Greetings All:

First, I am apologizing in advance for any typos in this email.  Schedule is
very tight, but I wanted to make sure that everyone had it first thing this
morning, with some back-up info that I've included below.

Attached is the email that was sent to Ken Lay's office yesterday evening for
delivery to Sen. Brulte.  It's of course confidential.  Few points:

I don't have Bev's email, so if you could please forward to her, that would
be appreciated.
As we discussed (Jim, Mike, Bev, Scott, Hedy) on our lengthy call on
Wednesday, I'm assuming that the plan is still to "wallpaper" Sacramento with
our proposed legislation.
This email does not contain the legislation.  Mike sent the "final" versions
of our legislation out yesterday, except for the siting piece, which I
believe Brian Cragg of Mike's office is finalizing today.
You'll note that we promise Senator Brulte in the email that we'll deliver to
his office today the proposed legislation.  Again, based on our call on
Wednesday, I'm assuming that we would simultaneously release the proposed
legislation to the rest of the world at the same time.
When we spoke on Wednesday, we decided that the Sacramento team would
determine to whom we would circulate the proposed legislation at the same
time that we deliver the Senator Brulte. I'm assuming that you folks will
handle that end of things.  Please let us know at your convenience to whom
you've decided to circulate.
This email does, however, include a "summary" of our proposed legislation.
But I'm not certain that the summary included in this email is the
appropriate language to distribute "to the world," or if we'll need instead
to tailor some new language.  I think we all agreed that we need a "one
pager" to accompany the legislative package so that we can communicate the
package effectively.
We also discussed the need to quickly develop a coalition to support our
proposals.  We didn't finalize that plan.  Perhaps the Sacramento team could
propose a plan to do that.  Perhaps we could start with our friends in the
Direct Access coalition?
We also talked about the need at this point to engage in PR and to get the PR
machinery activated, also with the goal of effectively communicating our
legislative package/message.  We're in a meeting with folks today where we
can discuss getting that side of things going and Karen Denne has contacted
Marathon and they're pondering some things that we can do in the near term.
You'll note that there's a considerable amount of information about the DWR
credit issue.  As I recollect, we discussed the issue in depth on the call.
You note that attached to the email is a "legislative fix" to AB1X that could
solve the credit issue and an attached set of "taking points" related to a
second alternative to solving the credit issue:  a PUC order clarifying that
DWR will get its money for power purchase costs.
Note also that Steve Kean reminded me that we've got to continue to push to
get the utilities out of the merchant function.  Accordingly, I've put a
brief paragraph on that issue in the note to Brulte in the last section
(legislative solution) under the topic "create a real competitive retail
market in California."  To the best of my knowledge, we don't have
legislative language on that piece yet, and it seems that we'll need to
discuss it in considerably more depth before doing so.

If you have any questions about any of the materials in the email, please
don't hesitate to contact me or Jim or Sandi to discuss.  I can be best
reached to day by pager at 888.916.7184.

Thanks to all for helping pull this together.

Best,
Jeff

----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/16/2001 08:27 AM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	02/15/2001 06:11 PM

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com, skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject:

Steve:
Here's a substantially more cleaned-version, with attachments.  There's a
hard copy on your chair.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/15/2001 05:57 PM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	02/15/2001 05:56 PM

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject:

Jim:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday.  Based on our conversation,
this email includes the following:

An Enron contact to discuss developing small-scale generation on Tribal lands.

Our views on the impediments to distributed generation and suggestions on how
to remove those impediments.

A description of the credit issues that continue to impede DWR,s ability to
sign contracts with power suppliers, and options to resolve them. Two
possible options for addressing the credit issue are 1) a California PUC
order clarifying that DWR will recover its power purchase costs through
rates, and 2) an amendment to AB1X designed to accomplish the same goal.  I
have attached talking points regarding the California PUC order and proposed
amendments to AB1X.  We believe that an amendment to AB1X is the preferable
option.

Our assessment of the supply/demand picture in California.

Our suggestions for a legislative package designed to solve both the near-
and long-term electricity crisis in California.  We will deliver to your
office tomorrow detailed legislative language.  In those materials we will
also identify existing bills that we believe can easily accommodate our
proposed language.

I hope that the information is useful.  Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you would like to discuss these materials further, or if there is anything
else that I can do to assist you.

Regards,
Ken

Contact Information to Discuss Interest Expressed by Native American Tribes
in Installing Small-scale Generation on Tribal Lands

David Parquet, Vice-President
Enron North America
101 California Street, Suite 1950
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.782.7820
Fax: 415.782.7851

2. Key Barriers to Distributed Generation

Excessive and Unnecessary Utility Stand-by Charges

Solution: The executive orders issued by the Governor on February 14th took a
step in the right direction.  Utility stand-by charges have always been
designed by the utilities to protect their monopoly position, extract
monopoly prices from customers, or both.  But there is no reason to limit the
elimination of these charges to generation facilities that are less than
1MW.  These limits will only lengthen unnecessarily the time it takes for
California to close the significant gap between supply and demand and reduce
the risk of black outs this summer.  We would propose lifting the cap by
offering amendments to SB27X, which is designed to facilitate development of
distributed generation.

Excessive delays and costs related to interconnecting facilities with
investor-owned and municipal utilities

Solution:   The Governor,s executive order regarding interconnection is a
step in the right direction*D-D-26-01 requires utilities to complete
interconnection studies within 7 days.  California should ensure that this
requirement applies to all generation facilities, including distributed
generation.  In addition, the financial conflicts the utilities face when
interconnecting generation facilities are simply too powerful to overcome
through executive orders or other regulations.  To the greatest extent
possible, California should shift control over interconnection away from the
utility and place that control with the California ISO.  This could be
accomplished through amendments to SB 27X.

Permitting and Air Quality Issues
Developers of distributed (i.e., &on-site8) generation that is 50 MWs or
greater must receive certification from the California Energy Commission and
therefore face all of the impediments to development that large-scale
generation faces.

Solution: California should ensure that the executive orders (D-22-01 thru
D-26-01) issued by the Governor to expedite plant siting and maximize plant
output apply equally to smaller scale, &distributed generation8 facilities.
In addition, distributed generation that is less than 50 MWs continues to
face local opposition.  The State should ensure that local, parochial
interests cannot block otherwise beneficial distributed generation projects.
These objectives could be accomplished through amendments to SB27X.

3. Credit Concerns Regarding Authority Granted to DWR in AB1X to Purchase
Electricity on Behalf of the Utilities

Enron responded to the RFP issued by DWR to enter into power contracts with
suppliers.
Enron is in active discussions with DWR to establish contract terms with the
goal of entering into a power purchase agreement as soon as possible.
However, ambiguities contained in AB1X have created significant credit risk
concerns that need to be resolved in order to finalize contract terms.
We understand that the lion,s share of counterparties share Enron,s credit
risk concerns.
Enron has proposed several options for resolving the credit risk issues and
is working with DWR to arrive at a solution that is mutually agreeable to
both sides and that might serve as a template for power purchase agreements
going forward.

Summary of the Source of the Credit Risk Issue

Ambiguous Ratemaking Authority
The language in AB1X is ambiguous as to whether DWR has any authority to
charge California ratepayers for the costs of purchasing power.  From our
analysis of the bill, the language in AB1X appears to leave intact the
California PUC,s exclusive jurisdiction over ratemaking in California.  As
such, suppliers have no assurance that the PUC will agree to include in rates
adequate charges to cover DWR,s costs of power purchases.

Ambiguous Regulatory Authority Regarding Contract &Prudence8
The language in AB1X leaves open the possibility that the California Public
Utilities Commission could determine that power purchases made by DWR are
&imprudent.8  On the basis of such a finding, the CPUC could then refuse to
allow DWR to collect from ratepayers the costs associated with its power
purchases.  Consequently, suppliers have no assurance that the PUC will agree
to include in rates the charges to cover the costs of power contracts that
DWR has entered into with suppliers.

Ambiguous Language Regarding the Ratemaking Mechanism that Will Be Used to
Recover DWR,s Costs of Power Purchases
In addition to the ambiguity regarding ratemaking and regulatory authority
noted above, the language in the bill is equally ambiguous with respect to
the specific ratemaking &mechanics8 that AB1X directs the PUC to employ to
permit DWR to recover its power purchase costs. Based on our analysis, it is
extremely difficult to determine how the PUC would design the rates to ensure
DWR recovers its power purchase costs.  Moreover, as currently drafted, it is
difficult to determine whether AB1X would even permit the PUC to include in
rates all of the charges necessary to fully recover DWR,s power purchase
costs.  Again, this ambiguity raises significant credit risk concerns since
suppliers have little assurance that DWR will have the ability to recover
from ratepayers the costs of purchasing power.

Options to Resolve Concerns Regarding Credit Risk

We have been working diligently with DWR officials to resolve the credit risk
issues.  We have identified three options:

Amend AB1X
The amendments, which are attached to this email, would clarify that a) the
PUC would accept as &prudent and reasonable8 all purchase costs incurred by
DWR, and b) the PUC is obligated to include in rates the charges necessary to
ensure that DWR fully recovers its costs of power purchases.  This is the
preferred option, though we understand that the there may be some political
challenges standing in the way of amending AB1X.  (See attached file
entitled, &AmendAB1X.doc8.)

Clarify the Ambiguities in AB1X through an Order Issued by the PUC, and
through Contract Language
This is the option that we are currently working with DWR officials to
implement.  However, it is more complicated and could take significantly more
time to implement than the "legislative" fix.  We have attached electronic
copies of the talking points related to the order that the California PUC
would need to issue under this option.  (See attached file entitled,
&cpuctalkingpoints.doc.8)

Make Use of Other Instruments Designed to Address Credit Risk
As indicated in our letter responding to DWR,s RFP, we are willing to accept
other forms of credit from DWR.  Those options include a letter of credit,
cash prepayment, or an acceptable form of collateral.  DWR officials have
indicated to us that DWR prefers to pursue the second options. That is, DWR
prefers to clarify the ambiguities in AB1X through a PUC order and through
contract amendments.

4. California,s Supply-demand Picture Heading into Summer 2001

Both the California Energy Commission and Cambridge Energy Research
Associates (CERA), a private sector energy think tank, have issued reports
showing that California faces a severe supply-demand imbalance.  They differ
only on how much and how soon additional supply will be made available.  All
credible sources agree that supply will be very tight throughout the Summer
of 2001 and that unless a solution is found immediately, blackouts are
likely.

CEC and CERA both forecast that California will be short of supply this
summer by approximately 5,000 MW.   These numbers are in line with our
estimates.  California,s supply base currently has a 6% capacity margin, well
below the average 15-20%, which is recommended for reliable system operation
in the West.  Since the West relies more heavily upon hydroelectric power
than other regions, reserves are particularly important, owing to the
unpredictability of the weather and the dry year the West has experienced to
date. In the event of a low rain and snow period, the system must possess the
flexibility to respond to the reduced availability of power supply.
California,s very low reserve margin makes it especially susceptible to this
requirement.

Other reasons for reduced supply for the Summer of 2001 include the early
draw-down of reservoirs in the continual effort to manage California's severe
supply-demand gap; emissions restrictions on existing plants; and a reduced
number of customers who can be curtailed under their contracts with the
utilities.  Cambridge Energy Research Associates asserts that at the current
pace of siting, permitting and construction, adequate supplies will not be
added to correct the market imbalance until 2003 at the earliest.

CERA predicts that California is likely to face approximately 20 hours of
rolling black outs this summer.  The CEC paints a considerably more
optimistic scenario, betting that California will bring an additional 5,000
MWs on line to meet peaking summer demand.  It is our view that California
should view the CEC's "rosy scenario" with considerable skepticism.

5. Suggested Package of Legislative Proposals Designed to Solve California,s
Electricity Crisis

This email offers an overview of our proposed legislative solution.  We will
deliver to your office tomorrow specific legislative language and existing
bills that we believe can accommodate our proposals.

As we have suggested throughout the crisis, any solution to California's
crisis must focus on four issues:

Increase supply
Decrease demand
Establish a truly competitive retail electricity market
Return California,s Investor-owned utilities to solvency

Increase supply--Legislative vehicle: SB28X (Sher)
To site and construct a power plant in Texas takes approximately 2 years.
Enron and others have completed the entire process in other states in less
than a year.  In California, it takes about six years, or longer.

The Governor,s executive orders and Senator Sher,s siting reform legislation
are steps in the right direction.  Our suggested amendments can improve those
efforts by further addressing the difficulties that project developers face
in securing air emission reduction credits to meet the air permit
requirements included in the CEC's certification requirements.  Enron,s
proposal seeks to streamline the process for 1) obtaining credits and 2)
transfering credits between air districts.  In addition, it creates an
innovative emissions reduction bank to allow project sponsors to fund
emissions in advance of obtaining certification, and permits the affected air
districts to use those funds to finance projects that will produce the
required reductions in pollution emissions.

Decrease demand*Legislative Vehicle:   AB31X (Wright)
Because of the delay in getting a solution in place in California, closing
the supply-demand gap through energy conservation and efficiency offers the
best chance of avoiding blackouts this summer.  This can be accomplished most
effectively and quickly in two ways:

Buy-down demand
California is tapping into an enormous amount of money from the General Fund
to finance DWR,s power purchases.  California could likely reduce demand more
economically by running an auction to determine the payments businesses would
be willing to receive to reduce their demand for a sustained period (e.g.,
through the summer months).  DWR could easily run an on-line auction to
determine the price it could pay for these demand reductions.  To
participate, businesses would be required to have the metering equipment
necessary to monitor and verify that they are actually achieving the
reductions.  Enron has developed an on-line auction software package, &Deal
Bench,8 that it would be willing to contribute to the effort.

Use Price Signals to Incent Voluntary Curtailment
To be successful, customers need access to the following key elements:

An internet based hour-ahead price posting system to track the market price
for hour-ahead power in real time.
Real-time metering systems for baseline demand and voluntarily curtailment
verification.
Settlement process that allows for market clearing prices of energy to be
paid for load reduction (&Negawatts8).

The potential benefits of an effective demand response program would include:

&creation8 of additional summer peaking capacity in California, particularly
in the short term, without requiring construction of additional generation
resources.
reduction of  peak or super-peak load on the over-stressed California
electric system, thus potentially reducing the overall cost of electricity in
the state.
fostering of demand elasticity without subjecting customers to the full risk
of hourly market price volatility by passing market price signals to
customers and allowing them to voluntarily shed load and be compensated for
responding.

We estimate that we could generate a summer 2001 on-peak demand response in
excess of 400 MW during certain high cost hours, and a demand response for
summer 2002 on-peak hours that could exceed 1000 MW.  We further estimate
that the market response to this program from all ESPs could be 2 to 3 times
that amount.  We recommend that the State of California provide rebates
directly to customers to fund the installation of advanced metering and
control systems that would support load curtailment implementation.

Establish a truly competitive retail electricity market*Legislative vehicle:
SB27X
The only customers who were protected from price volatility in San Diego were
customers who chose Direct Access and signed fixed price deals with energy
service providers.  Ironically, AB1X takes that important option away from
customers and businesses.  It is critical that AB1X be amended to remove the
prohibition against Direct Access.

Enron's legislative proposal would give customers freedom to enter into a
direct access transaction, while simultaneously addressing the Department of
Water Resources' concerns about stranded power costs that might result from
customer migration.

In addition, California will only achieve a competitive retail market when
the utility is removed completely from the procurement function.  Procurement
is not a utility core competency, as evidenced by the dire financial
condition in which the utilities now find themselves.  California should
therefore begin immediately to phase the utility out of the procurement
function entirely, with the goal of having all customers served by a
non-utility provider within 36 months.  To execute the transition, California
should hold a series of competitive solicitations over the 36-month period in
which competing service providers would bid for the right to serve segments
of utility load.

Return California,s Investor-owned utilities to solvency*Legislative vehicle:
AB18X
Utility bankruptcy will not increase supply and it will not decrease demand.
In short, bankruptcy does nothing to solve California,s supply-demand
imbalance.  In addition, bankruptcy increases the likelihood that consumers
and businesses will bear the significant financial risks of having California
State government assume the role of &electricity buyer8 for an extended
period of time.  Finally, bankruptcy will undermine both investor confidence
in California's energy markets and the private sector's willingness to
participate in that market.

California can return the utilities to financial solvency by implementing a
series of staged rate increases.  California should design those rate
increases with the dual goal of returning the utilities to solvency without
&shocking8 the economy or household budgets For example, California could
amortize the recovery of the utilities, past debt over a 5-10 year period.
In addition, the magnitude of the rate increase can be reduced in two ways:
First, the utilities could absorb some portion of their existing debt in
recognition of the risk they accepted when they agreed to the structure of AB
1890.  Second, California can &net8 the revenues the utilities have received
from selling electricity into the Power Exchange against the debts they have
accrued due to the retail price cap.


Start Date: 1/31/02; HourAhead hour: 9;  HourAhead schedule download failed. Manual intervention required.


By STEVE EVERLY - The Kansas City Star
Date: 01/20/01 22:15

As natural gas prices rose in December, traders at the New York Mercantile
Exchange kept one eye on the weather forecast and another on a weekly gas
storage number.

The storage figures showed utilities withdrawing huge amounts of gas, and the
forecast was for frigid weather. Traders put the two together, anticipated a
supply crunch and drove gas prices to record heights.

"Traders do that all the time; they're looking forward," said William Burson,
a trader. "It makes the market for natural gas."

But the market's response perplexed Chris McGill, the American Gas
Association's director of gas supply and transportation. He had compiled the
storage numbers since they were first published in 1994, and in his view the
numbers were being misinterpreted to show a situation far bleaker than
reality.

"It's a little frustrating that they don't take the time to understand what
we are reporting," McGill said.

As consumer outrage builds over high heating bills, the hunt for reasons --
and culprits -- is on. Some within the natural gas industry are pointing
fingers at Wall Street.

Stephen Adik, senior vice president of the Indiana utility NiSource, recently
stepped before an industry conference and blamed the market's speculators for
the rise in gas prices.

"It's my firm belief ... that today's gas prices are being manipulated," Adik
told the trade magazine Public Utilities Fortnightly.

In California, where natural gas spikes have contributed to an electric
utility crisis, six investigations are looking into the power industry.

Closer to home, observers note that utilities and regulators share the blame
for this winter's startling gas bills, having failed to protect their
customers and constituents from such price spikes.

Most utilities, often with the acquiescence of regulators, failed to take
precautions such as fixed-rate contracts and hedging -- a sort of price
insurance -- that could have protected their customers by locking in gas
prices before they soared.

"We're passing on our gas costs, which we have no control over," said Paul
Snider, a spokesman for Missouri Gas Energy.

But critics say the utilities shirked their responsibility to customers.

"There's been a failure of risk management by utilities, and that needs to
change," said Ed Krapels, director of gas power services for Energy Security
Analysis Inc., an energy consulting firm in Wakefield, Mass.

Hot topic

Consumers know one thing for certain: Their heating bills are up sharply. In
many circles, little else is discussed.

The Rev. Vincent Fraser of Glad Tidings Assembly of God in Kansas City is
facing a $1,456 December bill for heating the church -- more than double the
previous December's bill. Church members are suffering from higher bills as
well.

The Sunday collection is down, said Fraser, who might have to forgo part of
his salary. For the first time, the church is unable to meet its financial
pledge to overseas missionaries because the money is going to heating.

"It's the talk of the town here," he said.

A year ago that wasn't a fear. Wholesale gas prices hovered just above $2 per
thousand cubic feet -- a level that producers say didn't make it worthwhile
to drill for gas. Utilities were even cutting the gas prices paid by
customers.

But trouble was brewing. By spring, gas prices were hitting $4 per thousand
cubic feet, just as utilities were beginning to buy gas to put into storage
for winter.

There was a dip in the fall, but then prices rebounded. By early November,
prices were at $5 per thousand cubic feet. The federal Energy Information
Administration was predicting sufficient but tight gas supplies and heating
bills that would be 30 percent to 40 percent higher.

But $10 gas was coming. Below-normal temperatures hit much of the country,
including the Kansas City area, and fears about tight supplies roiled the gas
markets.

"It's all about the weather," said Krapels of Energy Security Analysis.

Wholesale prices exploded to $10 per thousand cubic feet, led by the New York
traders. Natural gas sealed its reputation as the most price-volatile
commodity in the world.

Setting the price

In the 1980s, the federal government took the caps off the wellhead price of
gas, allowing it to float. In 1990, the New York Mercantile began trading
contracts for future delivery of natural gas, and that market soon had
widespread influence over gas prices.

The futures contracts are bought and sold for delivery of natural gas as soon
as next month or as far ahead as three years. Suppliers can lock in sale
prices for the gas they expect to produce. And big gas consumers, from
utilities to companies such as Farmland Industries Inc., can lock in what
they pay for the gas they expect to use.

There are also speculators who trade the futures contracts with no intention
of actually buying or selling the gas -- and often with little real knowledge
of natural gas.

But if they get on the right side of a price trend, traders don't need to
know much about gas -- or whatever commodity they're trading. Like all
futures, the gas contracts are purchased on credit. That leverage adds to
their volatility and to the traders' ability to make or lose a lot of money
in a short time.

As December began, the price of natural gas on the futures market was less
than $7 per thousand cubic feet. By the end of the month it was nearly $10.
Much of the spark for the rally came from the American Gas Association's
weekly storage numbers.

Utilities buy ahead and store as much as 50 percent of the gas they expect to
need in the winter.

Going into the winter, the storage levels were about 5 percent less than
average, in part because some utilities were holding off on purchasing, in
hopes that the summer's unusually high $4 to $5 prices would drop.

Still, the American Gas Association offered assurances that supplies would be
sufficient. But when below-normal temperatures arrived in November, the
concerns increased among traders that supplies could be insufficient.

Then the American Gas Association reported the lowest year-end storage
numbers since they were first published in 1994. Still, said the
association's McGill, there was sufficient gas in storage.

But some utility executives didn't share that view. William Eliason, vice
president of Kansas Gas Service, said that if December's cold snap had
continued into January, there could have been a real problem meeting demand.

"I was getting worried," he said.

Then suddenly the market turned when January's weather turned warmer.
Wednesday's storage numbers were better than expected, and futures prices
dropped more than $1 per thousand cubic feet.

Just passing through

Some utilities said there was little else to do about the price increase but
pass their fuel costs on to customers.

Among area utilities, Kansas Gas Service increased its customers' cost-of-gas
charge earlier this month to $8.68 per thousand cubic feet. And Missouri Gas
Energy has requested an increase to $9.81, to begin Wednesday.

Sheila Lumpe, chairwoman of the Missouri Public Service Commission, said last
month that because utilities passed along their wholesale costs, little could
be done besides urging consumers to join a level-payment plan and to conserve
energy.

Kansas Gas Service had a small hedging program in place, which is expected to
save an average customer about $25 this winter.

Missouri Gas Energy has no hedging program. It waited until fall to seek an
extension of the program and then decided to pass when regulators would not
guarantee that it could recover its hedging costs.

Now utilities are being asked to justify the decisions that have left
customers with such high gas bills. And regulators are being asked whether
they should abandon the practice of letting utilities pass along their fuel
costs.

On Friday, Doug Micheel, senior counsel of the Missouri Office of the Public
Counsel, said his office would ask the Missouri Public Service Commission to
perform an emergency audit of Missouri Gas Energy's gas purchasing practices.

"Consumers are taking all the risk," Micheel said. "It's time to consider
some changes."

To reach Steve Everly, call (816) 234-4455 or send e-mail to
severly@kcstar.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
All content , 2001 The Kansas City Star


Cliff Shedd will present Enron's political risk insurance process at the
February 1 meeting.  Afterwards, we will have presentations from other
members of the risk group.  The meeting may take an extra 30 minutes.

REMINDER
If you will be participating by video conference, please have your local
technician call Rodney Keys in Houston at (713) 853-9631 as soon as possible
to make sure everything is ready for the call on Feb 1.

If you have any questions, please give me a call at (713) 853-3226.


I am on the Board of BEAR and sponsoring this effort.  Please let Janette
Elbertson know by e-mail if you are interested in donating your time to help
staff the table in the lobby on Monday, December 18, from 10 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Thank you.

Help CPS Kids!
Enron, KRBE and Sun and Ski Sports are collecting donations for Children,s
Protective Services Be A Resource (BEAR) Program to purchase gifts this
holiday season. Make your donation and receive a $10-off coupon for Sun and
Ski Sports.

Donations will be accepted in the Enron Building Lobby - Tuesday, December
12, Thursday, December 14 and Monday, December 18 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. or
in EB407.

KRBE Morning Show LIVE in Antioch Park
Come out and show your support for the CPS BEAR collection Monday, December
18 when the 104 KRBE morning show,s Streets of America comes to Antioch Park.
See you there from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.


Jeff,
Congratulations. It's great to hear the news. It seems our teams are
working well together and I hope we can expand on our relationship as
planned. All the best to you.

Regards,
Thomas

Thomas U. Koll
Vice President, NSG
Microsoft Corp


----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 06/02/2000 03:09 PM -----

	"Akhtar, Kasar (GED Legal-NY)" <kakhtar@exchange.ml.com>
	06/02/2000 01:43 PM

		 To: "'sara.shackleton@enron.com'" <sara.shackleton@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject:

Gary Rosenblum suggested I forward our standard draft with respect to the
ISDA Agreement to be negotiated between our respective institutions. Please
note the draft is subject to revision by our corporate credit department. If
I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

 <<mli_Enron_North_America_Corp.doc>>

Best Regards

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

 - mli_Enron_North_America_Corp.doc


As I mentioned earlier this week, my associate Cliff Berg, representing AOL,
co-sponsored a meeting in our office today regarding AB 256 (Wayne).  The
meeting was run by Kay Caldwell on behalf of the Internet Alliance.  Kay was
the one who contacted Jeff Dodd in Houston who I believe contacted one or
both of you.

The bill is being opposed by AOL, Microsoft, Charles Schwab, CMTA, Chamber,
GTE/Verizon, AEA, Retailers, Financial Services Association and the Internet
Alliance.  All of those parties are scheduled to meet with Assembly Member
Wayne at different times on Wednesday to try and get him to drop the bill
which is being sponsored by the Attorney General.  In the event that fails,
the group is also trying to get the bill double-referred to the Senate
Banking Committee where they have a much better chance of stopping it versus
the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The bill will be heard by the Judiciary
Committee on August 21.

With respect to Enron's participation in any opposition effort, there was
some concern that the Judiciary Committee may not be the best place because
Peace is on that committee and would likely do anything to get at Enron
(support?).  Regardless of anyone's concerns we could submit a letter of
opposition so long as someone provides me with the general framework.

Please advise.

Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Winckowski, Michele
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject:	FW: Things to do when the boss is out.

 - cubicle hurdles.mpeg
 - Hallway races.mpeg
 - Rowing.mpeg


When: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where: ECS 06794

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


Hi again,

	Some of stated that you do not have access to the m drive.

	Hence I'm forwarding the notes via the attached powerpoint document.

Thanks,
Iris
x3-6711

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mack, Iris
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:51 AM
To:	Forster, David; Jacoby, Ben; Tapscott, Ron; Dypiangco, Mark; Churbock, Scott; Booth, Chris; Mitro, Fred; Grube, Raimund; Gimble, Mathew; Krause, Greg; Kellermeyer, Dave; Hausinger, Sharon; Leigh, Lorie; Carnahan, Kathleen; Inman, Zachary; Zarsky, Lisa; Dalton III, Oscar; Valderrama, Larry; Ratliff, Beau; Carroll, Lex; Clynes, Terri; Sewell, Doug; Llodra, John; Olvera, Paulita; Wood, George; Wheeler, Rob; Politis, Nick; Irani, Eric; Letzerich, Palmer; Sell, Maximilian; Luong, Steven; Kroll, Heather; Fairley, David; Rorschach, Reagan; Braddock, Billy; Acevedo, Rudy; Jafry, Rahil; Piazze, Tara; Marshall, Howard; Emmons, Suzette; Day, Amanda; Curry, Mike; Jester, Larry; Martinez, Judy; Benke, Terrell; Duffy, Matthew; Meyn, Jim; Reyes, Pauline; Herrera, Fernando; Hamlin, Mason; Lewis, Barry; Trefz, Greg; Cavazos, Brandon; Hiemstra, Nick; Roberts, Chaun; Compean, Karla; Seksaria, Rahul; Ward, Charles; Hill, Garrick; Anderson, Eric; Landry, Chad; Mccracken, Greg; Marks, David; Munoz, Victor; Kiani-Aslani, John; Robinson, Mitch; Moore, John; Ahmed, Naveed; Marks, James; Murray, Kevin; Golden, Bruce; Vetters, Charles; Lang, John; Tricoli, Carl; Parks, Michelle; Imai, Rika; Pacheco, Leonardo
Cc:	Arora, Harry; Shoemake, Lisa; Duran, W. David; Presto, Kevin M.; Sturm, Fletcher J.; Imai, Rika
Subject:	RE: Options Session Lecture Notes

Hi,

	The slides for yesterday's options session may be found on the following drive:

			m:power2\options\power options course notes\Introduction to Power Options Lecture Notes (11-19-01).ppt

		Dave Forster will let you know the time and place for the next options session.

		By popular demand, it will be on spread options (crack, heat, spark, etc) and a few real case studies.

Thanks,
Iris
x3-6711


Market Participants and Scheduling Coordinators

Please be advised that a teleconference has been scheduled with the judge in
the PG&E bankrupcy proceeding at 12 :45 tomorrow 5/8, to address a subpoena
issued April 26 and circulated to Market Participants April 30 (attached
below for your convenience).  Questions regarding the call should be
directed to Marty Courson (counsel for PG&E) at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady, Falk & Rabkin at 415-434-1600.
Jeanne M. Sol?
Regulatory Counsel
California ISO
(916) 608-7144
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________

The Foregoing e-Mail Communication (Together With Any Attachments Thereto)
Is Intended For The Designated Recipient(s) Only. Its Terms May Be
Confidential And Protected By Attorney/Client Privilege or Other Applicable
Privileges.  Unauthorized Use, Dissemination, Distribution, Or Reproduction
Of This Message Is Strictly Prohibited.

 - USBCSubp.pdf


As you requested, I am attaching our proposed form of NDA.  Please keep us
apprised of the status of the contract.


I had a prior obligation at lunch on Mon.  We need to reschedule the
Leadership Dev. mtg.  Fran, could you work with Emily and find a time?
Sorry, I know I've disrupted this twice n ow!  I'm good for lunch on Wed if
that would work for everyone.  df


Please see the attached notice for our November meeting notice, which is a wine & cheese membership networking event. Please respond to the RSVP as soon as possible. We hope to see you there.

 - St. Regis reply form.doc


Sorry about that.  Rerun the invoice and send it to me.

Thanks

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Saucier, Darla
Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 11:44 AM
To:	Germany, Chris
Subject:	Oglethorpe

Is this invoice ready to go yet?  I need to know ASAP.  My system will be shut down @2:00 today until Monday.  I need to get this out today.

Thanks
Darla


Those bizness whites are the best.

From: Suzanne Adams@ECT on 05/11/2001 02:58 PM
To: kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: King & Spalding

I've requested a directory from K&S and found my Business Pages.  Dina had
"borrowed them" while I was gone.  I'm just lost without them.


Jonathan Miller
Kentucky State Treasurer

December 2000

Dear Friends,

? ? Amidst all the holiday hoopla, I want to take a moment to sincerely thank
you for helping make my first year in office a productive and joyous one.
?Your interest and support have been critical to our success in making
Treasury an office of which we can be justly proud. Consider some of the
developments we have seen over the past year:

? Prepaid Tuition: The office has been surging with added activity following
the unanimous passage in the 2000 legislative session of our prepaid tuition
bill -- the one that the Courier-Journal noted "may be remembered as the most
lasting achievement of the session's education panels." ?Since then, we have
named the program KAPT, Kentucky's Affordable Prepaid Tuition Plan, (Catchy
Slogan: Keep College Costs Capped!) and convened our 12-member board to
oversee its administration. We are on track for a Fall 2001 launch and expect
KAPT to be extremely popular among Kentucky families who are looking for
affordable ways to send their kids to college.

? Unclaimed Property: That moving and shaking you hear is a direct result of
Unclaimed Property's entry into the Digital Age. ?Less than three months ago,
claims were processed manually -- a cumbersome task, to say the least. ?But
that was then. ?Now that Unclaimed Property has interfaced with ?the state's
centralized accounting system, efficiency has soared. ?No fuzzy math here.
?We have paid 7,036 claims from January 1 through November 30th -- more than
double the year before. ?And with the addition of a search function on our
web site which allows claimants to look for property online, we were able to
give back over 3 million dollars to rightful owners. ?This marks the best
year in the history of the Unclaimed Property Program.

? Accounting: When I first started in my position last January, the state's
accounting system found Treasury behind in bank reconciliation -- balancing
the state's accounting transactions with its depository transactions. ?Within
three weeks, we forged an alliance with the Finance Cabinet to solve the
problem. ?Less than one year later, we can claim complete success. ?It's
official: All of Treasury's bank accounts have been reconciled. ??

? Systems: Treasury has given the phrase "the check's in the mail" new
meaning. ?The year 2000 saw our savvy tech staff usher in a new era with the
adoption of state-of-the-art, check-sealing equipment. ?This means that
checks are processed and transmitted to taxpayers more efficiently. ?It also
means that the age of smoke and fire alarms in the Capitol Annex due to
faulty equipment is finally over!

? Public Outreach: Treasury has made great strides to improve communication
with the public. ?We continue to develop Treasury's new and improved web
site, with a special emphasis on making www.kytreasury.com more user-friendly
and on building our in-house capacity to keep it online and up-to-date. ?This
is important to ensure that all taxpayers have access to Treasury's unclaimed
property database and information regarding the pre-paid tuition plan.

? Philanthropy: ?This year, Treasury raised the bar on philanthropy. ?Our
office was 269% over the 1999 participation rate for the Kentucky Employees'
Charitable Campaign. ?Our spirited employees gave to the fund in more ways
than one. Exhibit A is Treasury's fundraising softball team. ?Word is that
out on the field, we made the Department of Agriculture actually look like a
farm team. ?For its outstanding efforts, Treasury was recognized by KECC and
given awards for Most Valuable Player and Best Overall Campaign.

These are just a few of the highlights that I can recall from the last year;
It is, of course, next to impossible to capture them all in a newsletter.
?But that said, I want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity to
serve Kentucky. ?It is because of you that I can eagerly anticipate my second
year as State Treasurer. ?And it is large part because of you that I am so
thoroughly grateful this holiday season.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Jonathan Miller
State Treasurer

? The treasury newsletter is available in a more graphic format. ?To see for
yourself, visit our web site at www.kytreasury.com. ?
? We apologize if you received this in error. ?If you wish to unsubscribe
from this mailing list, please reply with your name and write "unsubscribe"
in the subject heading.


How was your holiday?

Alma Martinez@ENRON
12/21/2000 08:04 AM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re:

Hey,

We may have to get together after the Christmas holidays.  Are you in town
for the holidays?

Santa might bring me a puppy....


Performance Reviews: Perilous Curves Ahead Grading employees via forced
rankings is a valuable management tool, say many companies. A slew of
employees beg to differ.
Fortune Magazine, 05/28/01

UAE: Enron to pull out of Dolphin project
Middle East Economic Digest, 05/18/01

Bush Energy Text
Associated Press Newswires, 05/17/01

Williams Capital Group's Ellinghaus on Energy Policy: Comment
Bloomberg, 05/17/01

Enron's Maurer on Brazil's Power Regulation Problems: Comment
Bloomberg, 05/17/01

Enron to Provide Gas Prices to NGX, Drops Lawsuit (Update1)
Bloomberg, 05/17/01

Venezuela to Award 11 Gas Tracts June 28-29, First Since 1975
Bloomberg, 05/17/01

USA: U.S. green groups pummel Bush energy plan.
Reuters English News Service, 05/17/01

INDIA: Enron India unit lenders put off cancellation vote to Friday.
Reuters English News Service, 05/17/01

UK: Global Coal website starts e-trading coal.
Reuters English News Service, 05/17/01

CHINA: India tells Enron to renegotiate Dabhol contract.
Reuters English News Service, 05/17/01

Common Cause Statement On Cheney Energy Panel's Report; Recommendations Seen
As Payback For Big Time Donors
U.S. Newswire, 05/17/01

FORTUNE Advisor/On The Job
Performance Reviews: Perilous Curves Ahead Grading employees via forced
rankings is a valuable management tool, say many companies. A slew of
employees beg to differ.
Matthew Boyle

05/28/2001
Fortune Magazine
Time Inc.
187+
(Copyright 2001)

Sanaa Taraman taught at the University of Michigan at Dearborn shortly after
getting her Ph.D. in industrial engineering, so she knows all about grading
on a curve. But she never thought she'd be the victim of one. A 25-year Ford
veteran and the mother of three, Taraman was told last December that she had
received the rank of C, the lowest grade under Ford's new
performance-evaluation system. Employees who get a C are not eligible for
bonuses that year. Two C's in a row are grounds for dismissal. Those in the
double-C group will "not necessarily" be fired, says Francine Romine, a Ford
spokesperson.
Taraman, 54, a senior technical specialist, says she had never before
received a poor performance evaluation. She claims that her manager signed
off on a B ranking after she successfully completed a demanding
assembly-plant project, but that the ranking mysteriously changed to a C a
week later. Now on medical leave to treat depression, Taraman joined eight
other Ford employees in filing a class-action lawsuit in February, alleging
that the auto giant's evaluation system discriminates against older workers.
"I felt I was a scapegoat," she says. Romine maintains that Ford's ranking
system "is fair and nondiscriminatory."
In companies across the country, from General Electric to Hewlett- Packard,
such grading systems--in which all employees are ranked against one another
and grades are distributed along some sort of bell curve--are creating a
firestorm of controversy. In the past 15 months employees have filed
class-action suits against Microsoft and Conoco as well as Ford, claiming
that the companies discriminate in assigning grades. In each case, a
different group of disaffected employees is bringing the charges: older
workers at Ford, blacks and women at Microsoft, U.S. citizens at Conoco.
Forced ranking systems, also known as forced distribution or "rank and yank,"
have been around for decades. Adherents include several of FORTUNE's Most
Admired Companies, like Cisco Systems, Intel, and GE (see sidebar). But
thanks to the slowing economy and an increased focus on pay for performance,
more companies--a quarter of the FORTUNE 500, by one estimate--have
instituted such forced rankings or gotten tougher with their existing
systems. For example, Enron recently expanded its ranking system to cover
most U.S. employees, and last fall Hewlett-Packard decreed that a full 5% of
its work force would receive HP's lowest grade, rather than the fuzzy 0 to 5%
of years past.
Proponents of forced rankings argue that they facilitate budgeting and guard
against spineless managers who are too afraid to jettison poor performers.
"Managers want to live in a Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above
average, but that's not the truth," says Dick Grote, an HR consultant who has
designed ranking systems for GE and Texas Instruments. Forced rankings, the
thinking goes, force managers to be honest with workers about how they're
doing.
But critics say they compel managers to penalize a good but not great
employee who's part of a superstar team. Conversely, a mediocre employee on a
struggling unit can come out looking great. "In many cases, the lowest
performer might not be that much lower than the highest," says Paul Spector,
a professor of industrial psychology at the University of South Florida.
Most companies guard against this problem by refraining from rigidly applying
the distribution to smaller teams--but that means the spread has to be made
up somewhere else. The result: Different managers spend hours haggling with
one another to meet the overall distribution requirements. This horse-trading
process can be frustrating and time-consuming, one Microsoft middle manager
says. While Bill Zolna, a Microsoft spokesperson, denies that the company
requires managers to assign a certain percentage of employees to each level,
the middle manager says that there is unspoken pressure to do so.
Another area of contention is the ranking criteria. In a manufacturing-based
economy, it was easy to figure out who was up to snuff: Just see whether Joe
is pumping out (or selling) more widgets than Bob. But today organizations
use a slew of fuzzy qualitative criteria to evaluate employees. And while
there's no doubt that teamwork and communication skills are vital, they are
tough to gauge. After all, one manager's team player is another's sycophant.
Enron's ranking criteria are "very subjective," admits Mark Palmer, a company
spokesman, adding, "There aren't easy labels for what type of person someone
is."
There's also the danger that forced rankings can become a crutch for poor
management. "Good managers should have the capability to make these difficult
decisions without a system forcing it upon them," argues Chris Michalak, who
designs such systems at Towers Perrin.
Of course, one reason employees are up in arms about forced rankings is that
they suspect--often correctly--that the rankings are a way for companies to
more easily rationalize firings. In his latest message to GE shareholders,
CEO Jack Welch said, "Not removing that bottom 10%...is not only a management
failure but false kindness as well." This year Sun Microsystems will use a
forced-ranking system to identify its worst-performing 10%, who will be given
90 days to shape up, find another job inside Sun, or ship out.
So is Sanaa Taraman's situation an anomaly or a taste of things to come? The
latter, according to New York City employment lawyer Lorraine Ahlers-Mack.
"There's going to be a lot of litigation surrounding this issue," she warns.
Managers had better get ready.
FEEDBACK: onthejob@fortunemail.com
[BOX]
PLUS: FAT CEO PENSIONS | NEW OUTSOURCING DANGERS | INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
REVISITED [BOX] Making the Grade ENRON Divides employees into six categories:
superior (5% of employees), excellent (30%), strong (30%), satisfactory
(20%), needs improvement, and issues (combined, 15%). FORD Last year gave 10%
of employees A's, 80% B's, and 10% C's (the lowest grade); will give only 5%
C's this year. GENERAL ELECTRIC Divides employees into top (20%), middle
(80%), and bottom (10%) categories. HEWLETT-PACKARD Uses a 1-to-5 scale, with
15% of employees getting 5's (the top grade) and 5% getting 1's; the
percentage of 2's, 3's, and 4's varies. MICROSOFT Ranks employees from 1 to
5; most fall between 2.5 and 4.5.

COLOR PHOTO: PHOTOGRAPH BY JOE VAUGHN Sanaa Taraman recently charged Ford
with discriminatory grading.
Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

UAE: Enron to pull out of Dolphin project

05/18/2001
Middle East Economic Digest
Copyright (C) 2001 Middle East Economic Digest; Source: World Reporter (TM)

The US' Enron Corporation is to relinquish its stake in Dolphin Energy (DEL),
the joint venture company formed to develop the Dolphin gas project. DEL is a
Jersey-registered company, 51 per cent owned by the Abu Dhabi-based UAE
Offsets Group (UOG). The remaining 49 per cent is split equally between
France's TotalFinaElf and Enron.
In March 2000, the three partners signed a project development agreement
(PDA), which stated that TotalFinaElf would be responsible for the upstream
element, which would involve developing a block in Qatar's North field, and
Enron would be the midstream partner, responsible for building a gas pipeline
to Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Oman, gas marketing and project management (MEED
10:3:00).
Industry sources say that Enron's plan to give up its stake in DEL is part of
a new business model developed by the company. The sources suggest that there
is another factor affecting Enron's decision to pull out of DEL. "The profit
margin for Enron would be low. At present, the Dolphin project is being
developed primarily as an upstream initiative," says one.
The fate of Enron's stake in DEL remains unclear. UOG has not been
forthcoming with explanations, but an official statement is expected by the
end of May. Some sources suggest UOG will take over the stake of Enron in
DEL, but the possibility remains that another company might be invited into
the joint venture. "There is talk of new partners," says a TotalFinaElf
official. "But whatever happens, we are staying." Enron officials declined to
comment.

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

Bush Energy Text
By The Associated Press

05/17/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Text of President Bush's speech unveiling his energy policy in St. Paul,
Minn. on Thursday, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
BUSH: Thank you for that warm welcome. First, I want to thank my friend Norm
Coleman. What a great leader he is for St. Paul.
He's a very good friend. I think it's very important for you all to know that
when Norm calls over there to Washington, I'll answer the phone.
Traveling with me today are two of my Cabinet officers. First, from the state
of Michigan, the Energy Secretary Spence Abraham.
And the EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman.
I appreciate John's invitation to be here and I want to thank the Capital
City Partnership for giving me the chance to come and deliver a major policy
address to the nation.
I'm also pleased to be in the home of the mighty Minnesota Twins.
Their cost per win is astounding.
It serves as a good example of what frugality can do for the nation.
But I'm not here to talk about baseball. The Twin Cities are a great place to
discuss America's energy challenge. Minneapolis-St. Paul grew up as a mighty
milling and transportation center because of the power of the Mississippi
River. Your history was built on energy that was abundant and affordable and
reliable. So too will be this nation's energy future.
I invite you to think with me about that future. I had an early look at the
future this morning right here in St. Paul. I toured a plant that harnesses
the best of new technology to produce energy that is cleaner and more
efficient and more affordable.
The plant boils enough water to heat 146 major office buildings in downtown
St. Paul. Not a bit of energy is wasted, not even the waste. The excess heat
generated as the water boils is captured and used to create steam, which
generates still more electricity to power pumps and to deliver heat.
The plant is a model of energy efficiency. It is also a model of energy
diversity. It uses conventional fuels like oil and natural gas and coal, and
renewable fuels like wood chips. And the plant is a model of affordability.
While other energy prices rise, District Energy has not raised its heating
and cooling rates in four years.
We're beginning to see the power of the future, not only in office buildings,
but also in our homes and our cars.
This spring the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council showcased a solar
powered home so advanced that it actually produces more energy than it uses.
And some Americans are already driving hybrid cars that can convert to
battery power to reduce emissions and get up to 70 miles a gallon of gas.
These are our early glimpses of a future in which Americans will meet our
energy needs in ways that are efficient, clean, convenient and affordable.
The future is achievable if we make the right choices now. But if we fail to
act, this great country could face a darker future, a future that is
unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling
blackouts in the great state of California. These events are challenging what
had become a fact of life in America: The routine, everyday expectation that
when you flick on a light switch, the light will come on. Californians are
learning, regrettably, that sometimes when you flick on the light switch, the
light does not come on at any price.
I'm deeply concerned about the impact of blackouts on the daily lives of the
good people of the state of California, and my administration is committed to
helping California.
We're helping right now by expediting permits for new power production and by
working as good partners to reduce our electricity at federal facilities,
especially during the peak periods this summer.
My administration has developed a sound national plan to help meet our energy
needs this year and every year. If we fail to act on this plan, energy prices
will continue to rise.
For two decades, the share of the average family budget spent on energy
steadily declined. But since 1998, it has skyrocketed by 25 percent, and
that's a hardship for every American family.
If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts. If
we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil,
putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some
of whom who do not share our interests.
And if we fail to act, our environment will suffer, as government officials
struggle to prevent blackouts in the only way possible, by calling on more
polluting emergency backup generators and by running less-efficient old power
plants too long and too hard. America cannot allow that to be our future, and
we will not.
To protect the environment, to meet our growing energy needs, to improve our
quality of life, America needs an energy plan that faces up to our energy
challenges and meets them.
Vice President Cheney and many members of my Cabinet spent months analyzing
our problems and seeking solutions. The result is a comprehensive series of
more than 100 recommendations that light the way to a brighter future through
energy that is abundant and reliable, cleaner and more affordable.
The plan addresses all three key aspects of the energy equation: demand,
supply and the means to match them.
MORE
First, it reduces demand by promoting innovation and technology to make us
the world leader in efficiency and conservation.
Second, it expands and diversifies America's supply of all sources of energy
- oil and gas, clean coal, solar, wind, biomass, hydropower and other
renewables, as well as safe and clean nuclear power.
Third and finally, the report outlines the ways to bring producers and
consumers together by modernizing the networks of pipes and wires that link
the power plant to the outlet on the wall.
Our new energy plan begins with a 21st century focus on conservation. The
American entrepreneurial system constantly invents ways to do more with less.
We pack more and more computing power on to a chip. We carry more and more
messages over a cable and we squeeze more and more power out of a barrel of
oil or a cubic foot of natural gas. A new refrigerator you buy today, for
example, uses 65 percent less electricity than one that was made 30 years
ago. Overall, we use 40 percent less energy to produce new goods and services
than we did in 1973. But this steady improvement slowed in the 1990s.
Our energy plan will speed up progress on conservation where it has slowed
and restart it where it has failed.
It will underwrite research and development into energy-saving technology. It
will require manufacturers to build more energy-efficient appliances. We will
review and remove the obstacles that prevent business from investing in
energy-efficient technologies like the combined heat and power system I
toured this morning.
Conservation does not mean doing without. Thanks to new technology, it can
mean doing better and smarter and cheaper.
Innovation helps us all make better choices. Smart electric meters can tell
homeowners how they're using power and how they might reduce their monthly
electric bill. Sensors can turn off lights when people leave a room. And
innovation is bringing us transmission wires that waste less of the
electricity they carry from plant to home or to office.
Conservation on a wide scale takes more than good ideas. It takes capital
investment. Outdated buildings and factories have to be upgraded or replaced
to consume less and pollute less.
And here, some well-intentioned regulations have created a catch-22.
Procedures intended to protect the environment have too often blocked
environmental progress by discouraging companies from installing newer and
cleaner equipment.
Wise regulation and American innovation will make this country the world's
leader in energy efficiency and conservation in the 21st century.
Our goal is to use less additional energy to fuel more economic growth, and I
know we can do so. I also know that conservation is the result of millions of
good choices made across our land on a daily basis.
Yet even as we grow more efficient, even as this nation achieves the
objectives in conservation, we will always require some additional energy to
power our expanding economy. We learned that from the California experience.
California has been an impressive conservation leader. It is the second most
energy efficient state in the union, but California has not built a major new
power plant in a decade. And not even the most admirable conservation effort
could keep up with the state's demand for electricity.
So the second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our
nation's energy supplies. Diversity is important, not only for energy
security, but also for national security.
Over-dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source,
leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions and, in the worst
case, blackmail.
America, today, imports 52 percent of all our oil. If we don't take action,
those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we
will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.
New technology makes drilling for oil far more productive, as well as
environmentally friendly than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
Here is the result of one study. And I quote, "Improvements over the past 40
years have dramatically reduced industry's footprint on the fragile tundra,
minimized waste produced and protected the land for resident and migratory
wildlife." Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the Department of
Energy study conducted during my predecessor's administration.
Advanced new technologies allow entrepreneurs and risk-takers to find oil and
to extract it in ways that leave nature undisturbed. Where oil is found
underneath sensitive landscapes, rigs can stand miles away from the oil field
and tap a reservoir at an angle.
And Arctic sites like ANWR, we can build roads of ice that literally melt
away when summer comes and the drilling then stops to protect wildlife. ANWR
can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What
difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly
the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
We're not just short of oil, we're short of the refineries that turn oil into
fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of
capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.
A single accident, a single shutdown can send prices of gasoline and heating
oil spiraling all over the country. The major reason for dramatic increases
in gasoline prices today is the lack of refining capacity, and my plan gives
the needed flexibility and certainty so refiners will make the investments
necessary to expand supply by increasing capacity.
And America needs to generate more electricity. The Department of Energy
estimates that America will need between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants
over the next two decades. A high-tech economy is a high electricity
consumption economy. Even the sleekest laptop needs to plug into an
electrical outlet from time-to-time.
More than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from coal.
If we weren't blessed with this natural resource, we would face even greater
shortages and higher prices today. Yet coal presents an environmental
challenge.
So our plan funds research into new clean coal technologies. It calls on
Congress to enact strict new multi-pollutant legislation to reduce emissions
from electric power plants. My administration's energy plan anticipates that
most new electric plants will be fueled by the cleanest of all fossil fuels,
natural gas. Our nation and our hemisphere are rich in natural gas resources,
but our ability to develop gas resources has been hampered by restrictions on
natural gas exploration. Our ability to deliver gas to consumers has been
hindered by opposition to construction of new pipelines that today are more
safe and more efficient.
MORE
I will call on Congress to pass legislation to bring more gas to market while
improving pipeline safety and safeguarding the environment.
America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy, nuclear
power. Many Americans may not realize that nuclear power already provides
one-fifth of this nation's electricity, safely and without air pollution. But
the last American nuclear power plant to enter operation was ordered in 1973.
In contrast, France, our friend and ally, gets 80 percent of its electricity
from nuclear power. By renewing and expanding existing nuclear facilities, we
can generate tens of thousands of megawatts of electricity at a reasonable
cost without pumping a gram of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
New reactor designs are even safer and more economical than the reactors we
possess today. And my energy plan directs the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously
to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste.
Our energy plan also supports the development of new and renewable sources of
energy.
It recommends tax credits to homeowners who invest in solar homes and to
utilities that build wind turbines or harness biomass and other
environmentally friendly forms of power.
It removes impediments to the development of hydroelectricity. It proposes
incentives to buy new cars that run on alternative fuels like ethanol that
consume less oil and, therefore, pollute less.
It supports research into fuel cells, a technology of tomorrow that can power
a car with hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and emit only
steam as a waste product.
In all of these ways, we will expand the diversity or our energy supply. But
as with conservation, new energy supply alone is not the whole answer. There
is a third element we must address: modernizing the network that delivers the
supply to the point of demand.
In 1919, a young U.S. Army officer was ordered to lead a truck convoy
westward across our country. He was astonished to discover that the journey
took 62 days. His name was Dwight David Eisenhower. And the memory of this
bumpy, transcontinental ride led to the creation of a modern transportation
system.
Today, our electrical system is almost as bumpy as our highways were 80 years
ago. We have chopped our country into dozens of local electricity markets,
which are haphazardly connected to one another.
For example, a weak link in California's electrical grid makes it difficult
to transfer power from the southern part of the state to the north, where the
blackouts have been worse.
Highways connect Miami with Seattle, phone lines link Los Angeles and New
York, it is time to manage our interstate highway and phone systems with an
interstate electrical grid.
And here, too, technology will make a big difference. Electricity markets
used to be localized because wires could not carry electrical current over
long distances. More and better wires can efficiently ship power across the
country, reducing the threat of local blackouts or outages. And it's just not
our electricity delivery system that has fallen behind.
The energy report projects that natural gas consumption will rise rapidly as
electric utilities make greater and greater use of this environmentally
friendly fuel. We will need newer, cleaner and safer pipes to move these
larger quantities of natural gas - up to 38,000 new miles of pipe and 263,000
miles of distribution lines.
We'll also need to recognize the energy potential of our neighbors, Canada
and Mexico, and make it easier for buyers and sellers of energy to do
business across our national borders.
And finally, we must work to build a new harmony between our energy needs and
our environmental concerns.
Too often Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and
environmental protection, as if people who revere the Alaska wilderness do
not also care about America's energy future; as if the people who produce
America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit.
The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not
competing priorities.
They're dual aspects of a single purpose: to live well and wisely upon the
earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in
discussing energy and the environment; one that is less suspicious, less
punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to
listen to each other and to act.
And it's time to act.
The energy plan I lay out for the nation harnesses the power of modern
markets and the potential of new technology.
It looks at today's energy problem and sees tomorrow's energy opportunity.
It addresses today's energy shortages and shows the way to tomorrow's energy
abundance.
I have great faith in our country's ability to solve the energy problem, and
our energy plan shows the way. But most of all, I have great faith in the
American people, our land's ingenuity, our innovation. Our entrepreneurial
spirits is this country's greatest of all resources. And thank God, they are
never in short supply.
God bless.
END

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

Williams Capital Group's Ellinghaus on Energy Policy: Comment
2001-05-17 12:30 (New York)

     New York, May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Chris Ellinghaus, energy
analyst for New York-based investment bank Williams Capital Group
LP, comments on the U.S. energy task force report. President
George W. Bush released the report today in Minnesota.

     ``The Bush plan includes a courageous, pragmatic and long-
term strategic policy that prepares for a sufficient future energy
supply. Many investors believe that the energy commodity markets
will quickly correct to over-capacity over the next one or two
years. (However) we firmly believe that sufficient energy supplies
will be constrained without new energy policy.''

     ``The Bush plan avoids the politically popular but short-
sighted temptation of curtailing demand and capping prices.''

     ``Price controls of the early 1970s contributed to
stagflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s that we would not
care to see repeated.''

Affect on energy stocks:

     ``We expect the debate over energy policy to be heated and
controversial.''

     ``The plan overestimates the political will of the country to
embrace new coal and nuclear power generation but does envision
the need for greater fuel diversity. Yet, the Bush plan relies
heavily on natural gas for as much as 90 percent of new electric
generating capacity. In addition, without a sound policy for
nuclear spent fuel shortage, we doubt significant new nuclear
construction is likely over the near term.''

     ``As the debate unfolds over the next several months, we
believe the stocks of the energy sector participants could be
jostled periodically with condemning rhetoric. However, we expect
extremely strong realized earnings over the course of the summer
and growing expectations for next year to provide momentum for
power generators, utilities and wholesale energy marketers. We
encourage investors to be patient with these stocks.''

Enron's Maurer on Brazil's Power Regulation Problems: Comment
2001-05-17 15:39 (New York)

     Sao Paulo, May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Luiz Maurer, regulations
superintendent for Enron America do Sul Ltda., comments on
regulation problems in Brazil that have prevented companies from
investing in power generation. Maurer is also vice president of
the Brazilian association of electricity trading companies, known
as Abracel.

On price controls:
    ``There are many barriers in the contracts that must be signed
between the generators and distributors. In the contracts to
purchase natural gas, it still hasn't been determined who will pay
for the foreign exchange losses. The distribution companies do not
have the assurance that they will be allowed to transfer to their
customers all the costs'' beyond their control.

     The ceiling rate for distributors to buy energy from
generators ``has been increased twice but it still does not cover
some types of costs such as changes in the electricity
transmission costs. There is a proposal in which the ceiling rate
would be defined by the market'' and not by the power regulator.

On Petrobras taking over currency costs for distributors:
     ``We will be creating an anti-competitive situation. Another
natural gas distributor will be in disadvantage against Petrobras.
It would not be a measure that would foster competition in the
next four years. The best measure is to let the consumer pay for
the foreign exchange losses.''

     Abracel and other industry associations ``have proposed the
creation of a tracking account that would accumulate the losses
and gains with the currency plus the financial cost over time so
that this would be transferred to the final consumer in the next
annual rate adjustment.''

Enron to Provide Gas Prices to NGX, Drops Lawsuit (Update1)
2001-05-15 16:26 (New York)

Enron to Provide Gas Prices to NGX, Drops Lawsuit (Update1)

     (Adds closing share price.)

     Houston, May 15 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp., the world's
biggest energy trader, agreed to provide natural-gas pricing
information to NGX Canada Inc. and drop a C$100 million
($64.7 million) suit against the Canadian gas exchange.
     Enron sued NGX in November after the Internet exchange, a
unit of the company that owns the Stockholm Stock Exchange,
changed providers of its gas-pricing data and didn't include
trades on EnronOnline, Enron's Internet exchange, when calculating
gas-price indexes.
     Calgary-based NGX agreed to include EnronOnline trades in
calculating its Alberta Gas Price Indices by August, Enron
spokesman Eric Thode said.
     NGX, owned by Stockholm's OM Gruppen AB, is used by about 90
percent of Canadian gas traders, and many traders use EnronOnline
to sell gas from western Canada, the biggest supplier of the
cleaner-burning fuel to the U.S.
     Houston-based Enron fell $1.76 to $56.99.

Venezuela to Award 11 Gas Tracts June 28-29, First Since 1975
2001-05-17 13:36 (New York)

     Caracas, May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela said it will award
11 potentially rich natural gas tracts in a June 28-29 auction
expected to clear the way for over $1 billion in investments.
     Thirty-four companies, the majority foreign, qualified to
participate in the auction, the first since the country's natural
gas industry was nationalized in 1975-1976.
     The auction is expected to generate between 8,000 and 10,000
jobs, said an Energy and Mines Ministry spokeswoman.
     Venezuela, with about 147 trillion cubic feet in reserves, is
counting on private companies to spur development. Venezuela is
preparing distribution and transmission projects, which would also
tap private investment.
     Among the expected bidders are Enron Corp. and Perez Companc
SA.

USA: U.S. green groups pummel Bush energy plan.
By Patrick Connole

05/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - Environmentalists expressed deep
dissatisfaction with the energy crisis plan which President George W. Bush
unveiled on Thursday, calling it wrongheaded and dangerous to forever seek
increasing supplies of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Activists from the full spectrum of America's environmental lobby took issue
with at least some of the expansive $10 billion plan.
Many claimed the plan would harm public health by dirtying the air or
destroying designated wilderness areas in the west or in Alaska. The
long-term measures would be costly and offer no short-term relief to
consumers facing power shortages and record-high gasoline prices this summer,
green groups said.
"The president's plan won't produce affordable energy for Americans now, or
ten years from now," said Philip Clapp, president of the National
Environmental Trust.
"What the president's plan will do is drive up air pollution in our cities
and turn the last 5 percent of our public lands that we've protected for
future generations over to the oil and coal companies."
GREENPEACE DUMPS COAL
Coal was the theme of protests by members of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace,
who used the fuel as props to disparage the White House plan to use vast
domestic supplies of coal.
Greenpeace activists dumped five tons of coal and five fake drums of oil and
nuclear waste outside Vice President Dick Cheney's residence on Thursday.
Cheney, the former top executive of oilfield services giant Halliburton Co ,
headed the task force which wrote the energy plan.
The drums were labeled with the logos of Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, BP and
Enron.
Sierra Club protesters trailed Bush as he swung through Minnesota and Iowa,
holding news conferences at coal-fired power plants to offset what they
termed misleading appearances by Bush at environmentally friendly facilities
used to promote the White House recommendations.
"It would be more honest for President Bush to stand in front of the dirty
and dangerous coal and nuclear plants that his plan promotes," said Carl
Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, which claims some 650,000
members.
Environmentalists portrayed the crisis report as the work of the energy
industry, which has close ties to the Bush administration, and out of touch
with the pro-conservation, pro-efficiency sentiments in the nation.
"If they are so enamored with dirty power, they can have it, because the
American people don't want it." said Andrea Durbin, Greenpeace Campaigns
Director.
WILDERNESS AREAS THREATENED
Other green groups criticized the White House energy plan for proposing a
review of federal lands that ban oil and gas development.
The vast majority of federal lands in the west are already open to oil and
gas drilling, leaving mostly designated federal wilderness areas and national
monuments off limits to development, according to Susan Daggett, an attorney
with Earthjustice Legal Fund in Denver.
"These areas have been protected for a reason, and typically they have very
little in the way of recoverable oil and gas reserves," Daggett said.
The National Audubon Society said the search for energy in "wild" lands would
mean small amounts of new production at the cost of wrecking what were once
unmolested places.
"The energy policy encourages the blowing off of mountaintops in West
Virginia, destroying endangered cerulean warbler habitat for a small amount
of coal," said John Flicker, president of the Audubon group.
Although the White House plan backs drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, that provision lacks Senate support to go forward, according to
congressional sources.
NO CLIMATE CHANGE HELP
One gaping hole in the Bush plan, according to global warming experts, is the
lack of new initiative to help solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions,
which many scientists blame for worsening climate change.
"It costs less to include carbon dioxide as part of a comprehensive system of
pollution reductions now, rather than putting it off into the future," said
John Stanton, vice president of the National Environmental Trust.
Bush has rejected U.S. participation in international talks to finalize the
Kyoto Protocol. The treaty sets targets for industrialized nations to cut, on
average, by 5.2 percent the amount of carbon emitted under 1990 levels by
2010.
The new White House plan instead seeks legislation to cut other pollutants
like nitrogen oxide, sulfur and mercury.
Cheney has said if people are worried about carbon emissions, they should
back nuclear power generation. Green groups scoffed at the idea of nuclear
power as an environmentally friendly fuel, citing the hazardous waste from
plants and public fears of a major "Chernobyl" style disaster.

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

INDIA: Enron India unit lenders put off cancellation vote to Friday.

05/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, May 17 (Reuters) - Local and foreign lenders to Enron Corp's troubled
Dabhol Power Company (DPC) squabbled on Thursday, forcing the postponement of
a vote that would decide whether DPC will pull the plug on a controversial
deal to sell power to an Indian state, a source close to the deal said.
Indian lenders, led by State Bank of India, , the country's largest
commercial bank, opposed allowing DPC to terminate its contract as it would
affect their finances, the source added.
Foreign banks, whose exposure comprises only 30 percent of the project's
total debt of around $2 billion, wanted to give DPC the go-ahead to cancel
the contract.
The lenders, who discussed the issue in a conference call on Thursday
evening, have now decided to vote on the issue on Friday, the source added.
The lenders' dispute once again highlights the controversy surrounding the
$2.9 billion, 2,184 MW power project that was promoted in 1991 to bring
electricity to one of India's most backward regions.
The project's first phase of 740 MW was completed in May 1999 while the
second phase of 1,444 MW is slated to begin generation next month.
Dabhol, which is 65 percent owned by Houston-based Enron, signed a contract
with Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) to sell all the power
produced.
But MSEB reneged on the contract by refusing to buy power from the second
phase citing high costs. It has also not paid Dabhol $48 million for
electricity purchased in the past months.
Last month, Dabhol issued a notice of arbitration to MSEB and also got its
board approval for issuing a notice to terminate the contract.
Such a move, analysts say, would hit India hard and affect foreign investment
flows into the country's power sector.
($1=46.93 Indian rupees).

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

UK: Global Coal website starts e-trading coal.

05/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

LONDON, May 17 (Reuters) - London-based internet coal trading platform Global
Coal, set up by some of the world's biggest mining groups and commodity
trader Glencore, said on Thursday it was pleased with its first two days of
live trading.
"On our first day (Wednesday) 60,000 tonnes of coal traded representing $2.26
million and already today (Thursday) 120,000 tonnes has traded," Global
Coal's head of marketing John Loewen told Reuters.
"We are pleased with the way it is going."
Among Global Coal's main backers are miners Rio Tinto Plc/Ltd , Anglo
Amercian Plc and Billiton Plc , and utilities utilities TXU Europe and Enel .
Loewen said Global Coal's e-platform, wwww.globalcoal.com, was allowing
parties to contract business using the Standard Coal Trading Agreement
(Scota).
"There is a real need to have a standard contract, since coal is not
homogeneous", Loewen said.
Loewen said there was vast potential for business as coal trading liquidity
improves.
"We have already seen the success of Enron, although EnronOnline differs
substantially from Global Coal in that it (Enron) is the counter-party".
Loewen said he did not want to put a number on future transaction levels.
"Lets just say we would like to see millions of tonnes trading".
Global Coal acts as a platform for buyers and sellers to conduct trade and
the company takes a commission on each deal.
While coal may no longer enjoy the dominance it had 100 years ago in the west
during the "King Coal" era, it still accounts for over a quarter of world
energy use and generates over a third, 38.4 percent of global electricity,
according to the International Energy Agency.
Spot coal trading has become increasingly popular in Europe over the last 18
months or so as the European electricity market liberalises and utilities
seek out the cheapest fuel in a competitive market.

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

CHINA: India tells Enron to renegotiate Dabhol contract.

05/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

HONG KONG, May 17 (Reuters) - India has told U.S. energy company Enron Corp
that it should renegotiate its contentious power purchase agreement with the
Maharashtra state government, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha said on
Thursday.
"We have suggested to Enron that they should seriously renegotiate the power
purchase agreement with the government of Maharashtra, because there are
certain elements in that power purchase agreement which can undergo a
change," Sinha said at a business luncheon in Hong Kong on Thursday.
Enron and India have been sparring for six months over payment defaults by
the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for power purchased from Enron
's Indian unit, Dabhol Power Company (DPC).
A Dabhol spokesman on Thursday declined to comment on Sinha's statement. He
reiterated the company's previously stated position that it is ready for a
dialogue to resolve all issues, but a renegotiation of the contract is not on
offer.
DPC has already held a meeting with a Maharashtra government committee and is
slated to meet them again on May 23.
"Since the purpose of the meeting is only to hear out the committee and
understand their thoughts, we will not present any proposal," Dabhol said in
a statement on May 3.
DPC is building the world's largest natural gas fired power plant on India's
western coast. The 740 megawatt (MW) first phase of the facility began
operating in 1999. The plant's generating capacity will triple to 2,184 MW
when phase two is completed next month.
MSEB agreed in 1995 to buy all the power produced by the plant, but now says
the power is too expensive, and is refusing to take the additional
second-phase capacity. Its change of mind has sparked concern over the fate
of the project.
DPC has already issued a notice of arbitration, and last month its board
authorised management to terminate the contract. A vote on Thursday by
lenders to the project is expected to endorse the board's decision, a source
close to the matter told Reuters.
Sinha said he had no comment on the vote. He also declined to reveal the
federal government's opinion of MSEB's refusal to buy the second-phase power.

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

Common Cause Statement On Cheney Energy Panel's Report; Recommendations Seen
As Payback For Big Time Donors

05/17/2001
U.S. Newswire
(Copyright 2001)

WASHINGTON, May 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by Common
Cause President Scott Harshbarger on the Cheney Energy Panel's Report:
While energy consumers are subjected to rolling blackouts in California, all
Americans are subjected to a permanent blackout when it comes to the
closed-door activities of the National Energy Policy Development Group headed
by Vice President Cheney. According to press reports, not even Congress has
full knowledge of who is serving on this task force, or a full accounting of
this secretive body's activities.
The task force's modus operandus does not inspire confidence and many of the
task force's recommendations -- like easing environmental protections to
benefit the oil and gas industry -- are what you would expect. Big time
donors get major league payback, non-donors get higher energy bills and a
dirtier environment.
The President and Members of Congress have been very successful at drilling
for political contributions from the energy sector. In the 2000 election
cycle, the oil and gas sector contributed $15.4 million in soft money
contributions to the national political party committees; electric utilities
contributed $10.1 million more. One company alone, Enron, gave more than $1.4
million in the last cycle and recently sponsored a major party fundraiser. It
certainly raises questions about Vice President Cheney's contention that
conservation is "not a basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
And these big donors must have been really pleased by President Bush's
dubious claim that the best way to meet the energy crisis is to cut taxes, so
that Americans will be better able to pay their higher energy bills! The
much-vaunted tax cut is, after all, just a revenue shift to the energy sector
with the taxpayer playing the role of middle-man.
Taxpayers or anyone else who may feel left out of this secretive process may
have another chance, however: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will be
holding a private, closed-door briefing on energy policy next Thursday. This
being Washington, all you need is a big check made out to the National
Republican Senatorial Committee to attend.
KEYWORDS:
ENERGY, POLICY, CAMPAIGN REFORM

Contact: Jeff Cronin or Susan Quatrone, 202-736-5770, both of Common Cause

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


Hi Kay Kay. Just wanted to say hello and wishing you a great week. Thanks
for letting Michael come see us. We really enjoyed his visit. We enjoyed
Neil being here. Just sorry he had to meet up with a hardhead. I bet he has
a sore foot? Norm is catching crabs for us today. I forgot to tell Neil
about the crabs.We love you. Mother


Joanne- do you have any upstream contracts for CVA or CMD?

As for CPA, we have bought 3,942 at Broadrun Cobb from East Ohio Gas K#34826.
We will buy 2,821(FOM) from you at the pool plus we plan to  buy  6,061 at
A06. Nothing at A05 for Mar01.

So of the 15,553 FOM gas (Ex1 plus hedges @ CG) we will use 2,759 CPA, 1,200
CVA and 472 CMD. The remaining 11,122 (or 11,370 @ pool) will be pulled into
NPC App Pool from ENA App Pool.

I will let you know A06 assoonasigetit.


Oscar -- At this point, FERC does not have jurisdiction over coops and munis (most public power entities are non-jurisdictional) and cannot "force" them to join RTOs.  TVA does not have to join an RTO either.  However, FERC does have some carrots and sticks that it can use, for example, a public that does not join an RTO could be precluded from using the jurisdictional (actually, the rest) of the transmission system.  Therefore, many will probably join just as they have currently filed "reciprocity" tariffs at FERC in order to have the advantages of using the system.  EK Coop currently has a reciprocity tariff on file with FERC, so would probably have to withdraw it at some point if it decides not to join an RTO.

Also, requirements to make publics join RTOs are in the current legislative proposals before Congress.  I am not sure that any will actually pass; however, Enron is working on this too.

Other questions are answered below.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dalton III, Oscar
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 1:57 PM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.; Roan, Michael
Cc:	Forster, David
Subject:

Christi/Mike:

In a meeting yesterday with East Kentucky Power Cooperative, they indicated that they will be joining a RTG to be headed by TVA which will essentially become and RTO for Public Power entities.  We have also heard indirectly, that EK will make some type of filing/release that they are non-jurisdictional and therefore not required to join any
RTO.

I would like your comments on whether FERC can force EK into the MISO or Alliance.

EK has mostly 161 kv line with some 345kv and is right in the middle of the North to South transfer that takes place between the Midwest and TVA.

Key questions:

1.  Can EK opt out of the process....even if they have a large transmission system
[Nicolay, Christi L.]   Currently, yes, see above for sticks.

2.  Will a RTG for public power be encouraged/discouraged.  If its discouraged by FERC, can FERC shut it down?
[Nicolay, Christi L.]  FERC cannot actually tell publics that they cannot be an RTG; however, FERC has the same sticks.  If legislatively or otherwise (through DOE) TVA ends up joining an RTO, these others in the vicinity of TVA may well follow.

3.  Where in the process is the Public Power RTG?
[Nicolay, Christi L.]  I am not familiar with this RTG (I don't think they have filed anything at FERC and they do not have to.)  JOE C.- have you heard anything?

any other comments would be helpful.

thanks

oscar


Analysis based on information from Facility Planning.

James


FYI -- As a result of a discussion that I had earlier in the week with
Georgeanne...
---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 12/30/99 11:31 AM
---------------------------

	From:  Georgeanne Hodges                           12/30/99 09:09 AM

To: Sally Beck@ECT
cc:
Subject: Meetings with Commercial Teams

FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Georgeanne Hodges/HOU/ECT on 12/30/99
09:08 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Faith Killen                           12/29/99 06:39 PM

To: Paula Harris/HOU/ECT@ECT, Suzanne Nicholie/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Georgeanne Hodges/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Meetings with Commercial Teams

Effective immediately, please invite your Energy Ops team representatives to
all future meetings with the Commercial teams.

Gas- Brent Price
Power- Kristin Albrecht
Emerging Ops- Scott Pleus
IR/FX/Equity- Sheila Glover
Paper- Jeff Harbert

In addition to communicating the purpose of the meeting, please deliver via
e-mail  the information to be reviewed prior to the meeting. This will enable
the Energy Ops representative to raise any concerns/issues he/she might have
prior to meeting with the commercial leads, and give us an opportunity to
address these in advance. Thanks.


Start Date: 2/27/01; HourAhead hour: 24;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001022724.txt


Please put this on my calendar if you haven't already.

fletch

---------------------- Forwarded by Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT on 08/07/2000
04:09 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Lynn Pikofsky @ ENRON                           08/03/2000 04:35 PM

To: Laura Luce/Corp/Enron@Enron, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J
Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Hermann/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Bill Brogan/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Barry Tycholiz/CAL/ECT@ECT, Richard Tomaski/Corp/Enron@Enron, Cary M
Carrabine/Corp/Enron@Enron, Chris Sonneborn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark
Courtney/HOU/ECT@ECT, D.wear@pecorp.com
cc: Airam Arteaga/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Alliance Meeting

Please mark you calendars for Thursday August 10th for the Alliance Meeting.
This meeting will be all day.  The location will be EB32C2.  Please let me
know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Lynn
(312) 541-1379


Thanks for inviting me.  I unfortunately will not be able to attend.

Regards,

Mark Haedicke

-----Original Message-----
From: ELI - Elisangela Ferreira [mailto:Eli@tozzini.com.br]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:10 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Tozzini, Freire - Invitation - 25th anniversary

As part of the festivities of the 25th anniversary of Tozzini, Freire, Teixeira e Silva Advogados, the firm has the pleasure of inviting you to the cocktail party that will open the exhibition of the works of the French artist Auguste Rodin, in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

The event will be held at "Pinacoteca do Estado de Sao Paulo" on the evening of the 30th of September, 2001. Please find details in the attached file (invitation-rodin.exe)

Shortly you will be receiving the invitation by mail.

Yours Sincerely,
Tozzini, Freire, Teixeira e Silva Advogados
Sao Paulo - Brazil


Kim, Patti, Suzanne, and Ted-

The total burn nomination for month of December 2001 is 6,500MMBtu per day.  This is made up of the sum of the following:

1. 3,989MMBtu/day purchase from Engage @ SoCal Border (net, after PG&ENW losses 4,124MMBtu/day @ Kingsgate);
2. 3,000MMBtu/day APEA gas;
3. 1,000MMBtu/day balance of year strip purchased on behalf of Azusa@ $7.71/MMBtu;
4. 2,000MMBtu/day under two separate fixed contracts of 1,000MMBtu/day each;
5. 500MMBtu/day March 2001 through Feb strip purchased @ $7.63;
6. Saleto Enron at SoCalBorder, 3,989MMBtu/day at $2.68/MMBtu

Line loss on the PG & E line for December 2001 is 2.20%.  We have not sold any of the APEA gas (3,000MMBtu/day) at this time.  However, we are looking into selling it and will notify you if we are successful.

Our Broadway 3 steam plant (65MW) is off line for scheduled maintenance.  We will only have Broadway 2 online on a regular basis.  Our actual usage will probably be about 3,500 to 4,000MMBtu per day, unless the ISO instructs us to put Broadway 1 online.  Should Broadway 1 be called upon, our usage will go up to 6,500MMBtu/day.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thanks.

-Steve


I would like to take one day of Vacation on Monday, 8/2.   Please confirm at
your earliest convenience, so I may contact Brenda for coverage of my desk.

thanks
Taffy