Neither ENA/RAC/EGF employees nor family members or others living in their
household or financially dependent on the ENA/RAC/EGF employee may purchase
or sell securities of any entity (or derivatives thereof) listed on the
Restricted List for your or their personal or related accounts or recommend
the purchase or sale of such securities to any person, except with the prior
approval of the Compliance Department in consultation with the ENA Legal
Department.

In addition to the trading restrictions above, should you at any time possess
non-public material information about any public company, you, your family
members and anybody that is financially dependent on you, are restricted from
trading in that issue, and you may not disclose the non-public material
information to anyone that does not have a business need to know.

Company Name Stock Symbol

3 TEC Energy Corp.       TTEN
Active Power ACPW
Adrian Resources ADRRF
Beau Canada Exploration Ltd BAU CN
Belco Oil & Gas Corporation BOG
Bonus Resource Services Corp BOU
Brigham Exploration BEXP
CanFibre Group Ltd. CFGL
Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. CRZO
Costilla Energy COSE
Crown Energy CROE
CyNet, Inc. CYNE
Cypress Energy CYZ
Esenjay Exploration ESNJ
FirstWorld Communications Inc. FWIS
Hanover Compressor Co. HC
ICE Drilling Enterprises Inc. IDF
Industrial Holdings, Inc. IHII
Inland Resources, Inc. INLN
Kafus Environmental Industries, Inc. KS
Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co Ltd NSM SET
Paladin Resources PLC PLR LD
Paradigm Geophysical PGEOF
Place Resources, Inc. PLG CN
Quanta Services Inc. PWR
Queen Sand Resources, Inc. QSRI
Quicksilver Resources Inc. KWK
Saxon Petroleum, Inc. SXN CN
Southwest Royalties SWROY
Startech SEH CN
Syntroleum Corp. SYNM
Tejon Ranch Corp. TRC
Tetonka Drilling TDI
TransCoastal Marine Services, Inc. TCMS

The Restricted List is solely for the internal use of ENA/RAC/EGF.  No one
may engage in discussions regarding whether a security is or is not on the
Restricted List with persons outside ENA/RAC/EGF without specific clearance
from the Compliance Department in consultation with the ENA Legal Department.

In addition to the above, you are reminded that pursuant to Enron Corp.'s
Risk Management Policy ("Policy"), no ENA/RAC/EGF employee may engage in the
trading of any "Position"  ("Position" means any  commodity, financial
instrument, security, equity, financial asset or liability that are
authorized for trading in
the

Policy for the benefit of any party other than ENA/RAC/EGF, whether for
his/her own account or the account of any third party, where such Position
relates to (i) any commodity,  financial instrument, security, equity,
financial asset or liability which falls within such employee's
responsibility at ENA/RAC/EGF or (ii) any energy commodity.

The prohibitions listed above do not replace or modify the policies set forth
in ENA's Policies and Procedures Regarding Confidential Information and
Securities Trading, Enron Corp.'s Risk Management Policy, or Enron Corp.'s
Conduct of Business Affairs.  Should you have any questions regarding the
above, please contact me at ext. 31939.


Drew, you're so sly!  Thanks for including us in your memo.

Good job in working through this issue to come up with a solution!

Kent


Yes, my other question to Gary was HOW QUICKLY can you have the guaranty
executed.

	"Akhtar, Kasar (GED Legal-NY)" <kakhtar@exchange.ml.com>
	06/12/2000 12:09 PM

		 To: "'sara.shackleton@enron.com'" <sara.shackleton@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Guarantee to the ISDA Master Agreement

Please find attached the Guarantee to be provided by our parent Merrill
Lynch & Co Inc., with respect to the ISDA Agreement currently in negotiation
between our respective institutions. If you require any further assistance
please contact me.

 <<guarantee_mli.doc>>

Best Regards

Kasar Akhtar
Telephone: 212 449 7482
Facsimile:  212 449 2615
e-mail:    kakhtar@exchange.ml.com

 - guarantee_mli.doc


Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/25/2001 12:55 PM -----

	"Beiser, Megan" <Megan.Beiser@edelman.com>
	06/25/2001 12:26 PM

		 To: "Allen, Stevan" <stevan.allen@edelman.com>, arm@phaser.com,
Bob_Anderson@apses.com, "brbarkovich@earthlink.net"
<bbarkovich@earthlink.net>, cra@calretailers.com, dennis.flatt@kp.org,
dhunter@s-k-w.com, djsmith@s-k-w.com, Dominic.DiMare@calchamber.com,
drothrock@cmta.net, "Fairchild, Tracy" <tracy.fairchild@edelman.com>,
gdoar@newpower.com, gharrison@calstate.edu, hgovenar@govadv.com,
jackson_gualco@gualcogroup.com, "jerryl@abag.ca.gov" <jerryl@abag.ca>,
.gov@mailman.enron.com, johnlatimer@capitoladvocacy.com,
ken_pietrelli@ocli.com, kgough@calpine.com, kmccrea@sablaw.com,
kmills@cfbf.com, lhastings@cagrocers.com, "Manuel, Erica"
<Erica.Manuel@edelman.com>, mday@gmssr.com, mmoretti@calhealth.org,
nplotkin@tfglobby.com, randy_britt@robinsonsmay.com, richard.seguin@kp.org,
RochmanM@spurr.org, rrichter@calhealth.org, sgovenar@govadv.com,
smccubbi@enron.com, spahnn@hnks.com, sschleimer@calpine.com, theo@ppallc.com,
vincent.stewart@ucop.edu, vjw@ceert.org, "Warner, Jami"
<jami.warner@edelman.com>, wbooth@booth-law.com, wbrown@lhom.com,
wlarson@calstate.edu
		 cc:
		 Subject: Sunday's SF Chronicle - Direct access falls victim to crisis

> Greg Lucas' long-awaited Chronicle story about DA ran this weekend ...
>
> ENERGY CRUNCH
> Direct access falls victim to crisis
> Power-buying plan's future is in doubt
> Bernadette Tansey, Greg Lucas, Chronicle Staff Writers
> Sunday, June 24, 2001
> ,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
>
> URL:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/06/24/MNL67535.DTL
>
>
> The option to shop around for the best deal on electricity -- one of the
> cornerstones of California's deregulation plan -- could soon be scrapped.
>
> Businesses may lose the right to cut their own deals with private power
> suppliers, and environmentally conscious consumers could be barred from
> shifting their business from utilities to renewable energy firms, unless
> the Legislature acts quickly to save the program.
>
> The potential cost savings of so-called direct access to competing
> electricity providers was the plum that incited big businesses to fight
> hard for deregulation in 1996. But the program -- although it was not
> responsible for the soaring rates that piled up state and utility debt --
> may be sacrificed in the state's drive to recoup its costs.
>
> The fate of the program was thrown into doubt last winter, when
> skyrocketing wholesale electricity costs collapsed the nascent direct
> access market, weakened the utilities and caused the state to take over
> power purchases.
>
> Industry has been lobbying hard since then to keep the option open for the
> future. But the problem for Gov. Gray Davis' administration is that the
> state needs big industrial consumers to stay on as utility customers to
> help pay off the $8 billion it has already spent buying power and the
> estimated $43 billion worth of power it has contracted to buy over the
> next 20 years.
>
> Otherwise, the utility customers left behind -- householders and small
> businesses -- will be stuck with the whole bill.
>
> Competing proposals to allow companies to bail out by paying an "exit fee"
> to cover a share of the cost are working their way through the
> Legislature.
>
> But time is running short, state Treasurer Philip Angelides warned the
> Legislature and the state Public Utilities Commission this month.
>
> The state plans to issue $12.5 billion in bonds in September for power
> purchases, and officials say underwriters want to be assured that there is
> a large enough revenue stream to repay the bonds.
>
> Angelides and other state officials urged the Legislature and the PUC to
> decide by the end of June either to ban direct access or lock in a
> procedure to charge each departing company for its share of the state
> power costs.
>
> "The hypothetical and theoretical desires for a direct access market and
> the hypothetical and theoretical desire for a bond sale are now
> intersecting in reality," said Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek
> (Santa Cruz County).
>
> Industry advocates agree that firms should pay a fair share of the
> electricity purchased on their behalf. But how much -- and how to make
> that calculation -- is a complex issue they fear will be decided in haste,
> said Dorothy Rothrock, a lobbyist for the California Manufacturers and
> Technology Association.
>
> "We are reacting to crises, real or man-made, and making decisions in a
> rush without considering the consequences," Rothrock said.
>
> The PUC is set to vote Thursday on a proposed urgency measure to suspend
> direct access as of July 1. The ban recommended by a PUC administrative
> law judge would continue as long as the state functions as power buyer for
> utility customers -- conceivably through the term of state contracts
> ending in 2020.
>
> Lawmakers had authorized the PUC to suspend direct access last winter when
> the state took over electricity purchasing. But a divided PUC delayed
> action as legislators worked with industry to salvage the program.
>
> Although direct access contracts are still legal until the PUC acts, in
> effect the program was slammed into suspension by the brutal power price
> hikes of the past 18 months. Threatened by exposure to rising wholesale
> electricity rates, virtually all direct access customers have returned to
> the utilities, where they are protected by the state rate freeze.
>
> Even though the right to deal directly with generators has been on the
> books since 1996, few businesses or householders actually did it.
>
> Many of the residential customers who signed on with alternative suppliers
> did so to support the growth of renewable power like solar and wind
> energy. At its peak, the program drew about 224,000 households -- about
> 2.5 percent of the customer base of California's major utilities. About 13
> percent of the industrial market contracted for their own power.
>
> Industry has until tomorrow to file plans with the PUC to preserve direct
> access under a proposal by public utilities Commissioner Richard Bilas, a
> strong supporter of the program.
>
> Commissioner Jeff Brown said he favors direct access, but the continuing
> uncertainty over the form it would take jeopardizes the state's ability to
> float its bonds.
>
> Commissioner Carl Wood, a direct access opponent, said it should be
> abolished, because it creates a danger that residential and small business
> customers will be stuck paying for relatively high-cost contracts secured
> by the state during the energy crisis, while large industries would be
> free to buy cheap power from the newer, more efficient plants that will be
> coming online in the next few years.
>
> But Wood said even if the PUC suspends the option, the state Legislature
> could order its reinstatement.
>
> Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, is carrying a bill to do that while
> requiring the exit fees demanded by Angelides and state finance officials.
>
>
> Without those safeguards, utility revenues would dive into a "death
> spiral, " where rates would keep rising as more companies abandoned the
> system, Bowen said, giving the remaining customers a deeper incentive to
> bail.
>
> State legislators are set to meet this week to start deciding how
> California's electricity market should be structured in the future. But
> deadlines to deal with the state's financial hangover are pushing
> decisions on direct access.
>
> Bowen said it's unlikely her bill will be passed within a few weeks, the
> time frame Davis administration officials have urged to give certainty to
> the terms of the bond deal.
>
> Angelides said the Legislature could still pass a law reviving direct
> access before the bond language is written in July. But after that, the
> Legislature cannot pass laws that change the terms of contract commitments
> made by the state, he said.
>
> "There is still a window to act here, but they have to act fast,"
> Angelides said.
>
> E-mail Bernadette Tansey at btansey@sfchronicle.com and Greg Lucas at
> glucas@sfchronicle.com.
>
> ,2001 San Francisco Chronicle   Page A - 21
>


Sold a total of 65,795MMBtu of fuel sales starting 01/15/02 through 01/18/02.  5,000MMBtu were sold to Richardson Products and 60,795MMBtu were sold to Astra Power.
The average price was $2.18 on an average index price of $2.15.

Received Richardson Products confirmation letter to move the $1.6 million received designated to apply to December 2002 business to account for November 2002 gas sales.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Watson, Kimberly
Sent:	Friday, January 18, 2002 9:39 AM
To:	Lohman, TK; Lokay, Michelle; McConnell, Mark; Y'barbo, Paul
Subject:	Bullets, please

Bullets, please!!!


Thanks for your additional comments.  Attached are all the revised forms to
put into your system.  The major concept addition is a partial termination
right in the partnership and membership forms in the same format as the share
swap form.  I will let you know (hopefully with some lead time!) when
additional swaps are to be prepared for Raptor 2, 3, 4.

Enron North America Corp.
Mary Cook
1400 Smith, 38th Floor, Legal
Houston, Texas   77002-7361
(713) 345-7732 (phone)
(713) 646-3490 (fax)
mary.cook@enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 01/07/2000
05:39 PM ---------------------------

Eckao@aol.com on 12/11/99 08:21:06 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: (no subject)

Dear Vince:

        I am in some preliminary dialogues with some faculty in the math
department about the possibility of establishing a special program perhaps at
master's level on financial engineering.  The attach pdf file is my own
sketch about the program. Since you have extensive knowledge about these
things, can you give me some comments.

       Ed

 - FIN_ENGR.PDF


Elizabeth Dundov
4300 Hyridge Drive
Austin, TX 78759
lizzard@austin.rr.com

To Mr. Ken Lay,

I'm writing to urge you to donate the millions of dollars you made from selling Enron stock before the company declared bankruptcy to funds, such as Enron Employee Transition Fund and REACH, that benefit the company's employees, who lost their retirement savings, and provide relief to low-income consumers in California, who can't afford to pay their energy bills.  Enron and you made millions out of the pocketbooks of California consumers and from the efforts of your employees.

Indeed, while you netted well over a $100 million, many of Enron's employees were financially devastated when the company declared bankruptcy and their retirement plans were wiped out.  And Enron made an astronomical profit during the California energy crisis last year.  As a result, there are thousands of consumers who are unable to pay their basic energy bills and the largest utility in the state is bankrupt.

The New York Times reported that you sold $101 million worth of Enron stock while aggressively urging the company's employees to keep buying it.  Please donate this money to the funds set up to help repair the lives of those Americans hurt by Enron's underhanded dealings.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Dundov


Dear Vince,

That's fine - I didn't know if yours had changed as Grant's did - I have
your earlier part and that has already been type set.

Best regards.

Chris.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince J Kaminski" <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
To: "Chris Strickland" <chris@lacima.co.uk>
Cc: "Vince J Kaminski" <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: Chapter

>
>
> Chris,
>
> My part has not changed for some time (since early July).
>
> I sent  the last vintage of corrections  to you when I was in Sydney.
> You can send the version you consider final to us just to double check.
>
> I took the liberty of sending our chapter to Darrell Duffie and he liked
it.
> What is more important he did not find any error.
>
>
> I shell send you my comments on the article for Robin in a day or so.
>
> Vince
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chris Strickland" <chris@lacima.co.uk> on 08/28/2000 02:55:31 PM
>
> Please respond to "Chris Strickland" <chris@lacima.co.uk>
>
> To:   <vince.j.kaminski@enron.com>, <grant.masson@enron.com>
> cc:
> Subject:  Chapter
>
>
>
> Hi Vince,
>
> How are things with you? Well I hope. Do you have  the latest version of
your
> part of chapter 3? (I think GRant has sent thru a  seperate, updated
version to
> you, which has been typeset). Everything else has  been tied up and we
will go
> with the version we have, unless we hear  otherwise.
>
> Many thanks and best regards.
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Wow!!!
Sounds great!!
It matches my interest exactly,
I really like it..

I'll send you an email after I talk with
my advisor tomorrow.

However I wonder
what will happen to work with DealBench team
if I join the project?

thanks for your quick response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jinbaek Kim
Ph.D Candidate
Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
U.C.Berkeley
http://www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~jinbaek

Go Bears!

      :"'._..---.._.'";       `.             .'       .'           `.
     :      a   a      :                 __....._
     :     _.-0-._     :---'""'"-....--'"        '.
      :  .'   :   `.  :                          `,`.
       `.: '--'--' :.'                             ; ;
        : `._`-'_.'                                ;.'
        `.   '"'                                   ;
         `.               '                        ;
          `.     `        :           `            ;
           .`.    ;       ;           :           ;
         .'    `-.'      ;            :          ;`.
     __.'      .'      .'              :        ;   `.
   .'      __.'      .'`--..__      _._.'      ;      ;
   `......'        .'         `'""'`.'        ;......-'
         `.......-'                 `........'

On Wed, 2 May 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:

>
> Jinbaek,
>
> This is a project related to automated trading platforms for commodities.
>
> Vince
>
>
>
>
>
> Jinbaek Kim <jinbaek@ieor.berkeley.edu> on 05/02/2001 05:21:40 PM
>
> To:   Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: summer work..
>
>
> Dr. Kaminski,
> thanks for your mail.
>
> I am sorry that I'll not be available earlier,
> I will talk with my advisor, but
> probably it will be pretty negative.
> however, I may be able to start it from June1,
> depending on what he tells..
> We will meet tomorrow afternoon,
> so I'll be able to let you know
> whether we can start work earlier then.
>
> And could you tell me briefly
> what are those projects you have in mind?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jinbaek Kim
> Ph.D Candidate
> Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
> U.C.Berkeley
> http://www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~jinbaek
>
> Go Bears!
>
>       :"'._..---.._.'";       `.             .'       .'           `.
>      :      a   a      :                 __....._
>      :     _.-0-._     :---'""'"-....--'"        '.
>       :  .'   :   `.  :                          `,`.
>        `.: '--'--' :.'                             ; ;
>         : `._`-'_.'                                ;.'
>         `.   '"'                                   ;
>          `.               '                        ;
>           `.     `        :           `            ;
>            .`.    ;       ;           :           ;
>          .'    `-.'      ;            :          ;`.
>      __.'      .'      .'              :        ;   `.
>    .'      __.'      .'`--..__      _._.'      ;      ;
>    `......'        .'         `'""'`.'        ;......-'
>          `.......-'                 `........'
>
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Jinbaek,
> >
> > Thanks for your message.
> >
> > We have a number of additional  fascinating projects that you can work
> > on.  As a matter of fact, it would be great to have you here earlier.
> >
> > Vince
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jinbaek Kim" <jinbaek@ieor.berkeley.edu> on 05/02/2001 05:18:32 AM
> >
> > To:   <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>, "Raghavan, Suresh"
> >       <Suresh.Raghavan@ENRON.com>, "Mesquita, Ross"
> >       <Ross.Mesquita@ENRON.com>
> > cc:   <jinbaek@ieor.berkeley.edu>
> > Subject:  summer work..
> >
> >
> > Long time no see,
> > How have you been...must be busy and living a challenging life?
> > I have been pretty busy too,
> > to finish a project and write a paper, these days.
> >
> > Everything looks going OK for my summer internship.
> > I took necessary steps to work out of campus, and sent
> > signed contract to Molly a week ago..
> >
> > Here is what I am expecting to do in the summer.
> > Please let me know if you have any change in mind.
> > Actually, I wonder a little bit if DealBench changed its business
> model...
> > and maybe you got priority in something different
> > because it has been quite a while since we talked.
> > I'd like to what's going on in DealBench team...
> > Raghavan and Ross,
> > if we talk over phone it will be great!
> >
> > Dr. Kaminski,
> > If you think there is something else interesting to work with during the
> > summer,
> > to both you and I, please let me know.
> > My interest is auction, market design, and simulation.
> > I am taking a financial engineering class, (mostly on option pricing)
> > and working on electricity generator valuation problem based on
> > spark spread option.
> >
> > All of you,
> > Let's keep in touch until we meet in June!!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Jinbaek
> >
> >
> > Tentative Work Period: 6/4 - 8/4
> >
> > 1. Tasks:
> > 1) Survey on Auctions: the State of Art
> > Single-item auction, Multi-Unit auction, Sequential auction,
> > Multi-attribute auction, Combinatorial auction
> >
> >      - Theoretical
> >      - Experimental
> >      - Algorithmical
> >
> > 2) Deal Bench's Auction Model Analysis
> >
> > 2. Deliverables:
> > 1) 3 Presentations:
> >      - 1st presentation: around 6/30: on different auction types and
> > researches
> >      - 2nd presentation: around 7/15: the State of Art in auction studies
> >      - 3rd presentation: around 8/1: Deal bench's model analysis
> >
> > 2) Report:
> > Summary of auction study in laymen's term
> > Deal bench's model analysis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>


Correct.  The Services Agreement in place between ENA & ECC is what allows us
to transact between the two companies without adverse tax consequences.  We
have no such agreement in place with ECTRIC, and the UK tax regime is
different.  We cannot transact between ENA & ECTRIC under each others masters.

	Anthony Campos
	02/07/2001 08:31 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Clickpaper Master Agreement

Per my voicemail,

My first thought would be that the Credit Suisse (ENA) Master Agreement would
not cover London Pulp & Paper transactions because they are not included in
the Services Agreement like ECC.  Please advise.

Thank You,
Anthony
Global Financial Contracts
3-7911

---------------------- Forwarded by Anthony Campos/HOU/ECT on 02/07/2001
08:07 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. - Europe

	From:  Stephen Furter                           02/07/2001 06:27 AM

To: Anna Gardiner/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Enron London - Clickpaper Product Control Group/LON/ECT@ECT, European
Contract Management, Anthony Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Clickpaper Master Agreement

There is an ISDA Financial agreement in Global Contracts with ENA and Credit
Suisse First Boston International (95000405-0), dated 21/4/1993, but it's in
the Houston Maintenance group, and therefore Antony Campos should confirm
whether it's ok. I will be speaking to him as soon as he gets in.

Regards
Stephen

PS: Please in future, could you mail our group, instead of just myself or
Andrew Wells....... European Contract Management

Anna Gardiner
07/02/2001 11:52
To: Stephen Furter/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Andrew Wells/LON/ECT@ECT, Enron London - Clickpaper Product Control
Group/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Clickpaper Master Agreement

Stephen

Please could you confirm whether Credit Suisse First Boston International
have a Master Agreement in place for Pulp and Paper products with ECTRIC or
ENA? They have just been approved for trading on Clickpaper without
collateral and I wanted to make sure that they did not have a master in place
before I went ahead and set them up on the system.

thanks

Anna


fourth estate (forth i-STAYT) noun

  Journalistic profession, the press.

[Supposedly, a power other than the three estates (the Lords Spiritual, the
Lords Temporal, and the House of Commons) in UK.]

   "According to Akre, reporters see the case as `too inside baseball' -
   media code for the unwritten rule that news organizations avoid writing
   about themselves or the industry. It's the crux of the crisis in the
   Fourth Estate: no one is watching the watchdogs."
   Fox Guilty of Playing Chicken, Adbusters Magazine (Vancouver, Canada),
   March/April 2001.

............................................................................
Write down the advice of him who loves you, though you like it not at
present. --English Proverb

What to give to those who have everything? Give the gift of words.
Here is a gift that keeps on giving. To enter a gift subscription of
A.Word.A.Day, please visit http://wordsmith.org/awad/gift.html or ask
them to subscribe themselves at http://wordsmith.org/awad/subscribe.html

Pronunciation:
http://wordsmith.org/words/fourth_estate.wav
http://wordsmith.org/words/fourth_estate.ram


long 50 Jan 02 110 calls.
short 50 Jan 01 70 puts.

Mary McKendree@ENRON
01/03/2001 07:33 AM
To:
cc:  (bcc: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT)
Subject: Request for 12/31/00 Stock Holdings

I am in the process of updating the quarterly report that is provided to the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors which details Executive
Committee member stock holdings.

Please provide me your current personal ENE stock holdings as of 12/31/00.

Such holdings include:
shares held in a family trust
your personal brokerage account
in certificate form
in an IRA
etc.

Such holdings do NOT include any shares held in connection with Company plans
(i.e., ESOP, savings plans, phantom shares, option grants, or restricted
stock grants), although shares acquired that are held free-and-clear should
be included.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information
(713-345-8085)

I appreciate your response

Mary


----- Forwarded by Mary Cook/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000 02:00 PM -----

	Greg Johnston
	08/25/2000 10:33 AM

		 To: Stuart Zisman/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter Keohane/CAL/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Project Raptor - Securities Act representation

Stuart, this instruction is correct.  I will be sending you an e-mail
addressing the issues relating to the Bonus and Tetonka shares covered by the
equity derivative later this morning.  I understand that Peter is addressing
the Helms-Burton issues on the Beau Canada shares.

Greg

From: Stuart Zisman on 08/25/2000 10:00 AM CDT
To: Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Peter Keohane/CAL/ECT@ECT, Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT
Subject: Project Raptor - Securities Act representation

Attached is a representation that should be included in all Raptor
confirmations in which the underlying security is publicly traded on a
Canadian exchange.

Stuart

Greg/Peter - please confirm that my instruction to Mary is accurate.

----- Forwarded by Stuart Zisman/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000 09:57 AM -----

	Peter Keohane
	Sent by: Sharon Crawford
	08/24/2000 04:33 PM

		 To: Stuart Zisman/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Project Raptor - Securities Act representation

Please see attached.


George,

 I received the drawings.  They look good at first glance.  I will look at
them in depth this weekend.  The proforma was in the winmail.dat format which
I cannot open.  Please resend in excel or a pdf format.  If you will send it
to pallen70@hotmail.com, I will be able to look at it this weekend.  Does
this file have a timeline for the investment dollars?  I just want to get a
feel for when you will start needing money.

Phillip


Cool--my law beanie is getting a little tight lately.  Stan communicated to
Oneok that we want to keep the dialogue going and that arbitrating the
measurement issue is necessary so we can clear it out of the way and allow
everyone to focus on bigger issues.  I don't know if they bought it, but if
we approach them (maybe at the Stan level) with potential business deals it
will tend to validate the message Stan sent them.  We haven't heard anything
since we launched the arbitration on Friday, so I'm not sure if they are
ballistic or not.  Given Stan's message to them (Kathy--pls forward Stan's
letter to Jeff) I think he ought to either raise the West Texas line himself
or else tee it up by calling his counterparts and letting them know what were
up to so there is no confusion.  Maybe you or Harris could bring it up at the
Mon. meeting or sooner if necessary.   Let me know if you want me involved in
that conversation.  Thanks. df

From: Jeffery Fawcett/ENRON@enronxgate on 02/27/2001 02:54 PM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Pemex-Enron Project

Drew,
Here's a chance to wear your honorary Marketing beanie.  If you read the note
below, we're engaged in very preliminary conversations with PEMEX with the
idea that maybe TW/NNG could offer a viable alternative to EPNG to move gas
into Mexico through the Samalayuca lateral (commencement point located
approx. 50 miles east of the city of El Paso).  New construction would
involve approx. 150 miles of pipeline and associated compression to tie into
the existing TW/NNG systems near Waha.  Notwithstanding PEMEX's desire to
move off EPNG for a portion of the load, I don't think the economics will
work.

However, KN Energy (now Kinder) used to own a line they acquired through
Westar (they acquired it from El Paso Products Co.) that runs from Waha
westward to a point near the city of El Paso.  It's primarily a 20" line, and
it currently serves El Paso Electric Co. and several directly connected
industrial customers.  As a KN operation, it typically didn't run full.  I
see the acquisition of this line as one possible way we could serve both the
existing markets as well as incremental volumes to PEMEX at a rate that might
work for them.  I completely spaced on the fact that Kinder sold many of its
south system assets (including this West Texas line) to Oneok last year.  If
we are to pursue this idea, then we're forced to dealing with Oneok.

I know that we're in deep dog poo with Oneok right now regarding Bushton.  My
question is, are we in any kind of position to talk to Oneok about this
asset, considering  the legal status of our dispute at Bushton?  Also, does
our desire (potentially) to own this asset create any kind of negotiating
currency with Oneok on the Bushton issue?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.  We're due to have Pemex in our offices next
week.   Thanks!

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Fawcett, Jeffery
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:19 PM
To: Harris, Steven; Scott, Susan; Matthews, Ronald; Robertson, Audrey;
Schoolcraft, Darrell; Faucheaux, Eric; Gottsponer, Morgan
Subject: Pemex-Enron Project
Importance: High

Pemex has approached Transwestern with the idea of Transwestern building an
interconnecting pipeline between the current EPNG/Samaluyca interconnect at
EPNG's Hueco compressor station and TW's facilties in West Texas.   Pemex has
indicated they might move as much as 300,000 MMCf/d on the lateral, although
the email below shows increments to only 200,000 MMCf/d.  Pemex is well aware
of the fact that the lateral will not be an inexpensive proposition, but they
claim to see another supply option (other than EPNG) as necessary,
particularly in light of EP Merchant's behavior regarding their ownership of
the large 1.2 Bcf/d block of EPNG capacity.

To this end, I've arranged a meeting (originally set for Mexico City, now in
Houston) to sit down face to face with Pemex and discuss this project.
They'd like us to be a specific as possible and set the email below to assist
us in our design considerations.

I see this project being one of possibly two separate projects.  First, we
could re-establish a dialogue with Kinder Morgan to see if they'd be
interered in talking to us about an ownership position in their West Texas
line.  Secondly, we could build new pipe to TW/NNG.

With respect to NNG, I think there's definitely an opportunity to promote the
use of the NNG South end as a potential supply/services source.  Not only
does NNG have a full range of storage and line pack services, but they could
possibly bring Trailblazer gas from the Rockies down to serve this load.

Audrey, if you would, please set us up for meeting here in Houston on Friday,
March 9, 2001 beginning at 9:00 a.m.  We need a conference room for about 10
people from 9-12.  I'd like a coffee/juice/rolls setup for this meeting if
possible.  Also, check with me as time draws near and we can arrange a place
to take them to lunch.  I think we can finish our business with them at lunch
time and make plans for our next steps.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  jrojas [mailto:jrojas@gas.pemex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:54 PM
To: Jeffery.Fawcett
Cc: lpadilla
Subject: Pemex-Enron Project
Importance: High

Jeff,

As we talk this morning we are interested on developing a new project
with your company that could take gas into EPNG,s Hueco compressor
station located in Hudspeth County, Texas.

The preliminary information we can give you in order to move forward
with the project is this:

Receipt point:                            Transwestern and NNG
Delivery point-                            Hueco Compress Station
Delivery Pressure-                      840 psi
Volume                                     100,150 and 200 MMBTU/day
Term                                         10,15 and 20 years.

The information we would like to receive from you is:

1.         Permissions you will need to get in order to build the
interconnection FERC, RRC, EPNG, others (timing for those permissions)
2.         Time to build the interconnection
3.         As we understand, you as interstate pipeline need to post the
capacity at the EBB, how much time would it take?
4.         Rates and fuel charges that apply for all your system
(Transwestern and NNG)
5.         Estimated cost for the new interconnection facilities.
6.         Supply areas that we can access
7.         Storage Facilities

We hope that with this information you can run your first numbers about
how we can make this project work and we can have some distance walked
for our upcoming meeting on march 9th, 2001

Thank you in advance for the help and if you have any question don,t
hesitate to give me a call.

Sincerely yours(

Jorge F. Rojas Zepeda
Natural Gas Marketing Transportation
MGI Supply, Ltd.
An affiliate of Pemex Gas y Petroqu?mica B?sica
Phone: 525-232-59-87
mailto:jrojas@gas.pemex.com

 - WINMAIL.DAT


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Patel, Kirti
Sent:	Monday, August 27, 2001 10:34 AM
To:	Cuilla, Martin
Subject:	Answer to your prob.

Hi!

Please following steps to see TRV report ( which has Excel Interactivity) from home.

1. Login to ENRON network using dialup or DSL or Cable Modem.
2. Go to http://remoteservices.enron.com
3. Select General Purpose cluster 2 - Notes R5 ( This is start terminal server on your home pc)
4. Login again to ENRON network using your Windows 2000 login and password. ( this might take few mints)
5. Go to Start->Program->IE to start IE browser
6. Go to http://trv.corp.enron.com
7. Reenter your windows Login.

Also you can do this testing at your work pc just follow above steps.

Let me know...

Thank You
-Kirti Patel
x33587


---------------------- Forwarded by Dana Davis/HOU/ECT on 02/20/2001 11:17 AM
---------------------------

"Bonnie & Rayford Abraham" <abraham5@flash.net> on 02/16/2001 05:05:32 PM
To: <Dana.Davis@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Spiritual Gifts Discovery Tool

Hey Dana,
?
I have used this one before.? It's pretty  good...see what you think.? There
is another one that I like better, but I  can't find it.?? I will forward
when I come across it.
?
Bonnie
?
?http://www.cforc.com/sgifts.cgi
 - Spiritual Gifts Discovery Tool.url


AGA for 4/20/01 is 43

* In addition to the net injection of 43 Bcf of working gas into storage,
3 Bcf of base gas was injected into the Producing Region for the week
ending April 20, 2001. To date, a net of 1 Bcf of base gas has been withdrawn.


November 17, 2000

Your Invitation to e-Freedom.  Gobble It Up!

********* southwest.com e-Freedom Sale *********

Who: southwest.com Customers.

What: Internet Specials for $99/$109 or less each way.

Where: All cities with scheduled Southwest Airlines
 service.

When: 7-day advance purchase beginning
 at 7:00 AM CST on November 17, 2000 through
 December 1, 2000, midnight Pacific Time.
 Travel beginning November 28, 2000 through
 March 30, 2001.

Why: To give you the Freedom to move about the country.

How: Go to http://www.southwest.com/hotfares/?src=click

***************************************************************
Another sale in one week?
It's like one more serving of mom's pumpkin pie.

Here are the details of the southwest.com Internet Special:
*Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday $99 or less each
way Internet Specials are available only on southwest.com
and may be combined with any other fare type.

*Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday $109 or less each
way Internet Specials are available only on southwest.com
and may be combined with any other fare type.

All with the following restrictions:

*7-day advance purchase
*Travel November 28, 2000 through March 30, 2001.
 Florida markets will be blacked out March 15-30, 2001.
*Purchase beginning November 17 through
 December 1, 2000, midnight Pacific Time.
*southwest.com Internet Specials are available one-way or
 may be combined with any other fare.
 When combining with another fare, the
 most restrictive fare rules apply.
*Changes to any portion of the reservation
 (flight, dates, cities, and/or names of passengers),
 once purchased, will result in the cancellation of
 the ENTIRE reservation and rebooking at the lowest
 fare available which could result in a fare increase.

Fares do not include a federal excise tax of up to $2.75
that will be imposed on each flight segment of your
itinerary. A flight segment is defined as a takeoff and
a landing. The fares listed do not include airport-assessed
passenger facility charges (PFCs) of up to $12 roundtrip.

southwest.com Internet Specials are nonchangeable and
nonrefundable. *Ticketless Travel Online may only be
purchased with a credit card. Customers holding funds from
a previously unused trip on Southwest Airlines or Customers
who have Southwest Airlines vouchers will not be able to use
those forms of payment for Ticketless Travel Online.
*Unused funds may be applied toward future travel on
Southwest Airlines within one year of the original purchase date.

Seats are limited and won't be available on some
flights that operate during very busy travel times
and holiday periods.

Standby travel requires an upgrade to the
full unrestricted fare.

************ SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION **************
Please pass this great news on to your friends!
To subscribe to Southwest Airlines E-mail Updates,
visit http://www.southwest.com/email/

Remember, if you change your Internet service provider,
you will need to unsubscribe and resubscribe in order
to continue receiving Southwest Airlines e-mail updates.
Please visit our subscription page at:
http://www.southwest.com/email/

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

This is a post only mailing from Southwest Airlines.
Please do not attempt to respond to this message.

Copyright 2000 Southwest Airlines Co. All Rights Reserved.

---
You are currently subscribed to special-offers1 as: [mark.guzman@enron.com]
To unsubscribe, send email to
leave-special-offers1-99566240O@mail.southwest.com
or unsubscribe anytime at http://www.southwest.com/email


Cheryl/Sara,
I hope that after recent events we find you and yours all well.

We are still looking for information as to how we should proceed
in initiating an ISDA Master Agreement between Enron Capital &
Trade Resources International Corp. Cargill International, S.A.
("CISA").  Could someone kindly advise?

Thanks,
Regards,
Mara Alexander
Sr. Documentation Analyst
Cargill, Incorporated
Tel: 952.984.3417
Fax: 952.984.3872
e-mail: Mara_Alexander@Cargill.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com [mailto:Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 6:54 PM
To: IMCEANOTES-Mara+5FAlexander+40cargill+2Ecom+40ENRON@enron.com
Cc: Sara.Shackleton@enron.com
Subject: RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International, S.A.

Sara, I am out on vacation so can you advise Mara on how to proceed?
Thanx.

    -----Original Message-----
   From:   Mara_Alexander@cargill.com@ENRON

[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Mara+5FAlexander+40cargill+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]

   Sent:   Monday, August 27, 2001 8:06 AM
   To:     Nelson, Cheryl
   Subject:  RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
S.A.

   Cheryl, I have no contact in London.  Can you tell me to whom I
should
   be speaking?

   Thanks,
   Mara

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com [mailto:Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com]
   Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:44 PM
   To: IMCEANOTES-Mara+5FAlexander+40cargill+2Ecom+40ENRON@enron.com
   Subject: RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
S.A.

   Mara, my notes indicate otherwise -- that you had decided to talk to
a
   contact in London.  If that is no the case, let me.

       -----Original Message-----
      From:   Mara_Alexander@cargill.com@ENRON

[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Mara+5FAlexander+40cargill+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]

      Sent:   Friday, August 24, 2001 1:10 PM
      To:     Nelson, Cheryl
      Subject:  FW: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
   S.A.

      Hi Cheryl,

      I haven't had a response to our queries about putting in place an
   ISDA
      between Enron Capital & Trade Resources International Corp. and
our
      Geneva affiliate, Cargill International, S.A. ("CISA").  We've
been
      trying to get negotiations started since January; I was hoping you
      could direct me to the appropriate party to contact at Enron so
that
      we can get things moving on this ISDA?

      Many thanks,
      Mara Alexander
      Sr. Documentation Analyst
      Cargill, Incorporated
      Tel: 952.984.3417
      Fax: 952.984.3872
      e-mail: Mara_Alexander@Cargill.com

************************************************************************
      This message is meant to be read only by the recipient(s) listed
   above.
      Information in this message may be confidential and protected by
      privilege.  If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please delete
all
      versions and contact Mara Alexander at the above location.

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

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Alexander, Mara /xtwn
      Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:41 AM
      To: 'Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com'
      Subject: RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
   S.A.

      Dear Cheryl,

      I've again had inquiries from our Geneva affiliate, Cargill
      International, S.A. ("CISA") regarding an ISDA Master Agreement
      with Enron Capital & Trade Resources International Corp.  Are
      you still the attorney who would be handling this Agreement?
      If not, could you kindly advise whom I should contact?

      I assume that Enron would prefer to send the initial draft
      documents.  If this is the case, please note that CISA enters
      into its ISDA Master Agreements without benefit of a Credit
      Support Provider or a Credit Support Annex.  Regarding their
      administrative details, their address is:
         Cargill International S.A.,
         14 chemin De-Normandie,
         1206 GENEVA, Switzerland,
      Mailing address:
         P.O. Box 383,
         1211 GENEVA 12,
         Switzerland
         Attention:     Energy Swaps Administration,
                   David Merrilees
         Telex No.:     422893  TRX CH
         Tel. No.:      (41) 22/703 2113
         Fax No.:  (41) 22/703 2122

      Process Agent (under English law):
         Cargill Financial Markets PLC
         Knowle Hill Park
         Fairmile Lane, Cobham
         Surrey, KT11 2PD ENGLAND
         ATTN:  Legal Department.

      Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is
      anything we can do to help facilitate the onset of negotiations.

      Best Regards,
      Mara Alexander
      Sr. Documentation Analyst
      Cargill, Incorporated
      Tel: 952.984.3417
      Fax: 952.984.3872
      e-mail: Mara_Alexander@Cargill.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Alexander, Mara /xtwn
      Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:08 AM
      To: 'Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com'
      Subject: RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
   S.A.

      Cheryl,

      Cargill International, S.A. confirms that they would like to put
an
      ISDA Master Agreement in place with Enron Capital & Trade
Resources
      International Corp.   This is the Enron entity with which they're
      doing all of their petroleum derivatives trading.

      Thanks again for looking into this matter.  Please let me know if
      you should have any further questions.

      Regards,
      Mara Alexander
      Sr. Documentation Analyst
      Cargill, Incorporated
      Tel: 952.984.3417
      Fax: 952.984.3872
      e-mail: Mara_Alexander@Cargill.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com [mailto:Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com]
      Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:38 PM
      To: alexander, mara /xtwn
      Subject: RE: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International,
   S.A.

      Mara,

      The answer may turn on a key question.  What products would be
      traded?Where
      are the trades going to come from?

      Cheryl Nelson
      Senior Counsel
      EB3875
      (713) 345-4693

                          Mara_Alexander@c

                          argill.com              To:
      Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com
                                                  cc:

                          02/02/2001 11:08        Subject:     RE: Re:
ISDA
      Master Agreement for
                          AM                      Cargill International,
   S.A.

      Thank you!  Let me know if/when you need anymore info.

      Rgds,
      Mara

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com [mailto:Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com]
      Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:53 AM
      To: alexander, mara /xtwn
      Subject: Re: ISDA Master Agreement for Cargill International, S.A.

      Sara, I had already begun to look into this so I can take care of
it.

                          Mara_Alexander@c

                          argill.com              To:
      Cheryl.Nelson@enron.com,

Sara.Shackleton@enron.com

                          02/02/2001 07:34        cc:
      Edward.Sacks@enron.com
                          AM                      Subject:     ISDA
Master
      Agreement
                                                  for Cargill
   International,
      S.A.

      Dear Sara & Cheryl,

      I have been asked by our affiliate in Geneva, Cargill
      International, S.A. ("CISA"), to begin negotiations for
      them on an ISDA Master Agreement with Enron.

      There had been some question as to which Enron entity
      was to enter into an ISDA with CISA, but the latest
      information they had (possibly from someone in an Enron
      office in London?) was that it should be Enron Capital
      & Trade Resources International Corp.  FYI, Cargill
      International, S.A. is located and incorporated in Geneva.

      Could you kindly advise whom I should be contacting to
      confirm this is indeed the proper Enron entity and with
      whom I should be speaking to begin negotiations?  Please
      also let me know if there is anything that needs to be
      done from a Credit or Trading perspective in order to
      get this ISDA started on Enron's part.

      Thanks and Regards,
      Mara Alexander
      Sr. Documentation Analyst
      Cargill, Incorporated
      Tel: 952.984.3417
      Fax: 952.984.3872
      e-mail: Mara_Alexander@Cargill.com

**********************************************************************
   This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant
   affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for
the
   sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution
   or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
   intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient),
please
   contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at
   enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the
   message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to
   be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding
   and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates)
   and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied
on
   by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank
   you.

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


Ken,

This gentleman joined Enron Europe following our acquisition of MG PLC in early 2000. While I think it prudent for us to conduct an independent review (I have asked a member of Cindy's ER team to take a look at this), it does appear to me on first pass that he is essentially unhappy that we are not prepared to pay him 2 years pay in the event he voluntarily terminates his employment with us.

Just for clarity, I do not believe he is being asked to leave the company. In fact, as I understand it,  his extended illness prevents him from being focused on as a redundancy target. In addition, he along with several other Enron Metals employees do have more generous contractual notice periods in their UK employment agreements that do trigger a significantly higher sum in the event of termination than most of our UK employees (up to a years pay).

I will update you further when I have more information.

David
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Fleming, Rosalee   On Behalf Of Lay, Kenneth
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 6:11 AM
To:	Oxley, David
Subject:	FW: Enron Metals Ltd (Enron Europe Office)

Hi David -  for your handling.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"David Mortimer" <mortimer.bravo@blueyonder.co.uk>@ENRON
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 4:48 AM
To:	Lay, Kenneth
Subject:	Enron Metals Ltd (Enron Europe Office)

Dear Mr Lay,

I write to you as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Enron
Corporation because I would like you to know that I am on my second period
of sick leave in a year due to work related stress.

A year ago I was apologised to by the Human Resources Department and told
that they would not allow it to happen again.  Through constant pressure and
the unfair way in which I have been treated, the advice of my doctor and
counsellor, as they are concerned with my health, was to accept the
voluntary redundancy which had been offered to my colleagues and myself
recently.

Though due to my exceptional circumstances I wrote the attached letter.

Today I received the attached response and I feel totally devastated that
Enron Europe will not compensate me fairly for how they have affected my
life and that of my family's.

I read in Enron's literature that you care about your employees and their
families, and feel that your code of ethics should have offered me
protection against the circumstances that I find myself in, but to my
complete and utter dismay I find this is not the case and  in my
experience I have suffered a great deal and this seems to have been totally
ignored in the response letter.  I haven't once been contacted by Enron
Europe to see how I'm coping and give me any support whatsoever.  They are
showing no care or concern for me or my family.

I write to you for help in this matter and to conclude this stressful
situation that I find myself in due to your company.

Under the circumstances and increased stress that the response letter has
put upon me, I would be most grateful if you would respond to me as soon as
possible.

Yours sincerely

David Mortimer
mortimer.bravo@blueyonder.co.uk

 - Mr Chapman letter 14th Oct 2001.doc << File: Mr Chapman letter 14th Oct 2001.doc >>
 - Enron Response.rtf << File: Enron Response.rtf >>


---------------------- Forwarded by Leann Walton/NA/Enron on 10/26/2000 10:47
AM ---------------------------
From: Darren Delage@ENRON on 10/16/2000 02:53 PM ZE9
To: Maureen Raymond/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Magic 15,000 level on Nikkei

Maureen,

Hope  all is well .Thank you for your coverage last week. I certainly
appreciate the value-added that you provide in your research.I had a quick
question for you regarding any anticipated Japan central bank intervention at
the 15,000 level in the Nikkei.
If I am understanding the mechanism correctly, BIS reserve requirements fall
below certain threshold and banks can no longer lend money and meet BIS
lending criteria due to improper reserve base. And this roughly happens at
15,000 level?

Reason I ask is Goldman Sachs put out an article suggesting that
break-evenpoint for bank holding of stocks is roughly 12,000-12,500 a
different index level than the one you have mentioned.

I can appreciate the difference between reserve liquidity and actual
break-even on equity positions, but just wanted to clarify this point with
you, as we are trying to gain a complete understanding of how a trigger would
effect Japanese capital markets. And so, as I currently understand it, there
are (2 ) trigger levels to watch:

15,000 where banks fail BIS criteria and hence cannot extend new loans with
BIS stamp of approval. Clearly ctl bank would have incentive in restoring
this or else financial system would be thrown into turmoil.

12500 where banks begin to take an actual loss on equity holdings

Is this right?

Thanks Maureen, take care,
Darren


Per my previous email.  NW doesn't have this change.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 04/25/2001 11:36
AM ---------------------------

	From:  Rebecca Walker                           04/24/2001 04:05 PM

To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Booth/NA/Enron@Enron, Catherine
Clark/Enron@EnronXGate

Subject: PLEASE REVIEW -- Changes to Northwestern Letter Agreement

Kay

Attached are changes to the Northwestern 7EA Letter Agreement.  Per Ben
Jacoby's request, I have updated the Remaining Purchase Amount Instalment
(Schedule III) Amounts.  Catherine Clark in Global Finance has signed off on
these numbers, as well.  Please call me at x57968 if you have any questions.

Regards,
Rebecca


Scott sent this to Marty, but I assume you already have had communications
with him about this.
----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 01/02/2001 07:14 AM -----

	Marty Sunde@EES
	12/28/2000 07:05 PM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: What we would like Lay to get from Davis

In case you didn't see.
---------------------- Forwarded by Marty Sunde/HOU/EES on 12/28/2000 07:05
PM ---------------------------

Scott Stoness
12/27/2000 01:50 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: What we would like Lay to get from Davis

Marty.  This is a summary of our message from this morning for you to send on
or discuss with Keene.  I hope this is helpful.  Scott

What's important
Give solvency to the utilities by guaranteeing no banckruptcy against the
generation assets of the utilities.  Guarantees to be recovered, if needed,
through surcharges over 10 years.  This should give the process time for
thoughtful solutions.  Ending the rate freeze now will give the utilities an
undeserved windfall (3.5b alone related to nuclear assets in year 2001).
There should be thoughtful process to determine: i) how to keep deregulation
going, ii) how existing generation assets should be used, iii) what are the
value of existing assets, iv) when is the appropriate time for customers to
be exposed to the market, and v) what kind of market structure would be
appropriate going forward.
Customers should not be dumped into the market, now or in the next year,
while it is extremely illiquid due to many errors of the utilities.
There should not be retroactive rate making (the negative ctc should be paid
until at least the rate freeze is ended)
All customers should be treated equally with respect to existing generation
assets that they paid for for the past 4-30 years.
There should be a special hearing called to debate demand side prospects (ie.
curtailment etc.)

From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 12/26/2000 07:01 PM
To: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

The Governor cancelled the meeting at the last minute.  Apparently, he was
trying to schedule a meeting with Clinton and our meeting conflicted, so we
were bumped.  We are trying to set a new time.  I will share with the
Governor's energy advisor the information and recommendations all of you
helped put together.  Thanks


My e-mail address is changed to mark.e.haedicke.enron.com


All:

Attached you will find a list that reflects your seat assignments for Business Continuity Planning (BCP).  These seats are located on the 30th and 31st Floors of Enron Center North (ECN).  As previously communicated, you will report to these designated seats in the event of an outage in ECS.

The exception to this is as follows:
If your seat assignment is located on the 31st Floor, you will report to your original location that you occupied prior to your move into ECS.  This will hold true until the Monday after Thanksgiving, as we will have the 31st floor seats set up at that time.

Testing:
Once you have moved to ECS, if you would like to test your BCP location, you will be able to test your seat for functionality every Thursday from 3-6pm.  Testing is not required, but is highly recommended.

If anyone has any questions or concerns about these procedures, please feel free to contact me at any time.

Regards,

Stephen R. Harrington
Technical Project Manager, ECS Project
Enron Net Works, LLC
w:  713-853-7619
p:  877-651-7361
c:  713-444-7279
stephen.harrington@enron.com


I called it, from the 2.32's?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Parks, Joe
Sent:	Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:33 PM
To:	Hayden, Frank
Subject:	nice merc move


Yeah this is great.  Is is possible to add me to the list?

   Kate Symes @ ECT                04/09/2001 02:02 PM

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

Subject: Example: Deal Correction Report

Here you go!


Charlotte,
 Happy New Year!  Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas holiday season.  Can
you please let me know the status of the proposed amendment?

----- Forwarded by Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT on 01/04/2001 11:23 AM -----

	Dan J Hyvl
	12/07/2000 03:53 PM

		 To: "Baxter, Charlotte" <CRB0@pge.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: PG&E/Enron Agreement Amendment

Charlotte,
 Please explain what you are referring to when you state that Article 12.7
was omitted by accident.  My copy of the signed agreement has 12.7.  I am
attaching the proposed Amendment for your review and comments.   I added the
Gas Daily Midpoint Price to  be used as a default index when a index was not
specified and for online transactions.  Please review and let me have your
comments,  if okay, please start the execution process and forward 2 to me
for signature by ENA.


Hello Everyone,

Please provide me with your logon ID's and your password sometime today.

Thanks,

Alex V.


All;

Attached you will find the results recommendations of the Sub-committee formed to look at  VP external hiring and VP internal promotions.  As you will recall, the committee  comprised Jeff Shankman, Joe Gold, Tim Belden, Jim Fallon, Janet Dietrich, Danny McCarty.   Please review this and provide any comments to me or David Oxley.  Many thanks in advance.


As you requested, attached is the form of NDA.

	Peter Feltman@ENRON
	02/05/2001 04:34 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mathis Conner/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Asset Securitization NDA

Please prepare an asset securitization NDA for the following company:

360 Networks Inc.
#1500-1066 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 3XI
Canada

Vaness Wittman
Vice President, Corporate Development
T: 206-239-4360

Please call me at X54482 if you have any questions.

Peter Feltman


These articles appeared in the editorial section of the Sacramento Bee:

The inside story of why PG&E went bankrupt: Top officials of the huge utility
say they didn't think Sacramento could fix their problem.

(Published April 22, 2001)

On April 13, a week after Pacific Gas & Electric filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection, Gordon R. Smith, president and chief executive officer
of the utility, and Dan Richard, vice president for public affairs, met with
The Bee's editorial board. What follows are edited excerpts from the
interview:
Bee: Why don't we start with a single-word question -- why?
Gordon Smith: Why did we file Chapter 11 [bankruptcy] a week ago today? In
all sincerity, it was the right venue for trying to resolve the financial
energy crisis facing our company. It's a means to get somewhere else from
where we were before or where we are now.
There have been a lot of statements over the last 10 months now that we've
been looking for a bailout. I think even the [Southern California] Edison
agreement reached with the governor has been viewed by some as a bailout. We
never viewed it as a bailout.
What we really wanted was the state Public Utilities Commission to follow the
law to determine the end of the rate freeze, to give a valuation of our hydro
[electric] facilities and after that, pass on the costs of wholesale power
costs to our customers. It's not our power costs. It's our customers' power
costs.
And, in fact, the PUC in the last several weeks and months has been issuing
destabilizing orders to us. You probably saw two and a half weeks ago that
they announced a 3-cent kilowatt-hour increase, which is described as
somewhere between a 40 and 47 percent rate increase. None of that money in
fact stopped with financially troubled PG&E. It went right onto the state.
In fact, as we read their orders, there was even more than that coming out of
our treasury to go to the state. That, along with a few other orders, just
said we needed to take a look at a different venue. Chapter 11 appeared to be
the best one.
Dan Richard: I think we really did lose faith that there was going to be a
solution coming out of the political process. And I have to tell you, people
in Sacramento were saying to me, "We don't believe there's the political will
to fix this problem." It was kind of startling. But there were a number of
leaders who were saying, "We don't think you're going to get there." And we
didn't think we were going to get there.
Bee: What is your evaluation of the Edison deal?
Smith: Well, I think our press release said we're delighted. We're happy to
see that they've reached a conclusion. We're still evaluating it to see what
is in it and what isn't in it, and whether or not it might be a framework for
a settlement.
Bee: The conventional wisdom I'm hearing is that Edison pretty much got
everything that it wanted. A lot of people were asking if that deal was on
the table a week before, why would PG&E not have taken it?
Smith: I don't think that deal -- and I'm speculating here so forgive me --
was on the table the week before for Edison.
Bee: How about for you?
Smith: I would speculate that our actions last Friday spurred people to work
around the clock over the weekend and for an announcement on Monday.
Richard: I think the governor actually said almost those very words.
Bee: You think he gave them a better deal to prevent them from going to
bankruptcy?
Smith: Absolutely. Yeah.
Bee: What's not to like about that proposal from a utility point of view?
Smith: We were prepared to accept many of the terms that the governor
outlined in his televised speech a week ago last night. There were things
that we wanted to have in that agreement that never appeared to show up in a
written agreement.
Bee: What was PG&E's comfort level with selling either its transmission or
its hydro to the state?
Smith: Well, it's a Sophie's choice for us. Part of the company was based on
our hydro system and our transmission system. In order to stem off where we
ended up, we were willing to put those on the table.
Bee: From your perspective, did it make more sense for the state to be in the
ownership business of the hydro or the transmission.
Smith: Not really.
Richard: Is there a third choice?
Smith: They give us a dollar, and we give them back their IOU, and not a hot
dog?
It was a currency that obviously the state is interested in, and Edison is
willing to agree to. As Dan indicated, we were willing to make a Sophie's
choice and put it on the table. But in return, we needed some things as well
to take the transaction forward that we didn't have, nor do I believe Edison
had a week ago today.
Bee: You mentioned the guarantee that wouldn't end up with another
under-collection was one of the things you wanted, and couldn't get. What
else?
Smith: You say guarantee. I guess it might be characterized like that in some
fronts. We have been forced by the state of California, either the Public
Utilities Commission or the Legislature, depending how you look at it, to be
out of the generation business. The public policy of the early or middle '90s
was to get the utilities out of the vertically integrated business.
All right. We sold power plants. The ones that we held had a reduced return
in equity on them. What we really want is some assurances for what we
purchase will be passed through. No business can stay in business if it can't
pass on the wholesale costs.
Bee: What else did you need?
Smith: For a deal with the state?
Bee: Yes.
Smith: I'm really not in a great position to speculate on all the gives and
gets on that. But we wanted, as Dan indicated, a transaction that would be
enduring. We wanted guidelines. We wanted assurances that when we gave up
billions of dollars, there would, in fact, be a transaction....
Bee: So is it possible that you could look at the Edison deal, decide that
it's wonderful and you wished they had offered it to you, and have it applied
through bankruptcy?
Richard: As part of our reorganization plan.
Bee: Meanwhile, the Legislature could reject it for Edison and you guys could
get it and they'd be out in the cold.
Smith: Write that down. (Laughter.)
Smith: It may very well be a solution. But as Dan indicated, our
reorganization plan, at the end of the day, has to have a comprehensive
solution for paying power costs going forward as well as recovering the power
costs in the past.
Bee: You've had a week now to pick it over. Have you seen anything in that
deal that is off-putting to you, a deal-breaker?
Richard: You'll have to excuse us if we decline to comment on that. If we did
comment on that, it would look like we were either trying to push it through
or push against it in some way. The governor and Edison are going to present
that deal to the Legislature, and the Legislature is going to view it and I
think what we're trying to say is we're not closing doors to anything. We're
just in this venue and this venue doesn't foreclose any possibilities.
Smith: Chapter 11 is not an end to itself. We would like to get out of it as
soon as practical.
Bee: Can I ask about the gas side? When you hear from people they talk about
"energy" prices. They don't mean electricity. They mean the gas bill. Why did
gas prices run up so much higher in California than they did elsewhere? What
if anything do we need to do to keep that from happening again?
Richard: I think we have two answers to that. One, there is more gas demand
for the obvious reasons. People are converting power plants to gas or are
building gas-fired plants only because it is the fuel of choice from an
air-quality standpoint. The increased demand for gas by electric generation
is something like 700 million cubic feet a day, and this is out of 5 billion
cubic feet of day that we use. There's been a huge run-up in the pull on the
natural gas system.
We have infrastructure needs on natural gas. Just like we need to build new
power plants in the state, we need to have new interstate gas transportation
lines built.
Smith: There's a restriction on both the capacity of the pipe and the
commodity itself that has led to the increase.
Richard: But nationwide, there is not a natural gas shortage. But it is just
more in demand. So prices have come up.
Now having said all of that, that there are some fundamentals that would
drive the price of gas up, we don't believe that those explain how high the
price of gas has gone. And there, when you can buy price at the Henry Hub, at
the Texas/Louisiana border for $5, and it costs $1 to transport it to the
California border, why is it selling at the City Gate (L.A.) for $20?
Smith: And Southern California Gas Company pays right now, I believe, about
50 percent more for natural gas than we do, because we have Canadian gas
sources. So there's something going on in the transportation capacity of the
Southwest. There's just now question about it.
Richard: And the FERC is looking at this, and we've joined with others in
saying there may be some, something wrong in the marketplace that needs to be
examined there.
Bee: Whose job is it to solve this transportation problem out of the
Southwest?
Smith: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The complaints are before them.
Bee: Could I ask a question about the rolling blackouts that we'll likely
have, and whose lights should go off? The city of Los Angeles, as we know,
has its own public power agency, and it's also in its own control area. They
most likely will have enough power to survive every summer day and likely the
lights will never go off in the city of Los Angeles this summer.
Sacramento has its own public power agency, and most likely SMUD has bought
enough power to survive every summer day.
Richard: But they're part of a -
Bee: But they're part of PG&E.
Smith: They're part of a control area.
Bee: And PG&E likely does not have enough power to survive every summer day
because the state, most likely, will not be able to find enough power on the
open market. PG&E wants to turn around and shut off the lights in Sacramento
and have Sacramento share in these rolling blackouts. Why should Sacramento
share in these rolling blackouts when we've bought enough power to survive
these days?
Smith: Because SMUD has a contract with PG&E that provides for that to occur
in return for lower transmission rates.
Bee: But weren't these interconnection agreements essentially designed to
deal with malfunctions and acts of God as opposed to acts of politics?
Smith: It was designed to occur when there was not enough power. Period.
Richard: I don't think that PG&E wants to pursue a beggar-thy-neighbor
strategy. We're subject to ISO rules and the existing rules and arrangements
and contracts in place. It's not quite PG&E saying we've decided that SMUD
should suffer. This is sort of similar to the other problem.
We've got a set of contracts and agreements in place. People don't like the
outcome and they want to change it. I'm not saying they're wrong to want to
do that. Those were the institutional arrangements that were put in place.
Bee: But you're saying that SMUD cannot make the policy choice to say that
we're going to have reliable power this summer and we're willing to increase
our rates to do it. And then they can't get the power delivered because PG&E
is not essentially in the same situation. You're not allowing SMUD to make
that choice.
Richard: Well, I think that's probably a little more personal than I'm
comfortable with. I don't think Gordon and I made that choice. Or PG&E made
that choice. And I don't know enough about the contract.
Bee: But didn't SMUD make the choice to buy enough power for this summer?
Smith: I assume so. I met with Jan Schori [SMUD general manager] yesterday.
And she assured me that she had enough power for the summer.
Bee: So why shouldn't we -
Smith: Let me get back down to it. We have a contract with SMUD that in
return for lower tariff transmission rates, because they're part of a control
area, when there is a shortage of supply in the control area they're
dispatched off and share in the outages that the other 14 million
Californians will be sharing in.
Bee: To get back to the Edison MOU [memorandum of understanding] and your
bankruptcy for a minute. As you read that MOU and you look at the start of
your bankruptcy proceeding, what do you see in bankruptcy that is better for
you than what is in that MOU?
Richard: Again, that causes us to speculate on the MOU. But we went through
the door because we needed to and we chose to. And we're now there. And as
Gordon said, our goal now is to move through Chapter 11 as quickly and as
efficiently as possible. If there are elements of the Edison MOU that are
appropriate for a reorganization plan, then that gives us a head start.
Now that we are in bankruptcy, there are other parties that are at the table
also. The creditors are there. And that includes some of the out-of-state
generators and the QFs [alternative energy providers] and so forth. All of
those people. It is actually probably a broader process. At the end of the
day, it may turn out to be a more open process, in terms of forging a
reorganization plan.
So fundamentally, I don't think what happened is bad. If our bankruptcy
triggered a breakthrough on an Edison agreement, which in turn can roll into
a reorganization plan that we come up with, then maybe we'll all end up at
the finish line faster than we would have gotten there, if, in fact, we would
have gotten there at all.
Bee: We all certainly would like to get to the finish line. We certainly
appreciate your helping us understand the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

Dueling energy realities: PG&E,  consumers differ on financial risk

(Published April 22,  2001)

Pacific Gas and Electric is in bankruptcy court, as two top  executives
explain in today's Forum section (Page L-1), because the company  concluded
that the judicial system can resolve what the political system cannot.  The
company's explanation is articulate, revealing and self-serving. It is also
not bought by regulators, consumers and in the end, we must all hope, by the
courts.

At its very core, this impasse between PG&E and the state's elected
officials and regulators came down to two fundamental questions of risk and
regulation about the past and present.

First, the past. Over the last year of record-high wholesale electricity
prices, whose wallet was at risk? Was it the shareholders of PG&E, the
paying public or perhaps both?

PG&E's answer is singular. The consumers must pay for this mess, not the
company's shareholders.

These past three years were supposed to have been a period of transition as
the regulated PG&E prepared for competition from low-priced private
generators and energy service providers. The utility's initial fear was that
the  generating plants it had built under regulation would become white
elephants in  a world of competition.

So the Legislature via AB 1890, the 1996 "deregulation" bill, gave PG&E  the
chance to accelerate the mortgage payments on these investments during this
transition. These accelerated payments were to come from the difference
between  what it cost PG&E to buy power on the (everyone thought) low-price
wholesale  market, and the high consumer electric rate frozen into law from
1998 to 2002.

In fact, this is what happened for the first two years, but not the third.
PG&E wants to keep all the proceeds from when times were good, and stick
consumers for the tab when the market went haywire.

The second question concerns the present. Can the state still regulate the
price of power from PG&E's nuclear and hydroelectric plants?

No, says the utility. Now that ratepayers have retired the mortgage on these
plants, the utility contends it can charge market prices for the electricity
they produce. By PG&E's own estimate, the utility could extract perhaps $5
billion in new profits from this source over the next 10 years.

Yet remember: The reason that ratepayers paid off this mortgage is because
these plants were supposedly going to be "stranded" if they had to compete.
Did  we accelerate these mortgage payments only to have to pay for these
facilities  again?

The political system failed to answer these questions to PG&E's  satisfaction
because the utility's interpretation of what it's due defies common  sense,
fairness and sound public policy. This harmed, not helped, any political
effort to reach a compromise. PG&E says that it is still hoping for a
settlement rather than a court-ordered resolution. That can only happen when
the  utility's perspective on what's fair begins to converge with that of the
paying,  and voting, public.


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/28/2000 01:13 PM -----

	"Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>
	11/28/2000 12:43 PM

		 To: <gfergus@brobeck.com>, <acomnes@enron.com>, <jdasovic@enron.com>,
<jhartso@enron.com>, <jsteffe@enron.com>, <mary.hain@enron.com>,
<smara@enron.com>, <seabron.adamson@frontier-economics.com>, <mday@gmssr.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Fwd: DJ FERC To Lower Price Cap In Calif PwrOrder-Commissioners

The attached article (based upon another FERC leak) states that FERC will
lower the cap to $100 but will not (cannot) order refunds.

----- Message from Carol Opatrny <ccopat@e-z.net> on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
08:29:53 -0800 -----
To:	tbradley@bracepatt.com, pfox@bracepatt.com, doug.little@powerex.com,
mike.macdougall@powerex.com
Subject:	Fwd: DJ FERC To Lower Price Cap In Calif Pwr Order-Commissioners
Greetings:
According to this article, the price cap in California will fall (to
$100/MWh) and, refunds will not (cannot) be ordered.
Carol

>23:05 GMT November 27, 2000 =DJ FERC To Lower Price Cap In Calif Pwr
>Order-Commissioners
>
>   By JASON LEOPOLD
>   Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
>
>LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will
>likely lower its proposed $150 per megawatt-hour "soft cap" on California's
>wholesale power prices to $100/MWh in its final order to repair the state's
>troubled electricity market, commissioners said Monday.
>But the commissioners told Dow Jones Newswires they won't order generators
>to refund billions of dollars in windfall profits earned last summer as a
>result of spiking power prices in the state, despite pleas from state
>lawmakers and Gov. Gray Davis, because they lack the authority to do so.
>"We still believe we cannot order refunds," one FERC commissioner said. "If
>there was an inch in the (Federal Power Act) that gave us the authority, we
>would take it. But that would destroy the future of deregulation."
>FERC released a report earlier this month that largely pinned California's
>ongoing power crisis on the structure of the state's wholesale electricity
>markets. The commission also issued a proposed order requiring changes
>needed to make the market workably competitive.
>The order found that electricity prices in the state rose to "unjust and
>unreasonable" levels last summer. But FERC fell short of ordering refunds,
>saying it lacked the legal authority to do so.
>Instead, FERC proposed changes to the governing boards of the state's two
>wholesale-market operators - the Independent System Operator and Power
>Exchange - said the state's three investor-owned utilities should no longer
>be required to buy a majority of their power from the CalPX, and proposed
>penalties for utilities that put off buying the power they need until the
>last minute.
>FERC also proposed capping the price paid to all bidders in California's
>power auctions at $150/MWh. Individual bidders could still get higher
>prices, but would have to justify their claims to FERC.
>FERC may issue its final order as early as Dec. 13, and commissioners said
>California shouldn't expect it to differ from the proposed changes
>recommended by FERC earlier this month.
>The comment period for FERC's draft order closed Nov. 22.
>(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 27-11-00
>2305GMT
>Final Order Won't Order Refunds
>Davis warned FERC commissioners at a public hearing in San Diego two weeks
>ago that a failure to order refunds would produce a "ratepayer revolt."
>"Your proposed solution to our energy crisis does nothing to lower prices
>for California consumers," the Democratic governor told FERC on Nov. 13 at a
>meeting in San Diego. "Quite to the contrary, it is designed to bring our
>economy and our consumers to their knees."
>California's power regulators and utilities also pressed for refunds.
>The state's Public Utilities Commission said it has evidence of market abuse
>by generators and that consumers were overcharged $4 billion last summer for
>electricity.
>Edison International unit (EIX) Southern California Edison, in its response
>to the FERC order, attached a study by a Massachusetts Institute of
>Technology economist, who found "considerable evidence" generators and power
>marketers deliberately withheld supply from California from June through
>September - when power usage is at its peak - to drive up wholesale prices.
>But despite the allegations, FERC commissioners said they will not order
>refunds, though they said the state could legally return to cost-based
>rates.
>One commissioner also warned a lower "soft cap" of $100/MWh would likely
>deter generators from building new power plants in the state, even as it
>limited price spikes.
>"The truth of the matter is there is no painless or easy way for California
>to change its electricity market," the FERC commissioner said.
>
>   Consumer Groups Push Ballot Measure To Re-regulate
>
>Davis will file the changes the state wants made to the proposed order with
>FERC on Friday, but FERC commissioners said they don't expect to be swayed
>by the governor's filing.
>Meanwhile, Californians are steaming ahead with their own solutions.
>On Tuesday, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Southern
>California consumer advocacy group, will hold a news conference announcing
>its own sweeping changes to the state's power market, which it will try to
>implement through a proposed ballot measure, the details of which have not
>been disclosed.
>Furthermore, state lawmakers plan on rewriting parts of AB1890, California's
>landmark restructuring law when the state Legislature convenes next year.
>There is already heated debate within the Legislature to reauthorize
>utilities to build power plants and to create a public utility system like
>Nebraska's, where there are no investor-owned utilities, in an effort to
>control power prices.
>"California lawmakers want to be re-elected in 2002," one key lawmaker close
>to the electricity issue said.
>And Davis is in meetings to replace the Cal-ISO and CalPX with a new entity
>to manage the power grid and the state's two wholesale power markets, said
>Steve Maviglio, Davis' press secretary.
>-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
>jason.leopold@dowjones.com
>-0-
>Last week, FERC received hundreds of pages of comments to its proposed order
>for California's power market.
>(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 27-11-00
>G_nther A. Pergher
>Senior Analyst
>Dow Jones & Company Inc.
>Tel.  609.520.7067
>Fax. 609.452.3531
>
>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
>which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
>taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
>entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
>this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
>computer.
>
> <<Pergher, Gunther.vcf>>
>
>------_=_NextPart_000_01C05946.A1460FC0
>Content-Type:  application/octet-stream;
>   name="Pergher, Gunther.vcf"
>Content-Disposition:  attachment;
>   filename="Pergher, Gunther.vcf"
>
>BEGIN:VCARD
>VERSION:2.1
>N:Pergher;Gunther
>FN:Pergher, Gunther
>ORG:Dow Jones Newswires;News Gathering & Pdn
>TITLE:Sr Research Analyst
>TEL;WORK;VOICE:609-520-7067
>ADR;WORK:;South Brunswick NJ
>LABEL;WORK:South Brunswick NJ
>EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:Gunther.Pergher@dowjones.com
>REV:20001121T161855Z
>END:VCARD
>
>------_=_NextPart_000_01C05946.A1460FC0--
>
Carol Close Opatrny
Opatrny Consulting, Inc.
18509 N. E. Cedar Drive
Battle Ground, Washington 98604
360.666.8509 (fax)
360.666.8510 (phone)
e-mail: ccopat@e-z.net


----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 11/28/2000 11:05 AM -----

	Karen Denne
	11/27/2000 04:33 PM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc:
		 Subject: Duke Energy proposes to manage SDG&E's entire electricity load for
five years

fyi...
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 11/27/2000
03:58 PM ---------------------------

tcwillia@duke-energy.com on 11/27/2000 02:23:42 PM
To: "Andy Brown (IEP)" <runwithmee@aol.com>, Bob Escalante at Constellation
<Bob.escalante@powersrc.com>, Curtis Keebler at Reliant
<curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, Greg Blue <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "Jack
Pigott @ Calpine" <jackp@calpine.com>, Jan Smutny-Jones <smutny@iepa.com>,
"Joe Ronan @ Calpine" <joer@calpine.com>, John Stout for Reliant
<john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>, "Julie @ Edson" <jmball@ns.net>, "Karen
Denne, Enron" <kdenne@enron.com>, Karen Edson <kedson@ns.net>, "Kassandra
Gough @ Calpine" <kgough@calpine.com>, Katie at IEP <kaplan@iepa.com>, Lynn
Lednicky at Dynegy <lale@dynegy.com>, Marty Wilson <mwilson@pstrategies.com>,
Paula Hall-Collins <paula.hall-collins@williams.com>, "Richard Hyde, Duke"
<rwhyde@duke-energy.com>, Rob Lamkin <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>, Roger
Pelote <roger.pelote@williams.com>, Stephanie Newell at Reliant
<stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>, Steven Kelly <steven@iepa.com>
cc:

Subject: Duke Energy proposes to manage SDG&E's entire electricity load for
five years

The note below was sent to the 20 or so reporters that I have been working
with on the CA electricity crisis.

FYI.

Below is a press release we distributed today that details a proposal we
have made to San Diego Gas & Electric to manage their entire electricity
load (up to 3,300 megawatts) for five years at a fixed price of $60 a
megawatt hour.  The proposal was detailed in our comments to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission on their recent proposed solutions to
Caifornia.

As the release indicates, forward contracting for electricity is a very
effective way for the state's utilities to manage the volitility in the
state's electricity markets.  With natural gas prices more than doubling
since last year and last week being up to seven times higher than last year
on the spot market (up to $19 a million BTU vs. an average of about $2.50
in 1999), we feel that its imperative for utilities to take advantage of
these contracts so they can manage their own risk  exposure and their
customer's risk exposue to this volitility and the associated high prices.
(The price of natural gas represents about 90 percent of our plant's
operating costs).

We signed a forward power contract with PG&E Oct. 30 and Southern Cal
Edison Nov. 15 (announced for the first time in the this release).  The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission strongly encourages these kind of
contracts -- and we hope that we, or other wholesale power marketers, can
do more of this kind of business with these utilities and SDG&E in the very
near future to bring stability to the state's wholesale electricity market.

Our proposal is detailed on pages eight and nine in the FERC filing, which
also includes our other positions on the California electricity crisis.
These are also detailed on our CA web site at
www.Duke-Energy.com/California.

For more information, call me at 805-595-4270 or page me at 877-364-5170.

(See attached file: Nov 27 release.doc)(See attached file: Duke Nov. 22
FERC filing.doc)
 - Nov 27 release.doc
 - Duke Nov. 22 FERC filing.doc


Steve, FYi this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow  you are welcome to
join us.........
---------------------- Forwarded by Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron on 12/19/2000
06:08 PM ---------------------------

Gerry Gibson
12/19/2000 11:34 AM
To: David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Jones/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Marla
Barnard/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Elizabeth
Tilney/HOU/EES@EES, Gary P Smith/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Drew C Lynch/LON/ECT@ECT,
Jon_zagrodzky@mckinsey.com, Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Beverly Stephens/Corp/Enron@Enron, Norma Yeverino/HR/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Sandy Stone/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Ruth Ann
Brown/HOU/EES@EES, Carolyn Perry/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Rachael Adams/LON/ECT@ECT,
Hilda Bourgeois-Galloway/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kathy McMahon/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications

Subject: Partnerhsip & Peer Group Meeting

Hi Folks:

Just a friendly reminder regarding the Partnership & Peer Group Follow-up
meeting that will take place on December 21st from 8:00 - 10:00 in the 50M
Exec. Dining Room.  Below are the next steps that we agreed to the last time
we met.

Next Steps (from Dec. 15 meeting):

1. Refer to page 10 of the document (reviewed by Jon Z.) and take a stab at
mapping out how each of your current organizations would fit within this
structure (Commercial, Strategic Professional & Technical and Support Tracks)
2. Begin to build / refine / specify the criteria for a role / position being
in one or more of the three "Tracks"
3. Highlight / document specific adjustments / key potential "Business Unit
-specific issues and questions" that should be considered.
4. Begin to develop / suggest evaluation / "PRC" criteria (pages 11 & 12)

Regards, Gerry G.


Any way to commercially prevent this from happening? Phone calls, etc.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Whiting, Greg
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 10:09 AM
To:	Deffner, Joseph
Cc:	Hodges, Georganne; Schield, Elaine
Subject:	OTC for 10/29/01
Importance:	High

FYI - The net OTC for 10/29/01 is $73MM out.  The big player is Reliant getting $79MM returned as they are putting up a letter of credit.  Also, we have a first in that Sempra Energy is calling ERAC (Enron Reserve Acquisition Corporation) for $41MM of margin for crude.  Call with any questions.

							Greg x35399


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W E E K E N D   S Y S T E M S   A V A I L A B I L I T Y

F O R

June 1, 2001 5:00pm through June 4, 2001 12:00am
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECS to ECN Network Interconnection, June 9th 2001

This is a notification that the Enron Corp. I/T Networks team will be connecting the new building network infrastructure located in Enron Center South (ECS) to the existing Enron Center North (ECN) backbone network.  While this activity is not expected to produce a disruption to network services, this notice is designed to alert the organization to our activities.  No network hardware or systems are anticipated to be shutdown.  The actual physical interconnection of the networks will be performed in the EB 34th floor Data Center.

Interconnection activities are scheduled to occur the evening of June 9th 2001 starting from 7:00 p.m.(CT) and completing around 11:00 p.m. (CT). Application testing activities will begin at 11:00 p.m. (CT) once all network testing has completed.

If you have any further questions, please contact Pete Castrejana at 713-410-0642 for more information.

SCHEDULED SYSTEM OUTAGES:

ARDMORE DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages.

AZURIX: No Scheduled Outages.

EB34 DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages.

EDI SERVER: No Scheduled Outages.

ENRON CENTER SOUTH DATA CENTER - FACILITY OPERATIONS: No Scheduled Outages

ENRON NORTH AMERICAN LANS:
Impact:  ENS
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001 at  11:00:00 PM CT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at  11:45:00 PM CT
	Fri 6/1/2001 at    9:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at     9:45:00 PM PT
	Sat 6/2/2001 at  5:00:00 AM London thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  5:45:00 AM London
Outage:  Enable routing on new router ecn-34-cor-ccr1
Environments Impacted:  ENS
Purpose: This router will be used to connect to the new building
Backout: remove routing on the router.
Contact(s): 	Scott Shishido    713-853-9780

Impact:  AEP
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001 at  8:00:00 PM CT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at  8:30:00 PM CT
	Fri 6/1/2001 at  6:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at  6:30:00 PM PT
	Sat 6/2/2001 at  2:00:00 AM London thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  2:30:00 AM London
Outage:  Shutting off the internal link to 1201 Louisiana
Environments Impacted:  AEP
Purpose: Company occupying that space has been sold.
Backout: None
Contact(s): 	Garhett Clark         713-345-9953
                        Robert Humlicek   713-853-6366   713-406-8293

Impact:  ENS/GCO
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001    thru Wed 7/4/2001
Outage:  HPL migration to AEP
Environments Impacted:  GCO
Purpose: Sites sold
Backout: None
Contact(s): 	Garhett Clark         713-345-9953
		Robert Humlicek   713-853-6366   713-406-8293

FIELD SERVICES:  No Scheduled Outages.

INTERNET:
Impact:  Internet
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001 at  10:30:00 PM CT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at  10:45:00 PM CT
	Fri 6/1/2001 at    8:30:00 PM PT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at     8:45:00 PM PT
	Sat 6/2/2001 at  4:30:00 AM London thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  4:45:00 AM London
Outage:  Reboot Enron.com edge routers
Environments Impacted:  Internet
Purpose: Regular reboot to prevent such problems as memory corruption. Intermettent disruption to last about five minutes.
Backout:
Contact(s): 	John Shupak          713-853-7943
		Bryan Aubuchon    713-345-8446

MESSAGING:
Impact:  Corp Notes
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001 at  9:00:00 PM CT thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  1:00:00 AM CT
	Fri 6/1/2001 at  7:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at 11:00:00 PM PT
	Sat 6/2/2001 at  3:00:00 AM London thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  7:00:00 AM London
Outage:  cNotes Server Reboots
Environments Impacted:  All users on any of the mailservers listed below
Purpose: Scheduled @ 2 week interval
Backout: Make sure server comes up.
Contact(s): 	Trey Rhodes  (713) 345-7792

Impact:  EI
Time:  Fri 6/1/2001 at  9:00:00 PM CT thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  1:00:00 AM CT
	Fri 6/1/2001 at  7:00:00 PM PT thru Fri 6/1/2001 at 11:00:00 PM PT
	Sat 6/2/2001 at  3:00:00 AM London thru Sat 6/2/2001 at  7:00:00 AM London
Outage:  EI Notes Server Maintenance
Environments Impacted:  EI Local/Domestic/Foreign Sites
Purpose: Scheduled @ 2 week interval
Backout: N/A
Contact(s): 	David Ricafrente    713-646-7741

MARKET DATA: No Scheduled Outages.

NT: No Scheduled Outages.

OS/2:  No Scheduled Outages.

OTHER SYSTEMS: No Scheduled Outages.

SITARA:  No Scheduled Outages.

SUN/OSS SYSTEM: No Scheduled Outages.

TELEPHONY: No Scheduled Outages

TERMINAL SERVER:  No Scheduled Outages.

UNIFY:  No Scheduled Outages.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
								FOR ASSISTANCE

(713) 853-1411   Enron Resolution Center

Specific Help:
Information Risk Management			(713) 853-5536
SAP/ISC                                                                               (713) 345-4727
Unify On-Call 					(713) 284-3757  [Pager]
Sitara On-Call					(713) 288-0101  [Pager]
RUS/GOPS/GeoTools/APRS			(713) 639-9726  [Pager]
OSS/UA4/TARP				(713) 285-3165  [Pager]
CPR						(713) 284-4175  [Pager]
EDI Support 					(713) 327-3893  [Pager]
EES Help Desk					(713)853-9797 OR (888)853-9797
TDS -Trader Decision Support On-Call                    (713) 327-6032 [Pager]