homes until all punch list items are
completed to the satisfaction of the homeowner.

The foregoing was our general comments regarding the proposed Contract.  We
will now make more specific comments and suggestions in chronological order
regarding the Contract:

1. Paragraph 2. PROPERTY.  As we previously stated, we think it is important
that you acquire copies of the Restrictive Covenants and Deed Restrictions
as soon as possible.  You will be responsible to pay assessments to the
Property Owners Association.  Since Flair is both the Builder and Developer,
you may want to ask Mr. Kent for an estimate of what your Community
Association Fees will be.

2. Paragraph 5. EARNEST MONEY.  We suggest that the earnest money be paid to
the Title Company and not to Flair Construction Co. Inc.

3. Paragraph 6. TITLE POLICY AND SURVEY.  (6)  The standard printed
exception as to discrepancies, conflicts, shortages in area or boundary
lines, encroachments or protrusions or overlapping improvements is in your
Owners Policy.  In other words, the title policy does not cover these types
of discrepancies or conflicts.  However, if a survey is completed and an
additional fifteen percent (15%) of the policy premium is paid, the title
company will probably delete this exception.  This is something you may want
to consider.  However, this cost would be yours to incur.  If, however, it
is subsequently discovered that there are such discrepancies and conflicts
or shortages, then you will have title insurance coverage accordingly.

4. Paragraph 6. TITLE POLICY AND SURVEY, last paragraph.  Make sure you are
provided a copy of the Commitment for Title Insurance as soon as possible.

5. Paragraph 6. TITLE POLICY AND SURVEY B (3).  It appears to us that the
only survey you will be provided with by the Seller is one for the new
recorded plat of the subdivision.  Therefore, the Seller is not providing
you a survey of your actual lots.  If you were to have the standard printed
exception as to discrepancies and conflicts deleted, we believe you would
need a survey of your lots.  You will have seven (7) days after you receive
the Commitment and/or the survey to object in writing to any matters
disclosed or you will be deemed to waive such objections accordingly.
Therefore, please make sure that we have the opportunity to review the
survey and commitment as soon as possible after you receive same.

6. Paragraph 6. TITLE POLICY AND SURVEY (6).  We agree that this paragraph
relating to the Sellers right to continue to show the property for sale
should be deleted.

7. Paragraph 7. PROPERTY CONDITION: B (1).  We suggest that this paragraph
be checked and utilized rather than paragraph 7B (2) which states that you
will be accepting the property in its present condition.  Paragraph 7B (1)
states that you will pay a fee, usually very small, like $100.00, for the
unrestricted right to terminate the contract in the event the property is
not suitable for the purposes for which you intend on using it.  In other
words, you can have whatever inspectors you deem necessary to look at the
property to make sure that it is satisfactory for your home construction.
We often suggest that an independent inspector be hired by the homeowner to
inspect and review the construction of the home as it progresses.  In
addition, there may be some environmental issues or soil condition questions
that an inspector might raise if given the opportunity.  As the Contract now
reads, you are simply accepting the property as is and have no right to send
an inspector out to the property accordingly.

8. Paragraph 8. BROKERS' FEES.  You may want an affirmative statement that
you as the Buyer will not be responsible for or pay any Brokers' fees.

9. Paragraph 11. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.  It is written in that the closing on
these lots will be as soon as roads are in place or on March 1, 2001,
whichever is later.  However, we do not know what roads are being addressed
and think that this sentence needs far more specificity.  The second
sentence regarding your obligation to use Flair Homes has already been
addressed earlier.  The third sentence regarding when construction must
start should be revised to give you more time as you make reference in your
letter.  However, we also suggest that the Builder be put under an
obligation to start construction within thirty (30) days after the date you
notify him that you are ready for construction to begin.

10. Paragraph 13. ROLLBACK TAXES.  If there was ever an agricultural or
timber exemption on this property, you need to know.  Otherwise, you will be
obligated to pay rollback taxes on the property which may go back five (5)
years.

11. Paragraph 18. ESCROW.  As we indicated earlier, we believe your earnest
money should be paid to the title company.  In light of the fact that the
earnest money is in excess of $50,000.00 and the closing date on the lots is
somewhat uncertain, we suggest that you ask the title company to deposit the
earnest money in an interest bearing account and that you receive a credit
accordingly.

Please call us after you read and review this letter.

Very truly yours,

Donald S. Stirman

DSS/csb


Actually we have been waiting for TECO to return the draft, they we supposed to get it to us on Monday morning.  We are still waiting.  We scrapped the trip to Tampa tonight.  But there are no problems and they still want to proceed.  I expect to close by Tuesday.  I'll keep you posted.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kitchen, Louise
Sent:	Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:46 PM
To:	Sukaly, Bruce
Subject:	Frontera

How's it going? no pressure just interest.


[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]
				[IMAGE] 					[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE]
		   				[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE] 		[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE]
   										[IMAGE]
   										[IMAGE]
									          [IMAGE]    Create  a list online of all the movies you want to see.   The  movies you select arrive in 2-4 days in your mailbox via first-class  mail.   Keep  each DVD as long as you want. Always have up to 3 on hand.   Return  one DVD in its prepaid return envelope and get another DVD from  your list.    	[IMAGE]
   										[IMAGE]
									[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE]
			     ?  No late fees ? No hidden charges ? No commitments ? cancel anytime! 							[IMAGE]
[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE] 		[IMAGE] 		[IMAGE] 				[IMAGE] 	[IMAGE]

You are receiving this Special Offer as a valued iExpect.com member.  If you do not wish to
receive any Special Offers from us in the future, please click here    to unsubscribe.[IMAGE]


Lucy,

Here is a rentroll for this week.

What is the outstanding balance on #1.  It looks like 190 + 110(this week)=
300.  I don't think we should make him pay late fees if can't communicate
clearly.

#2 still owe deposit?

#9  What day will she pay and is she going to pay monthly or biweekly.

Have a good weekend.  I will talk to you next week.

In about two weeks we should know for sure if these buyers are going to buy
the property.  I will keep you informed.

Phillip


He can't go - I didn't think he could. I'm trying to find my sister (she just moved to town), but I can't find her anywhere. Any other suggestions?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Arnold, John
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:45 AM
To:	Allen, Margaret
Subject:	RE:

yea

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Allen, Margaret
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:39 AM
To:	Arnold, John
Subject:	RE:

I don't think Brian can go - but can I extend the offer to him?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Arnold, John
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:37 AM
To:	Allen, Margaret
Subject:	RE:

I've 2 extra tix if you anybody we like.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Allen, Margaret
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:36 AM
To:	Arnold, John
Subject:	RE:

I'm here - my 11 got cancelled.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Arnold, John
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:34 AM
To:	Allen, Margaret
Subject:

are you there?


Do you still have the bike and would it be possible to ship it to Houston, Texas? I am very interested. Thanks.
	Steve Harris


Start Date: 12/16/01; HourAhead hour: 13;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2001121613.txt
###Cannot locate a Preferred or Revised_Preferred Schedule that matches the FINAL Individual Interchange Schedule.  Unable to assign deal number.


For anyone else who needs it.

Bev
---------------------- Forwarded by Beverly Beaty/HOU/ECT on 11/27/2000 11:01
AM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "Victor Haley" <Victor.Haley@dvn.com>
11/27/2000 11:27 AM

To: <beverly.beaty@enron.com>, <carlos.j.rodriguez@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: CO-OWNER VOLS 12/00

CO-OWNER VOLS  12/00

 - 1200Co-Owners Volumes to Enron.xls


Thanks very much Rosalee.

Karen:
Do you have a copy of the Dow Jones article?  I'd like to email the piece to
Brulte, if you don' t have any objections.

Best,
Jeff

	Rosalee Fleming/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/31/2001 06:07 PM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject: FW: California

Jeff, am forwarding this to you for your info and possible further handling.
Ken is on vacation, but I will send this to him.

Thanks.

Rosie

 -----Original Message-----
From:  JimBrulte@aol.com@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-JimBrulte+40aol+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 5:05 PM
To: Lay, Kenneth
Subject: California

1.  Just wanted to let you know that not every Californian agrees with our
Attorney General.
2. Read with interest a Dow Jones story regarding about a 4 page proposal
Enron gave to Speaker Hertzberg allowing large commercial customers.
3.  Would love to see that proposal.
4.  Thanks.


Strategic Research Institute Presents:

  <http://www.srinstitute.com/brochure_upload/cr219.gif>
April 4 -5, 2002 w Wyndham City Center Hotel w Washington, DC

To Register or For More Information:

Visit the conference website:
www.srinstitute.com/cr219 <http://www.srinstitute.com/cr219>

Call
888-666-8514 (toll free)
or +1-646-336-7030, or e-mail to: info@srinstitute.com <mailto:info@srinstitute.com>

To discuss sponsorship opportunities e-mail to: mdupre@srinstitute.com <mailto:mdupre@srinstitute.com>

With reliability and security of electricity on the forefront of people's minds and the changing focus of FERC, there is no better time to get together with leading experts.  Our Transmission: Operations & Planning Conference coincides perfectly with FERC's plans to make some important decisions around RTOs in mid to late March. The conference will be held April 4-5 at the Wyndham City Center Hotel in Washington, DC. www.srinstitute.com/cr219 <http://www.srinstitute.com/cr219>

This leading event-dealing with the underlying issues of congestion management, market design and the cost associated with transmission restructuring - will feature top-flight speakers covering such topics as:

the locational marginal price (LMP) model as a means for addressing congestion by market means,
the unique problems that arise when "load pockets" exist amid an otherwise adequate system,
the virtues of Standard Market Design,
the realities of operating a system under LMP, and
the use of "hybrid" congestion management models that attempt to reconcile more than one transmission congestion paradigm.

 Chaired by: Fernando Alvarado of University of Wisconsin

SPECIAL KEYNOTE ADDRESSES:
William Hogan, Director, Harvard Electricity Policy Group

Commissioner Stan Wise, Georgia Public Service Commission

If you would like to be removed from our email list, please send to sri@dmgltd.org <mailto:sri@dmgltd.org?subject=REMOVE> and reply with "Remove" in the subject line.


I received a message today from one of the brokers at ED&F Mann, who said he
was waiting on our payment for a Palo Verde futures contract for April. I
remember something like this happening last month, and I remember you two
coming to the rescue, which is why I'm asking for your assistance. If either
of you get a chance on Monday, let's get together and figure out why this
hasn't been paid, or maybe why it HAS been paid and not received.

I believe the deal in question is 531782 - Long Term Southwest buys from
Avista for the month of April, price $196, trade date 2/26. Doesn't this seem
eerily reminiscent of the last contract that ED&F Mann didn't receive payment
on? Was it Avista that time too?

The contact at ED&F Mann is Martin, and his number is (212) 566-9329. Just
let me know when you have a moment to talk.

Thanks,
Kate


FYI - I'll be in and out of the office tomorrow but will have my cell phone
(713-569-9563) if you need to reach me.

8am - meeting with Barbara Chelette, Asst Chief Career Devlpt, 1205 Dart
11am - meeting with Tatcho Mindiola, Red Ribbon Committee, Univ of Houston
2pm - meeting with Dr Anderson, Red Ribbon Committee, Texas Southern Univ

The news conference went well.

Lisa


SBX2 78 (Polanco) passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a
party line vote as amended.  I faxed the amendments to Houston and San
Francisco.

SBX2 39 (Speier), which grants the CPUC broad authority over generation
facilities, passed out of the Assembly Energy, Costs and Availability
Committee.

SBX2 18 (Burton), which establishes a dedicated rate component, passed out
of the Assembly Energy, Costs and Availability Committee.

SBX2 85 (Burton), which prevents the CPUC from adopting rate hikes up to or
above levels in effect prior to the imposition of 10% rate reduction, passed
out of the Assembly Energy, Costs and Availability Committee.


---------------------- Forwarded by Bob Shults/HOU/ECT on 03/09/2001 02:53 PM ---------------------------

"Maria O'Neill" <maria.o'neill@enform.com> on 03/09/2001 01:10:19 PM
Please respond to <maria.o'neill@enform.com>
To:	"Chris Edmonds \(E-mail\)" <chris.edmonds@truequote.com>
cc:	"Stewart D. Clark \(E-mail\)" <Stewart.Clark@enform.com>, "Matt Motsinger \(E-mail\)" <Matt.Motsinger@enron.com>, <bob.shults@enron.com>, "Jennifer de Boisblanc Denny \(E-mail\)" <jdenny@enron.com>, <sheri.thomas@enron.com>
Subject:	Status of Enron/True Quote Integration Project

Chris,

The System Test environment has not been available this morning for a couple
of reasons.  During the code migration code last evening which resolved the
problem of Power Prices not displaying correctly, an unrelated problem arose
with one of the application controls that handles some of the grid display
features.  During one of the comipiles the .dll was corrupted.  This has
required us to rebuild the control and update the entire application to
reference the newly rebuilt contol's class id.  Although the Power products
have been active since last night, we have been unable to bring the system
test environment on-line for testing because of the corrupted application
control.  We anticipate that the system will be back up within the next
hour, by 2pm (barring any other unforeseen problems).  We apologize for any
inconvenience that we've caused for the Enron testing effort this morning.

To address Enron's concerns expressed to you during this morning's
conference call, here is what we are currently doing in each of these areas:

Performance of the system - We believe we know exactly what is causing the
performance problem.  However, the person that is best qualified to resolve
that problem has been extremely busy addressing other issues, such as
verifying that the integrity of the data and messages that are sent back and
forth are accurate.  This person will spend the majority of today and
tomorrow fine-tuning performance.  We have a very high degree of confidence
that we can improve performance in short order to the level that is
acceptable to Enron.

Power Prices - We observed some problems with the Power filters and took
these products offline yesterday so that we could work on the problem.  We
believe the problem has been resolved and have migrated the code to System
Test.  Although Power Prices are available right now, the System Test
environment is offline right now due to code migrations unrelated to the
power issue.

Notification of Failed Transactions - The concern is that when a user's
order results in an attempted transaction against EOL and a Failure message
is received from Enron, the True Quote system does not display a message to
the user explaining that Counterparty was not available to fill the order.
We have analysts working on the notification messages right now.  If a
user's order is submitted with a duration of 'Fill or Kill' and the order is
not filled at least partially, we plan to push a message notification to the
user stating the following:  "Your order was received by the system;
however, no counterparties were available to fill your request".  We may
also display a 'small print' disclaimer at the bottom of the message that
says:  *Orders may not be filled due to unavailable volume, credit
limitations, or another platform particpant acquiring the volume slightly
ahead of your order request."  The wording of this message is pending
approval by True Quote executive management.    These changes will be
migrated to System Test this weekend.

Stress Testing - We are also concerned with the lack of stress testing that
we have been able to perform and have been concerned with amount of
realistic functionality testing that can be accomplished given the
compressed testing timeframe.  True Quote is dedicated to completing as much
functional testing and performance tuning as possible and will have our
entire team here all weekend to press forward with these efforts.  It was
our understanding that Enron and True Quote management had decided to forego
stress testing in order to take this system into production by March 12.  We
have assumed and planned for more rigorous stress testing using the System
Test environment AFTER March 12 to improve performance over the coming
weeks.  If management has now decided that a thorough and complete system
wide stress test is a pre-production requirement, then we agree that March
12 is not a realistic Go-Live date.

Yesterday, we received several errors from EOL when we attempted to login
and when we attempted to execute transactions.  The following is a list of
errors that we received throughout the day:

9:07 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.	Received three "Internal Server Error - Unable to
process request" messages
12:10 a.m.		Received three "Internal Server Error - Unable to process
request" messages
12:13 a.m.		Attempt Transaction failed with "Failure: Broker user's session
invalid" message
12:14 a.m.		Receved "A connection with the server could not be established"
message
12:15 a.m.		Received "Failure msg = User not found in session" Code = "Bus"
message
12:25 a.m. 		Received "Internal Server Error - Unable to process request"
message
2:43 p.m.		Received two Attempt Transactions failed with "Failure: Broker
user's session invalid" messages
2:51 p.m.		Attempt Transaction failed with "Failure: Broker user's session
invalid" message
3:06 p.m.		Attempt Transaction failed with "Failure: Broker user's session
invalid" message
4:47 p.m.		Attempt Transaction failed with "Counterparty has no offer access
to product" message

We are concerned about the stability of the Enron servers.  Could you please
ask Bob in investigate why we are getting these types of errors throughout
the day?  We are also concerned that the process for verifying the status of
a transaction that has not completed in a reasonable amount of time is not
yet in place at Enron.  We see this as a critical process that must be in
place and working before we go live.  In addition, we have experienced
things like receiving messages that we had not anticipated, receiving random
credit updates that we thought we had agree that we would not receive, and
changes in XML attributes and content that we had not seen in previous
testing.

We are working very hard to address issues as quickly as we can and
appreciate very much having Matt Mottsinger addressing issues on Enron's
side as quickly as possible.  We will take their offer on using Matt to a
higher degree.  If it makes sense for him to be here at our site this
weekend, than we are happy to find him place to work in our environment, but
if it makes more sense to have him available from Enron's location, we can
stay in contact with him via telephone.

Maria F. O'Neill
Senior Manager, EnFORM Technology
Enterprise TransFORMation Through Technology
3 Greenway Plaza, Suite 800
Houston, TX  77046
Office - (713)350-1891
Cell - (713)416-3308


Tim:  I think this is Rob's new email address.

Best,
Jeff


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Brent Hendry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
28/02/2000 03:34 PM ---------------------------

Alexandre Bueno
28/02/2000 06:15 PM
To: Michael Guerriero/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Pablo
Acevedo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bernardo
Andrews/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Diego
Hollweck/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John J
Shoobridge/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gabriela
Aguilar/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rodolfo
Freyre/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Julian
Poole/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Cristian
Folgar/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Brent
Hendry/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Andrea
Calo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Marta
Ortiz/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Luis
Juarros/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Guillermo
Canovas/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: Clipping 02/28/2000

BRAZIL: BRAZILIAN NATURAL GAS TARIFFS
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. a-6:-
 According to Cicero Ernesto Leite de Sousa, president of the Brazilian
Association of Channelled Gas Distribution Companies (Abegas), Brazilian
state government-owned gas distribution companies are negotiating tariffs of
natural gas that is produced in Brazil with Gaspetro, a subsidiary of the
Brazilian state-owned oil company Petrobras in charge of commercialising
natural gas in whole Brazil.
Expectations are that these tariffs (for private consumers and companies)
will be defined within 30 days.
These negotiations have been eased due to a interministerial decree
republished on February 21st 2000 that establishes new rules for factors
affecting these tariffs.
This decree contains methods to calculate fuel value to be transferred from
gas distribution companies from April 1st 2000 and these methods in turn
determines maximum gas tariffs, so distribution companies can negotiate
cheaper tariffs with Gaspetro.

BRAZIL: ANGRA 2 OPERATES WITH LOWER TARIFF
O Estado de S.Paulo, 27 Feb 2000, p. b-9:-
 The tariff of the Brazilian nuclear power station of Angra 2, which will
begin to operate in March 2000, will be equal to R$ 46/Mwh.
That price is 20% lower than the tariff of the hydro power station of Itaipu
due to the transmission costs, but such competitive value is only possible
because debts of R$ 8bn of the power station were incorporated by the
Brazilian Treasury.

BRAZIL: NEW PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL OF CELPE
O Estado de S.Paulo, 26 Feb 2000, p. b-9:-
 Aloisio da Costa Val will be the president of the new council of the
Brazilian electricity company Celpe, which is controlled by the consortium
Guaraniana (composed by the companies Iberdrola, Previ and BB Invest).

BRAZIL: PETROL PRICES INCREASES LIMITED TO 7%
O Estado de S.Paulo, 26 Feb 2000, p. b-9:-
 The Brazilian government will limit the petrol price increase by 7% as
announced on February 25th 2000.
But some economists think the government may not be able to do that due to
the problem with the Brazilian oil account and the need to compensate the
increase in the international oil price.

BRAZIL: TERIS WILL BEGIN TO OPERATE
Folha de S.Paulo, 27 Feb 2000, p. 2-2:-
 The company Teris do Brasil will begin to operate in Brazil in March 2000
aiming for the industrial effluents and residues management market (estimated
at R$ 30bn yearly).
Teris is an association of the companies Rhodia, Vega and Teris (from
France).

BRAZIL: IBERDROLA%S POWER PLANTS
O Estado de S.Paulo, 26 Feb 2000, p. B-4:-
 The Spanish company Iberdrola recently began, in Brazil, the construction of
one hydroelectric plant in the city of Itapebi (state of Bahia), one
thermoelectric plant in the state of Rio Grande do Norte and other in the
state of Pernambuco. The total investments in these plants will be of R$
1.3bn, and all them will have, together, generation capacity of 1,770MW.

BRAZIL: PLANS OF IBERDROLA
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. b-6:-
 The executive of the Spanish company Iberdrola for the Latin America,
Esteban Serra Mont, informed the following plans and data about the
operations of the company in Brazil:
- the subsidiary of the company in Brazil will focus in the Northeast region;
- the company's main interests in Brazil are electricity distribution, gas
and sanitation;
- the company has already invested US$ 2.2bn in Brazil;
- the company does not plan to compete in the privatisation of Brazilian
electricity generation companies, preferring to invest in new generation
projects.

BRAZIL: PLANS OF IBERDROLA
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. b-6:-
 The executive of the Spanish company Iberdrola for the Latin America,
Esteban Serra Mont, informed the following plans and data about the
operations of the company in Brazil:
- the subsidiary of the company in Brazil will focus in the Northeast region;
- the company's main interests in Brazil are electricity distribution, gas
and sanitation;
- the company has already invested US$ 2.2bn in Brazil;
- the company does not plan to compete in the privatisation of Brazilian
electricity generation companies, preferring to invest in new generation
projects.

BRAZIL: REPSOL AND IBERDROLA EXPAND BUSINESS
Expansion, 26 Feb 2000, p.4:-
 Spanish electricity operator Iberdrola will invest nearly US 710mn in order
to build two thermal stations and a hydraulic station in Brazil.  Currently,
the Spanish group controls Brazilian electricity distributors Celpe, Cosern
and Coelba.
On the other hand Spanish oil operator Repsol YPF, jointly with UK-US oil
giant BP Amoco, will allocate US $ 125mn to construct a 250 megawatt thermal
station in Ceara (Brazil), which will start to operate in 2002.
Additionally, Repsol YPF and BP Amoco will strengthen their alliance in
Trinidad & Tobago, where both companies will develop works of gas
exploration.  The gas obtained would be destined to electricity stations of
Brazil and Spain.

BRAZIL: REPSOL YPF TAKES PART IN STATION PROJECT
La Nacion (Argentina), 26 Feb 2000, p. 2/1:-
 With BP Amoco, Argentine-Spanish oil company Repsol YPF will construct a 250
MW power station in the Brazilian state of Ceara. The plant will demand US$
125mn in investments.

ARGENTINA: OFFICIAL DEFENDS YACYRETA EXPANSION
La Nacion (Argentina), 26 Feb 2000, p. 2/7:-
 Nicolas Gallo, the Argentine Minister of Infrastructure, defended the
Argentine government's project of expanding the hydropower station of
Yacyreta, owned by the governments of Paraguay and Argentina through EBY. The
project may allow Yacyreta to expand to 1,200 MW its output capacity,
representing additional energy sales of US$ 200mn in an 8-10 year term. It
will demand US$ 600mn in investments. Gallo insisted that Argentina can find
investment banks to finance such works and it does not need the funds of the
World Bank for such purpose. The multilateral entity had recently stated it
may not finance such expansion. The project is being studied by US Parson
Brinckeroff International.

BRAZIL: PETROBRAS WILL INVEST R$ 1BN
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. A-8:-
 The Brazilian Petroleum Company (Petrobras) will invest the amount of R$
1.054bn in exploration and production of oil in the Brazilian states of Rio
Grande do Norte and Ceara in 2000.
Rio Grande do Norte was the main state responsible for the increase of oil
production in the country, which was of 8% in 1999. The state was responsible
for more than 90% of this increase. In 1999, Rio Grande do Norte increased
its production by 15.5% compared to 1998, or the volume of 540mn bopd.
Petrobras will also install a plant to produce kerosene for aircrafts. From
the total investments, the company will invest R$ 990mn, while other
partners, such as the American company Santa Fe, will be responsible for the
rest. R$ 62mn will be invested for exploration and to find new oil fields,
while R$ 260mn will be invested to increase the production in other fields.
Petrobras intends to increase its oil production in 2000 from 113,000bopd to
120,000bopd. For the gas production, the company predicts an increase from
3.2mn to 3.7mn of m3/day.

BRAZIL: RESULTS, CHANGES AND PLANS OF SHELL
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. c-10:-
 These are some information about the English/Dutch oil company Shell in
Brazil:
- the Brazilian subsidiary registered a loss of R$ 13mn in 1999 (profit of R$
17mn in 1998), mainly due to its fuels distributions operation;
- the company has been conducting a management and marketing restructure
program for approximately 2 years;
- 285 petrol stations were sold to the Italian company Agip;
- its headquarters in the city of Rio de Janeiro were sold to the Brazilian
long distance telephony company Intelig in the end of 1999;
- the company is beginning to use virtual offices with employees (salespeople
at first) working at home or on streets;
- regional offices are being closed;
- the regional office of the city of Sao Paulo will be the only one operating
by the end of 2000;
- the company reduced its personnel from 2,700 employees to 1,900 employees
since the beginning of the restructure program;
- Shell will dismiss other employees;
- Shell is reducing the number of distribution bases (it had 50 bases, but
this number will be reduced to between 25 and 30 in July 2000);
- fuels transfer and transport has been outsourced in December 1999, with 7
transport companies doing the work which were done by two associated
companies of Shell (Transgama and Setp);
- Shell will drill the 1st well in a block in the Basin of Campos in July
2000;
- the company will invest up to US$ 140mn in the next 3 years with
exploration and production.

BRAZIL: ALCOHOL STOCK WILL DECREASE
Gazeta Mercantil, 28 Feb 2000, p. b-24:-
 According to the Sugar Cane Agribusiness Union of the Brazilian state of Sao
Paulo (Unica), the fuel alcohol stock of the Brazilian Mid-South region is
expected to decrease from 2.85bn litres in the harvest 1998/1999 to 1.4bn
litres in the harvest 1999/2000. The alcohol stock in the last harvests was
too high since consumption by cars has been reduced.


Following please find the Daily EnronOnline Executive Summary.

EnronOnline Executive Summary for 11/13/00
Transaction Summary
External Transactions Today	3,797
Average Daily External Transactions (30 day Trailing Avg)	3,280
Total Life to Date Transactions	431,065

EnronOnline Daily % of Entity's Total Transactions for 11/13/00	Trans	Percent
Enron North America	3,273	75%
Enron Europe Limited	172	33%
Global Products	106	28%
Enron Metals	246	9%

EnronOnline Percentage of Total Corporate Transactions
(30 day Trailing Avg)	48%

Gross Notional Value of EnronOnline Transactions	Total
Today	2,594,004,524
MTD	24,577,158,140
LTD	238,008,842,818
Average Daily Notional Value (30 Day Trailing Avg)	2,247,564,889

Notional Revenue from Physical Flows to Date	16,442,818,994

Counterparties, Users, and Products Offered
Counterparties having transacted to date	558
New Counterparties transacting for the first time today	1
Number of Products Offered Today	1,223
Total Number of External Users Logged on Today	2,732
Average # of External Users logged on (30 day Trailing Avg)	2,714


The report named: Power/Gas Heat Rates <http://erv.corp.enron.com/linkFromExcel.asp?report_cd=21&report_name=Power/Gas+Heat+Rates&category_cd=5&category_name=EAST&toc_hide=1&sTV1=5&TV1Exp=Y&current_efct_date=10/25/2001>, published as of 10/25/2001 is now available for viewing on the website.


Greetings from AdvisorTeam,

You recently completed the Keirsey Temperament Sorter at
AdvisorTeam.com. Your complete, 10-page type report has been
stored for you and can be retrieved, for a limited time, at our
introductory price of $9.95.

We have added a new payment processing option, Planet Payment.
This new option enables more efficient credit card processing.
International users can now obtain their reports in real-time.
U.S. users will appreciate the improved design of the Planet
Payment interface.

To purchase your report:

1. Point your browser to http://www.advisorteam.com.
2. Login using the email and password that you used when taking
   the test.
3. Double click the lock icon next to the name of the test you
   want to purchase.
4. Select the Planet Payment button and proceed to the SECURE order
   form.
5. Your test will instantly be made available to you online;
   not via email.

We at AdvisorTeam appreciate your business as we continually
increase the accuracy of the Keirsey test, and find new uses for
the Keirsey theory.

AdvisorTeam

******************************************************************[IMAGE]
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:

You received this site update because you are a registered member
of AdvisorTeam.

To alter your delivery settings, click here.
If you would like to be removed from future mailings, pleaseclick here.


Dear Frank,

Many thanks for helping out on this.  Should be pretty straight forward I think because it is not a "new" product so much as a slightly revised version of an existing product (US WTI).

There has also been a development which makes it even simpler.  At first the product was going to be WTI (which is usually in USD and barrels) in JPY and kiloliters but apparently EOL have said kiloliters wont actually work so the only twist is that this product will be in yen and not USD.

I have therefore amended the documents I sent yesterday (so I hope you haven't looked at them yet ...) to take the barrel / KL conversion language out (and to remove the glitch from the Business Day definition in the GTCs).

Accordingly, this email is exhaustive and you can ignore the one I sent yesterday (which was at the bottom of Alan's email to me).

I am attaching a number of documents.

(i)	The first is an internal memo re two new products Enron Japan wants to put on EOL.  The Enron CP will be ENA which is why I need your help before going to Mark.  The memo describes the product generally and how it will work (and sets out the background as to why EJ is pushing this initiative).  This is FYI only.

(ii) & (iii)	These are the (ii) draft product descriptions and (iii) GTCs and we need ENA legal sign off re same.  If you are happy with these then I will pass to Mark Taylor for final approval (assuming I still need his approval if you have approved - can you confirm this I wonder).  If you have any questions, please let me know.

Both documents have been prepared based on the product descriptions and the GTCs currently used for the USD WTI product.

Re the Product Descriptions - in addition to those changes to the US WTI product description which were needed to reflect the fact that these products are in yen (and not in USD), we have used upper case for Business Days (because it is defined in the GTCs and the definition is important because it will not refer to Japanese holidays) and I have incorporated a new definition "the relevant Scheduled Trading Date" so that in accordance with what I understand to be standard EOL procedure, the top half of the product description can be the same for both products (despite the fact that the currency exchange will be done 3 days after a different date in the case of the two definitions) and only the bottom half will need to change.  (I know this is not a great way to include definitions in an agreement but I am just trying to keep my changes consistent with the current WTI Product Description methodology.

I have made no changes to the current WTI GTCs.  I have assumed that when NY law applies to "foreign" products, we don't usually amend the arbitration clause despite the fact that the products are likely to be purchased by non-US counter parties.  I am less sure however about the events of default clause.  The language seems pretty short and generic so I suspect that we probably don't put CP jurisdiction specific events in but please confirm.

I understand you are all under pressure there so wonder when you expect you would be able to revert so that I can let the business people here know.  Apparently  GTCs can only be loaded once a week at Wed. noon (HOU time) so unless you can see your way through to doing this during your Tuesday (i.e. today your time) - provided I hear from you by Tuesday next week, this would be fine.

Re Exchange Rate, Sara Shackleton suggested recently that a central bank rate would be better then a Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi rate but the BTM exchange rates are market standard here so we would prefer to use these.  This may be because BTM is listed on the NYSE and so is seen as international.

Thanks Frank.

Jane McBride

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Aronowitz, Alan
Sent:	06 November 2001 01:58
To:	Sayre, Frank
Cc:	McBride, Jane; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Viverito, John; Robison, Michael A.
Subject:	FW: EOL - new Product - JPY / KL WTI Swap

Jane:

As just spoke with Frank and he will help you on this. But, I do want to warn you that everyone here, including Frank, is engaged in a number of high priority projects related to, among other things, entering into master netting agreements and the like to manage the credit issues affecting the Company. Accordingly, the timetable for a reply may not be in line with your expectations.

Jane, I noted that the draft of the GTCs had a glitch in the Business Day definition. You should resend to Frank.

Regards, Alan

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	McBride, Jane
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 8:05 AM
To:	Robison, Michael A.; Viverito, John
Cc:	Aronowitz, Alan; Taylor, Mark E (Legal); Minns, David; Musch, Susan; Timothy, Justin; Niesler, Stefan
Subject:	EOL - new Product - JPY / KL WTI Swap

Dear Mike and John,

Not sure to which of you I should have addressed this email since you are both listed as doing liquid fuels.  If I am wrong and it is neither of you would be really grateful if you could pass this email to the right EGM lawyer ASAP (with a copy to me so I know with whom to follow up).

I am attaching a number of documents.

(i)	The first is an internal memo re two new products Enron Japan wants to put on EOL.  The Enron CP will be ENA which is why I need your help before going to Mark.  The memo describes the product generally and how it will work (and sets out the background as to why EJ is pushing this initiative).  This is FYI only.

(ii) & (iii)	These are the draft product descriptions and GTCs and we need ENA legal sign off re same.  If you are happy with these then I will pass to Mark Taylor for final approval.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  We are hoping to get this approved by Wednesday Tokyo time so if this needs to be passed on, I would be grateful if you could do this today (your time).

RE product Descriptions - in addition to those changes which were needed to reflect the fact that the products are in yen and KL (and not in USD and Barrels) , we have used upper case for Business Days (because it is defined in the GTCs and the definition is important because it will not refer to Japanese holidays) and I have incorporated a new definition "the relevant Scheduled Trading Date" so that in accordance with what I understand to be standard EOL procedure, the top half of the product description can be the same for both products (despite the fact that the currency exchange will be done 3 days after a different date in the case of the two definitions) and only the bottom half will need to change.

I have actually only made one small change to the GTCs, to provide for kiloliters in the rounding off clause.  I assume that given that NY law will apply, that we don't usually amend the arbitration clause in the case of products likely to be purchased by non-US counter parties.  I am less sure about the events of default clause.  The language seems pretty short and generic so I suspect that we probably don't put CP jurisdiction specific events in but please confirm.

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

Please leave me a message or send me an email if you want me to call you Monday evening your time.

 << File: Product Memo 1.doc >>  << File: JPY WTI Swap LD1.doc >>  << File: JPY WTI Fin Swap GTC.doc >>

Thanks very much for your help..

Jane McBride

Tel:  (+813) 5219 4553
Fax: (+813) 5219 4510


We need to make the Enpower sale for 7 mws under ST-NW all day.
All length over 7 mws we treat as normal length.
Call with questions.
Thanks,
Bill

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Semperger, Cara
Sent:	Friday, June 01, 2001 1:42 PM
To:	Portland Shift
Cc:	Scholtes, Diana; Crandall, Sean
Subject:	We have length at Colstrip all hours on Monday, June 4

We are 7 MW long all hours at Montana System,  which is our buy from MPC, deal number 615780.1

The upstream is PSEI-DUKE-WWP-MPCO.

We put in a false schedule to Smurfit to get flat preschedule, and that tag is 23795.

When we get close to HE 0100 on Monday, that Tag needs to go away, and the energy needs to be sold.

Please don't say it was a false preschedule, just say that it was 'unexpectedly ramped down' or something.

Enpower accurately reflects the length at Montana System

Cara


Ken, I've left word with Rosalee, but I know you are fighting a battle with
no let up.

I want to communicate our best wishes and offer of support.  If there is
anything Spencer Stuart can do to help you in this period of crisis, please
understand you have access to the entire Houston Office at no fee.

Good luck.  Please call if there is anything we can do to support you.

Warmest regards,

Tom Simmons
713.225.1621