Thanks for the excellent update.

From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 12/27/2000 08:57 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com,
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank W
Vickers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Beverly Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Brenda Barreda/HOU/EES@EES, Carol
Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Cathy Corbin/HOU/EES@EES, Christina Liscano/HOU/EES@EES,
Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Debora Whitehead/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis
Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Dorothy Youngblood/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, Erika
Dupre/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Fran Deltoro/HOU/EES@EES, Gayle W
Muench/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@ENRON, Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES,
Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@ENRON, Iris
Waser/HOU/EES@EES, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES,
Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy Bass/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy Dodgen/HOU/EES@EES,
Ken Gustafson/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES,
Leticia Botello/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Marsha
Suggs/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Meredith M Eggleston/HOU/EES@EES,
Mike M Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES,
Paula Warren/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Rita
Hennessy/NA/Enron@ENRON, Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Scott
Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Sharon Dick/HOU/EES@EES, Tanya
Leslie/HOU/EES@EES, Tasha Lair/HOU/EES@EES, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri
Greenlee/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tony Spruiell/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Vladimir Gorny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, William S
Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Update--Day 1 of California PUC Hearings

Thanks Roger.  Here are the highlights of today's hearings:

 Common themes--many tracked ours pretty closely
Not a question of whether rates need to rise, but by how much.
Though some oppose any and all rate increases, the lion's share acknowledged
that the utilities have a cash flow problem and the a rate increase is
necessary.
Due process matters.
If the Commission is thinking about going as far as ending rate freezes and
increasing rates, it better provide for ample due process, or countless law
suits will ensue.
Don't jump the gun.
A rate increase is likely, but only the utilities benefit from adoption of
the utilities' proposals. The Commission needs to carefully scrutinize the
utilities' claims and take a careful look at the level of increase required
to maintain access to capital markets.  However, as expected, the utilities
implored the Commission to jump the gun immediately.  The utilities want the
Commission to declare an end to the rate freeze and raise rates on Jan.4.
No more divestiture.
The utility should keep the generating assets it retained, but the Commission
should ensure that the assets' benefits are allocated equally among all
customers.  One legislator recommended that the State buy the utilities'
hydro assets, which would give the utilities the cash they need and give the
state control over some generation.
Treat all customers equally and fairly.
The Commission should not create two classes of customers (e.g., large v.
small; direct access v. bundled).  No customer group should be sacrificied to
save another.
Be as narrow as possible/do as little harm as possible
The immediate problem is the utility's cash/credit crunch.  As such, the
Commission should do only enough to solve this very specific, immediate
problem.  A modest rate increase is all that's required and the Commission
should do no more.

At the beginning and the end of the hearing, the President of the Commission
asked parties to be prepared (at tomorrow's hearing) to discuss whether the
Commission could legally use its other, broad powers to raise rates without
declaring an end to the rate freeze.  It seems that she seems some benefit in
raising rates, but leaving AB 1890 otherwise intact untill the Commission can

Marketers and generators are to blame for the problem
Though not universally embraced, the theme came up repeatedly.

A few parties (e.g., the Unions, low income consumer groups, one PUC
commissioner) called for complete re-regulation of the industry, returning
the utilities to vertically integrated monopolies.  But they were the
exception rather than the rule at today's hearing.

2. Next steps
There hearings were scheduled to end on Thursay, but now will continue
through Friday.
Tomorrow, lawyers will provide "oral" arguments on whether the Commission
must end the rate freeze in order to increase rates.  We will argue that it
does not have to, and should not, go through the complex and controversial
exercise of determing whether the rate freeze is over between now and
01.04.01.  We will argue that the Commission has the authority to raise rates
without ending the rate freeze, and if it decides to raise rates, it should
do so while keeping AB 1890's basic structure in place until a full and fair
hearing of the issues is completed.   We are talking to other stakeholders to
persuade them to take the same approach.  In terms of legal arguments, this
is clearly a long shot, but one that seems worth taking.
After the oral argument, the utilities will present their rate proposals and
"all interested persons" will have the opportunity to cross-examine the
utilities (in short, tomorrow will also be a zoo).
When asked what the process will be for issuing a proposed decision and
providing comments, the President of the Commission responded "we don't know,
it's evolving."  In other words, the Commission is doing a poor job of
ensuring that their Jan 4 decision is "appeal-proof."
Keep in mind that the situation remains extremely fluid and the trend is
still toward ending the rate freeze on Jan. 4th.  We continue to aggressively
offer alternatives to that possibility and continue to try to bring other
stakeholders to our side.
We're doing everything necessary to preserve our appeal rights.

We can discuss further on the 10 AM (CST) call tomorrow.

Best,
Jeff

	Roger Yang@EES
	12/27/2000 05:43 PM

		 To: Leticia Botello/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc: Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, James W
Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Tony
Spruiell/HOU/EES@EES, Mike M Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Meredith M
Eggleston/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Neil
Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Vladimir Gorny/HOU/ECT@ECT,
William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric
Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Gayle W Muench/HOU/EES@EES,
Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Ken
Gustafson/HOU/EES@EES, Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES,
Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy
Bass/HOU/EES@EES, Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Debora
Whitehead/HOU/EES@EES, Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Christina
Liscano/HOU/EES@EES, Tasha Lair/HOU/EES@EES, Erika Dupre/HOU/EES@EES, Rita
Hennessy/NA/Enron@Enron, Brenda Barreda/HOU/EES@EES, Marsha
Suggs/HOU/EES@EES, Carol Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy Dodgen/HOU/EES@EES, Cathy
Corbin/HOU/EES@EES, Sharon Dick/HOU/EES@EES, Beverly Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Tanya
Leslie/HOU/EES@EES, Paula Warren/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger
Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Dorothy Youngblood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri
Greenlee/NA/Enron@ENRON, Fran Deltoro/HOU/EES@EES, Iris Waser/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: Re: Reminder - Level Setting Mtg-California Markets Focus Group
EB2868

Got an update from Jeff Dasovich.  No earth shattering news.  Comments have
been all over the place.  The impression is being made by differing parties
that the issues are very complex and would inevitably result in endless
lawsuits.  Possible conclusion by the CPUC may be to invoke emergency powers
to implement an emergency surcharge and avoid addressing the issue of when
the rate freeze ends in these hearings.  However, this is just speculation.
Jeff will return to the office by 5:00 pm PST and will send out a summary of
today's hearings.

Roger

Leticia Botello
12/27/2000 06:57 AM
To: Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, James W
Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Tony
Spruiell/HOU/EES@EES, Mike M Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Meredith M
Eggleston/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Neil
Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Vladimir Gorny/HOU/ECT@ECT,
William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric
Melvin/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Gayle W Muench/HOU/EES@EES,
Gordon Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Ken
Gustafson/HOU/EES@EES, Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@Enron, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G
Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy Bass/HOU/EES@EES,
Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Debora Whitehead/HOU/EES@EES, Leasa
Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Christina Liscano/HOU/EES@EES, Tasha Lair/HOU/EES@EES,
Erika Dupre/HOU/EES@EES, Rita Hennessy/NA/Enron@Enron, Brenda
Barreda/HOU/EES@EES, Marsha Suggs/HOU/EES@EES, Carol Moffett/HOU/EES@EES,
Kathy Dodgen/HOU/EES@EES, Cathy Corbin/HOU/EES@EES, Sharon Dick/HOU/EES@EES,
Beverly Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Tanya Leslie/HOU/EES@EES, Paula Warren/HOU/EES@EES,
Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Dorothy
Youngblood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri Greenlee/NA/Enron@ENRON, Fran
Deltoro/HOU/EES@EES, Iris Waser/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Reminder - Level Setting Mtg-California Markets Focus Group EB2868

12/27/00

Time    Location Call In #  Pass Code

10:00 Central Standard Time  EB 2868  1-800-713-8600  80435

This is a recurring daily meeting until further notice  (this invitation will
schedule your calendar through 1/31/01).

Time, Call In #, and Pass Code are the same for all meetings.  Conference
room location will be changed as soon as possible to better accommodate the
participants.

Note:  Optional Invitees FYI Only

Please call me if you have any questions

Leticia

x-58752


Nelson, are you in contact with this customer?  I have not heard from them
regarding the draft of the master.   Please advise of status.  Also, I do not
have a phone number for Mr. Madden.  Would you send me his phone / fax number.

Thanks,
DP


Looks good.

Peggy Mahoney
07/24/2000 06:20 PM
To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cedric Burgher/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark
Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Paula Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeremy
Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Karen S Owens@ees@EES,
Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Elizabeth Tilney/HOU/EES@EES,
Dave S Laipple/DUB/EES@EES, James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Rich Products

Please review the attached draft news release about our agreement with Rich
Products
and let me know if you have any comments by 5pm Tuesday, July 25.  We are
scheduled
to release on Wednesday, July 26.  If you have any questions, please call me
at x57034.

Rich Products is a major US food manufacturer headquartered in Buffalo, NY.
The company
ranked #122 in Forbes Private 500 and has sales around $1.5 billion.  Rich
Products is owned
and operated by the founding Rich family.  Products manufactured include
frozen meats,
bakery products and non-dairy creamers.


"Medcalf, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Medcalf@ENRON.com <mailto:Jennifer.Medcalf@ENRON.com>> on 10/12/2001 03:12:28 PM
To:	<bhatch@enron.com <mailto:bhatch@enron.com>>
cc:	"Riley, Cathy" <Cathy.Riley@ENRON.com <mailto:Cathy.Riley@ENRON.com>>
Subject:	GSA contract

Bill,
It was a pleasure to talk to you today.  I am glad to hear that you are
well.

Just to reiterate our earlier conversation of today.

Currently, under the GSA small business plan submitted by Enron, the
requirements state that the commodity delivered outside of the Enron
delivery is to go 100% to small business concerns.  Of that 100%, 10%
needs to go through a small disadvantaged concern and 5% through a
women-owned.  If A'lones chooses not to get certified for a small
disadvantaged business (SDB), Enron will need find a SDB provider as
well as a women-owned.

Under the current situation, there are limited numbers of SDB's or
women-owned businesses who are currently electricity providers; however
the Enron supplier diversity program is working to create these
opportunities and should be rolling out a program 1/2002.  Since the GSA
contract's small business plan requirements are cumulative for years 4 &
5, it doesn't make a difference when we utilize the suppliers as long as
the percentages are met and within the appropriate timeframe.  Year 4
just started this month.

What is at risk here for A'lones is at least 10% of the contract and
potentially 15%.  If they choose not to get certified it will be our
responsibility to fulfill our contractual obligations to GSA and find
candidates to meet that 15% before the end of year 5.

I will be very happy to work with the A'lones group. I know that they
have been working with us for a period of time but they do have to
understood what is at risk if they do not get certified.  Also, lack of
certification could jeopardize any potential additional business with
Enron.  I do know that the A'lones has been told this.

I believe that we can work an arrangement with A'lones where we can
initiate the contract if everything has been completed and also have a
statement in there that A'lones will do there certification within a
specific time period.  Once again as an accumulative contract this
arrangement would work.

If you have any questions on this, please feel free to give me a call.

Jennifer S. Medcalf
Senior Director, Business & Diversity Development
Global Strategic Sourcing
Enron Corp.
(713) 646-8235


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 10/13/2000
05:07 PM ---------------------------

"Makiko Sato" <makiko@ieor.berkeley.edu> on 10/13/2000 03:58:56 PM
To: <seminars@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>, <grads@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>,
<undergrads@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>, <faculty@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>,
<emeriti@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>, <visiting@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>,
<staff@queue.IEOR.Berkeley.EDU>, <faculty@its.berkeley.edu>,
<students@its.berkeley.edu>, <vkaminski@aol.com>, <vkamins@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: IEOR MONDAY SEMINAR - OCTOBER 23, 2000

?
?
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND  OPERATIONS RESEARCH
MONDAY SEMINAR
IEOR 298-1 - FALL 2000

Monday, October 23,  2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

"Volatility of Electricity  Prices - Measurement and Analysis of Underlying
Causes"
Dr.  Vincent Kaminski
Managing Director and Head of Research for Enron  Corp.

?

Abstract:

The last three years were characterized  by exceptionally high volatility of
the power prices in the US markets. The  market developments have created a
number of unique challenges for energy  industry economists. One immediate
question we have to answer is how to  measure volatility of energy prices.
Although we can all agree that the  prices in the power markets are
characterized by high variability, the  traditional measures used in
financial economics (annualized standard  deviation of log price returns) may
not fit well electricity prices.

The second challenge is to explain the  sources of high price volatility and
to answer the question to what extent  it can be attributed to problems that
can be addressed in the long run. Such  problems include flaws in market
design that allow some market participants  to abuse market power, limited
availability and/or unequal access to  transmission, temporary shortages of
generation capacity. Some factors  underlying high volatility of electricity
prices may be of permanent nature  and may be a necessary price to pay for
increased market efficiency and  expanded customer choice.

TIME  AND LOCATION: 3:30 - 5:00 P.M. - 3108 ETCHEVERRY
REFRESHMENTS: 3:00 P.M.  - 4TH FLOOR HALLWAY


---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 02/12/2001
06:31 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 02/12/2001 06:30 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: MDay@gmssr.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Robert Frank/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON,
sgovenar@govadv.com, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com

Subject: Re: Revised letter on California package

Here are some minor edits.  What's the timing of the release? I can work on
it a bit more tomorrow on the plane to Houston if that would be useful.

Best,
Jeff

	Leslie Lawner
	02/12/2001 03:20 PM

		 To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, sgovenar@govadv.com, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron,
MDay@gmssr.com, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Revised letter on California package

Here is the revised letter.  I changed the last sentence in the 1st paragraph
to reflect Mike Day's comments.  I guess if it is okay with everyone, we will
have Mike Day and Sandy come up with a mailing list.


With the filing of the Hart-Scott-Rodino application last week, it looks like our updated launch timeline is as follows. Note that it is still possible that this timeline could shift:

Week of Jan 28:

We will distribute a packet to each of the Originators/Traders who have volounteered to call customers and assist in getting signed Password Applications. The packets will contain:

Key Messages
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Top Counterparty Checklist
External Customer Cover Letter
Password Application (PA)
Registration Form
Fax Cover Sheet for PA/Registration
Electronic Trading Agreement (ETA)
Internal online Marketing Contact List

Each person receiving a pack will contact the Master Users at the companies they have volounteered for and send them copies of the Password Application (PA) and Electronic Trading Agreement (ETA). During this week, we will be working hard to get as many of the PA's returned as possible. Once we have a signed PA, we can send the customer their new User ID, which will allow them to start trading on the day we launch the new site.

A Splash page will be available at www.UBSWenergy.com or via an automatic redirect from www.enrononline.com. This page will tell customers about the pending launch of www.UBSWenergy.com and provide links to the PA and Registration screens and also to the User Admin screens, which will allow customer Master Users to start setting up their Sub Users.

The Splash page will look something like the following:

Week of Feb. 4:

We will send out a mass mailing to approx. 3,000 individuals at 450 companies inviting them to sign up for the site. Included in the package will be a simple brochure, copies of the PA and ETA, key messages and a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

Week of Feb. 11:

The site will launch, with at least financial products (timing for gas physical and power physical to be determined according to regulatory issues).

General Terms and Conditions (GTC's) will be available online and must be accepted online before a company can start to trade a particular commodity.

Trading/Origination Coordination

The Top 50 customers will have at least an initial contact within the first two days of starting the marketing effort and that all customers who previously traded either gas or power will receive a mailing within the first 10 days. An online marketer has been assigned as coordinator for each company and will assist each Trader/Originator in following up with Master Users as necessary to make sure PA's are signed and returned.

UBSWenergy Marketing Contacts:

For Marketing-specific questions, please use the following contacts. For other questions, please contact Bob Shults (30397) or Dave Forster (31861).

Teresa Mandola (39807) - Power
Jennifer McQuade (53614) - Power
Dan Diamond (39673) - Gas

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>


Please quickly review the attached document for inclusion in the contract
submittal to Hanover Measurement Services.

Regards,
Chris Sonneborn


MLS # 534605

check it out - maybe a little too expensive though


Enclosed please find the final grade rosters for MGMT 656.? Grades are due
into our office no later than Friday, May 4.

Remember that this is the university deadline for graduating students.

Thank you for your help! - Pam (713-348-6223)
 - 656.doc


nevermind


Great letter.  I'd even suggest that you have the Weird Herald folks out for
a tour, but well-intentioned ideas like that always backfire with the media.
DF

	From:  Bill Cordes                           05/04/2000 04:30 PM

To: Enron Everyone_ET&S_Omaha
cc:

Subject: Enron Response to Omaha-World Herald Column

Attached is a letter Larry DeRoin and I sent to the Omaha World-Herald in
response to Tuesday's Mike Kelley column rehashing the Enron move from
Omaha.  We think it is important to make sure the World-Herald recognizes
that we are still here.

We don't know if it will be printed, but it felt good to write it.


---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 04/09/2001 05:09 PM ---------------------------
From:	Fred Philipson/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/09/2001 04:46 PM
To:	Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beth Apollo/ENRON@enronXgate, Rahil Jafry/ENRON@enronXgate, James Scribner/Corp/Enron@Enron, Bob M Hall/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Draft  - Offsite in April 4-9.ppt

Here's the latest.  Recent efforts have focused on clarifying the "who, what, how, when, why and where's" of the project.  Please direct your feedback to me.

Thanks,

Fred
5-9323


Frank - What's the word from Enserco??  Have you had a chance to call Darrell
yet about that penalty they took in the October netout?  Let me know.

Thanks,
...Chuck
x.36275


We are allocating approximately 90,000 to 100,000 mmbtu/d from San Juan.  After the conference call today, I will revise the posting.

ds

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roensch, David
Sent:	Friday, March 15, 2002 7:41 PM
To:	Whippo, Jeff; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Graves, Jerry; Watson, Kimberly; Lindberg, Lorraine; McCracken, Mike; Chanley, Earl; Eisenstein, Arnold L.; Spalding, Norm; Todd Ingalls@Enron; Hill, Scott; Greider, Jeff; San-Juan-LaPlata, Team; Jones, Vera; Lawrence, Ed; San-Juan, Team
Cc:	Pribble, Dan
Subject:	Bisti Motor Update

The Bisti Motor failed Thursday evening and resulted in a station ESD.  Initially, it was thought that the ESD was the result of a faulure in one of the fire detectors.  Once the alarms were cleared by the Operators and the station was totally reset, an attempt at a restart was made.  A variety of alarms (primarily related to the Motor RTD's) started flagging.  The Operators continued through a trouble shooting process that lasted until late this afternoon at which point it was determined that the motor had failed.

Industrial Repair Service (IRS) out of Farmington Nm. was contacted and a rep. (Doug Harrison shop foreman) is due on site this evening (Friday) to further evaluate and provide timelines/schedules for removal.  Todd Ingalls has been in discussions with IRS's Paul Heikkinen (505-860-2398) in an effort to coordinate this removal process.   At this point, Operations is proceeding with a turnkey scope of work request from IRS for removal, repair and re-installation.  Moving as quickly as possible to turnaround this motor, field estimates tonight are in the range of 4 to 6 weeks.  We are looking at a "stator" failure this time versus the historic "rotor" failures that have occured at this facility.

A couple of issues need to be discussed so I have set up a conf. call for 1:00 pm CST Monday.  (877-795-3687  pin 151120)  Updates should be available by this time.  (In the mean while, we are moving forward, pending IRS's availability, with the removal of the equipment)


Twanda, we need executables.  Michelle

----- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2000 02:04 PM -----

	Jennifer Jordan@ENRON
	05/15/2000 11:05 AM

		 To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Twanda Sweet/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberly Rizzi/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Foem B sign date

Michelle - Kim asked that I get this date to you for Larry Gagliardi.  His
Form B sign date is 5/2/00.  If you have any questions please feel free to
call.

Thank you,

Jennifer


Your review and approval of the following product type in the EOL Datamanager
is needed (for directions on approval , please see steps for approval at the
bottom of this e-mail). If you have any questions please call me at ext.
58986.
********* DO NOT APPROVE PRODUCT TYPES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6AM -
11AM***********

Trader: William Stuart

Apr-Oct product
A currency Transaction with Enron North America Corp. (&ENA8), under which
either (A) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer to buy from
ENA, Counterparty shall pay a Fixed Amount of CAD and shall receive the
Floating Amount of CAD, or (B) for the case in which Counterparty submits an
offer to sell to ENA, Counterparty shall receive the Fixed Amount of CAD and
shall pay the Floating Amount of CAD. Each calendar month during the term of
the Transaction will be a Calculation Period; provided however, that in the
event the term of the Transaction is a single future date, the Calculation
Period shall be the date set forth in the Product description on the Website.
The Notional Amount per Calculation Period shall equal the USD Amount
submitted by the Counterparty via the Website divided by the number of
Calculation Periods during the term of the Transaction. The Fixed Amount of
CAD payable per Calculation Period shall equal the product of the Notional
Amount per Calculation Period multiplied by the Fixed Forward Rate, which
shall be the price submitted by the Counterparty via the Website. The
Floating Amount of CAD payable per Calculation Period shall equal the product
of the Notional Amount per Calculation Period multiplied by the Floating
Settlement Rate.
The Payment Date shall be the Business Day following the Valuation Date. The
Valuation Date for each Calculation Period shall be the first Business Day of
such Calculation Period.
The term of the Transaction shall be from the Effective Date of 02 Apr 2001
to the Termination Date of 01 Oct 2001.
The Floating Settlement Rate for each Calculation Period shall be the USD/CAD
rate equal to the rate set forth on Reuters page BOFC under the headings
'Bank of Canada'; 'Canadian Dollar' Exchange rates'; 'Noon', opposite the
caption 'USD' as of 12:00 p.m. noon, Toronto time, on the Valuation Date.
The price is quoted in CAD per USD. CAD will be the Settlement Currency.

May 1, 2001 (single day)
A currency Transaction with Enron North America Corp. (&ENA8), under which
either (A) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer to buy from
ENA, Counterparty shall pay a Fixed Amount of CAD and shall receive the
Floating Amount of CAD, or (B) for the case in which Counterparty submits an
offer to sell to ENA, Counterparty shall receive the Fixed Amount of CAD and
shall pay the Floating Amount of CAD. Each calendar month during the term of
the Transaction will be a Calculation Period; provided however, that in the
event the term of the Transaction is a single future date, the Calculation
Period shall be the date set forth in the Product description on the Website.
The Notional Amount per Calculation Period shall equal the USD Amount
submitted by the Counterparty via the Website divided by the number of
Calculation Periods during the term of the Transaction. The Fixed Amount of
CAD payable per Calculation Period shall equal the product of the Notional
Amount per Calculation Period multiplied by the Fixed Forward Rate, which
shall be the price submitted by the Counterparty via the Website. The
Floating Amount of CAD payable per Calculation Period shall equal the product
of the Notional Amount per Calculation Period multiplied by the Floating
Settlement Rate.
The Payment Date shall be the Business Day following the Valuation Date. The
Valuation Date shall be the date set forth in the Product description on the
Website.
The term of the Transaction shall be the date set forth in the Product
description on the Website.
The Floating Settlement Rate for each Calculation Period shall be the USD/CAD
rate equal to the rate set forth on Reuters page BOFC under the headings
'Bank of Canada'; 'Canadian Dollar' Exchange rates'; 'Noon', opposite the
caption 'USD' as of 12:00 p.m. noon, Toronto time, on the Valuation Date.
The price is quoted in CAD per USD. CAD will be the Settlement Currency.
==============================================================================
=====

STEPS FOR APPROVAL:

click the  START button
select  PROGRAMS
select  TEST APPLICATIONS
select ENRONONLINE CLUSTER(PROD)
 PROCEED WITH USUAL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click the Enron Online Production Cluster "START" button
select EnronOnLine (this is the EOL Datamanager)
 PROCEED WITH EOL LOGIN/PASSWORD
click on the "+" for EnronOnLine
click on the "+" for Product Types
click on the "+" for "Partially Approved"
select the product requiring review as stated in e-mail above
Right "mouse" click on "properties" to view product set-up

TO APPROVE:  Right mouse click on "Approved"


We had been in discussions with SCE a few months back to remove the QF
requirement in their Rule 21.  At the time they said they "could" not
because the construct of their standby rate did not provide adequately
provide recovery for standby service (particularly for non-demand related
tariff schedules).  The rejection was were we left the subject with SCE.
Their move to submit an advice letter on the subject comes as a surprise
to me given their prior response.

We will not be protesting with the presumption that the standby tariff
would not prejudice future work on standby tariff rate design.  Generally
speaking, the QF requirement is ridiculous and should be removed
immediately.  For this reason, we are supportive of it happening now
through this advice filing.  I do not want to see the prohibition against
non-QF facilities for up to another 9 months (rough estimate based on
time-frame articulated in the DG order).

Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com writes:
>
>
>shouldn't this be the subject of the upcoming cec workshops?  isn't the
>timing
>of the filing, well, awkward?  wouldn't it be better if they withdrew and
>brought as a proposal to the workshops?
>
>


Gary,

I am interested in the Cincy seats.

Let me know if you still have them


Good Morning,

I ran the new report against production, using the shortcut provided for me.
My results are innacurate because some transmission deals are not showing.
The strange thing is that there is no real pattern as to why some
transmission deals show and some don't.

I compared the forward ob to scheduling.   You might want to do that
comparison for yourself there.  Also, checking the Real-Time position manager
as well will help.

Please see this power point document.


After speaking with Danny Conner, I have created deal 606396 to cover this
meter for the next year.

D

Michael Olsen@ENRON
02/05/2001 03:06 PM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: meter 986315

For Dec. and Jan. production there are flow volumes without a deal.  Deal
502952 was good for November.  Do you want to extend this deal or should
there be another counterparty added?

Thanks.


Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:01:51 -0600
From: "Tracey Bradley" <tbradley@bracepatt.com>
To: "Paul Fox" <pfox@bracepatt.com>
Cc: "Alfredo Perez" <aperez@bracepatt.com>, "Jeffrey Watkiss"
<dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>, "Mark Evans" <mevans@bracepatt.com>, "Ronald
Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com>
Subject: AP - Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

Thursday March 15, 9:14 pm Eastern Time

Edison Creditor Secures Plant Lien

By LESLIE GORNSTEIN
AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Breaking away from a pack of creditors owed billions by
Southern California Edison, Caithness Energy got permission Wednesday to
secure a lien against one of the utility's plants.

The judgment lets the New York-based electricity supplier to attach a partial
claim on an Edison facility in Laughlin, Nev. -- a move that could spur
bigger creditors to launch similarly aggressive approaches or even force
Edison into bankruptcy.

Caithness, which has two Nevada plants owed $20 million by Edison, was
allowed to attach the lien by U.S. District Judge Lloyd George of Las Vegas.

Once it becomes final in the next few days, the claim will be the first lien
successfully placed against an Edison asset since California's energy crisis
began last year.

An Edison spokesman said the utility will seek a stay of the order next week.

A lien allows a creditor a better chance of getting paid by laying claim to
all or a portion of any future sale of a property. The judge allowed
Caithness to file for a 56 percent interest in the plant, which employs 309
people and is valued at $530 million.

The energy was used by Edison to feed California's energy grid, Caithness
attorney Philip Korologos said Thursday.

Edison owes Caithness a total of $100 million, and another $20 million bill
will come due at the end of March, Korologos said.

``They took delivery of the power and they are supposed to pay us for the
power,'' Korologos said.

But whether Caithness will go after Edison's California assets is far from
certain. Korologos said he believed that some form of additional mediation is
required for California liens that might make such an option less attractive
in the utility's home state.

Edison's bigger creditors, including Reliant Energy of Houston, declined to
speculate on whether they will employ a similar tactic.

But industry experts said that the Caithness move could cause other, bigger
creditors to feel pressure to act more aggressively on behalf of
shareholders. The law requires only three major creditors to band together to
force Edison into involuntary bankruptcy; the utility has said it does not
intend to file on its own.

So far, most creditors have chosen to simply wait, or ``forbear,'' on the
Edison debts, having fielded repeated pleas by Edison to do so. At least four
creditors or groups of creditors have sued the utility for money owed but
have taken no further action.

A New York-based creditor last month unsuccessfully tried to attach a lien to
an Edison bank account without success, an Edison spokesman said.

Edison's problems began last year when, under California's 1996 deregulation
law, investor-owned utilities were forced to buy power on the soaring spot
market while limiting the rates they could charge consumers.

Edison and fellow utility Pacific Gas & Electric say they owe creditors a
combined $14 billion.


Greg:  I spoke with Joe and he IS working on the internal rate swap with John
(i.e., ECC/RMT and RMT/ENA).  Sara
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 10/03/2000 08:44 AM -----

	Larry Joe Hunter
	10/02/2000 05:04 PM

		 To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Greg,

The matrix I was given doesn't mention an internal rate swap.  I'll have to
check with John Griffith in Structuring.

Sara,
Do you know if the Interest Rate swap is also being backed out to RMT?

Thanks
Joe

Greg Johnston
10/02/2000 02:54 PM
To: Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Joe, I understood that there should be an internal interest rate swap in
addition to the commodity swap that you just faxed back to me.  Is someone
other than you preparing that document?

Thanks

Greg

	From:  Larry Joe Hunter                           10/02/2000 01:07 PM

To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

I have recieved everything.  I'll send copies of the TD & RBC signatures as
soon as I recieve them.  The Risk Management deal you signed is, in effect,
the Confirm between ENA and ECC.  For tax purposes, ENA does not deal
directly with ECC, so the Risk Management vehicle takes the place of ENA.

Thanks,
Joe

Greg Johnston
10/02/2000 10:50 AM
To: Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter
Keohane/CAL/ECT@ECT, Sharon Crawford/CAL/ECT@ECT
Subject: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

I believe that, as you requested, I have now had executed and returned to you
by fax copies of the commodity swaps between Enron Canada and each of RBC, TD
Bank and Risk Management as well as the two rate swaps between Enron Canada
and each of RBC and TD.  I believe the only other confirm requiring Enron
Canada's execution in this transaction is the back-to-back rate swap between
Enron Canada and ENA, whereby Enron Canada swaps the floating rate for the
fixed rate with ENA.  You can send that confirm directly to my attention by
e-mail and I will get it signed and sent back to you.  I understand that you
will be attending to obtaining counterparty execution of these confirms.
Could you do me a favor and, when you receive the fully executed confirms
back from the respective counterparties, fax fully executed copies of all the
confirms to my attention at 403-974-6707.  I am aggregating copies of all the
documents relating to this financing for our files and will need the executed
confirms as part of that process.

Thanks

Greg Johnston


Mark,  As far as I know, this hasn't been delivered to TW yet.  If you could
print this on paper with an Enron Logo only.   I already have the ECS header
on the document.  Steve Harris would be the right party.

	Mark Knippa
	10/30/2000 08:31 AM

		 To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: TW Gallup Rate Increase Letter

Gerald,
Do you know if this document has been delivered to TW?
My guess is that it has not.  I will review, print, sign and have
Melissa deliver to TW unless I hear differently from you.

Who should this be delivered to at TW?
Steve Harris?

To: Mark Knippa, Mark Courtney
cc:
Subject: TW Gallup Rate Increase Letter

Attached is a letter to TW notifying them of the CDEC rate increase and
requesting their election on the pricing adjustment.  Please review.  We need
to get this to TW asap.


FTR  Team,

The pre-bid meeting arrangements are as follows:

   Location: EB3125A
   Date:  6/8 (Thursday)
   Time:  8:30am to 2:00pm CDT
   Breakfast: Provided
   Lunch:  Sandwiches

Thanks.


tana jones will attend


eSource presents SDC Platinum training

SDC Platinum offers detailed transactional information on New Issues, Mergers
& Acquisitions, Syndicated Loans, Private Equity, Strategic Alliances,
Project Finance and others.  The product is designed to allow users to
compare transactions, evaluate advisors, and analyze market and industry
trends.

Training Agenda Includes:
? General Introduction.
? Basic query techniques for new issues and M&A databases.
? Basic query techniques for trend analysis.

Attend our SDC Platinum Clinic:

May 30     9:00 -11:30 AM   EB552

Seats fill up fast! To reserve a seat, please call Stephanie E. Taylor at
5-7928
Check the eSource training page at http://esource.enron.com/training.doc for
additional training sessions and vendor presentations.

http://esource.enron.com


That concept works for me.

Jim

>>> <Debra.Perlingiere@enron.com> 10/09 11:32 AM >>>

 Further to our discussion regarding Article 5. Force Majeure, we will
agree to the option to terminate the Transaction after the 60 day period
provided damages if any as stated in Article 3. have been paid plus the
termination payment.

Let me have your thoughts.

 Debra

    -----Original Message-----
   From:   "Jim Hunt" <JHunt@nicor.com>@ENRON
             [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jim+20Hunt+22+20+3CJHunt+40nicor+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]

   Sent:   Friday, September 28, 2001 5:14 PM
   To:     Perlingiere, Debra
   Subject:  Re: Master Draft

   Debra:

   Attached  for your consideration is a "redlined" revised draft of the
   above-referneced Agreement highlighting Nicor Energy's proposed
   modifications.  Please give me a call after you have had an opportunity
   to review the suggested revisions.

   Thanks,
   Jim

   James M. Hunt
   1844 Ferry Road
   Naperville, IL  60563
   T:  (630) 983-8676 ext. 2257
   F:  (630) 983-0481
   E:  jhunt@nicor.com

   >>> "Perlingiere, Debra" <Debra.Perlingiere@ENRON.com> 09/28 1:47 PM >>>
   As discussed, please see the attached.

     <<Nicor Enerchange.doc>>

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

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

    - Nicor Energy - Enron Master 9.28.01.doc << File: Nicor Energy - Enron
   Master 9.28.01.doc >>


- GAS PURCHASE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT                     1.xls


Hi Jonathan -

E-mail is great.  I have copied Tori Wells on this also, as she works
diligently on Dr. Lay's itineraries and Rob Bradley, who works on Dr. Lay's
speeches.  We have virtually no information about the OECD Forum or the IEA
Ministerial session except dates - May 15-16.  We have made reservations for
Dr. & Mrs. Lay at the Bristol Hotel.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Rosalee

"PERSHING Jonathan, IEA/LTO" <Jonathan.PERSHING@iea.org> on 03/19/2001
05:14:19 AM
To: "'kenneth.lay@enron.com'" <kenneth.lay@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: for Rosalee - re Mr. Lay's participation at IEA ministerial

Rosalee --  I was given your name by Bill Ramsay as the person responsible
for co-ordinating Mr Lay's participation at the May IEA Ministerial session.
From the IEA side, I have been tasked with the responsibility for
co-ordinating not only parts of the Ministerial session, but also the
preceding OECD Forum -- in both of which Mr. Lay is scheduled.

I am hoping to be in closer communication with you to walk through our
current planning for these meetings, and to make sure that all our i's are
dotted and t's are crossed as we move toward May.  Please let me know
whether e-mail or a telephone call would be best.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Jonathan Pershing

_____________________

Jonathan C. Pershing, PhD.
Head, Energy and Environment Division
International Energy Agency
75739 PARIS Cedex 15
FRANCE
Tel:  (33-1)40 57 67 20
Fax:  (33-1)40 57 67 39
e-mail: jonathan.pershing@iea.org


Left these two off original list:

Director  Stephen Schwarz Satisfactory
Sr. Director  Steve Jackson  Strong
---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 06/23/2000 01:31 PM
---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Sally Beck                           06/23/2000 11:45 AM

To: Sharron Westbrook/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: PRC Pre-ratings

	Superior	Excellent	Strong	Satisfactory	Needs Improv.	Issues
Directors	Todd Hall		Susan Harrison
			Scott Mills
			Eugenio Perez
			Bob Superty
			Sheri Thomas
			Steve Ventoratos

Sr. Directors	Kristin Albrecht	Mary Solmonson	Brenda Herod
	Leslie Reeves	Sheila Glover	James Scribner

VP		Brent Price	Peggy Hedstrom


Great idea, Byron!

Everybody,

I've created a new moderated list at http://BammelYoungFamilies.listbot.com/

If you are interested in hearing info (from anyone, not just me) about the
Bammel Road Young Families class, please go to the address above to
subscribe to the list.

It's free.

Then, if you have anything that you want to share with the class, just
e-mail it to BammelYoungFamilies@listbot.com.

-Ram.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Byron W. Ellis, CFP, CLU, ChFC [mailto:byronellis@usa.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:31 AM
To: Ram Tackett
Subject: E mail list for class

What do you think about creating and maintaining an e mail address that will
automatically send an e mail to everyone in our class?  That way anyone that
wanted to blanket the class could always do so without going through you all
the time.

Byron

&Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.8

               JOHN WESLEY

Byron W. Ellis, CFPv, CLU, ChFC
Senior Financial Advisor
American Express Financial Advisors
IDS Life Insurance Company
1450 Lake Robbins Drive
Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX  77380

Phone 281.367.8658
Fax 281.364.9628
E mail byronellis@usa.net


Mark, Which Enron entity is contemplating making a purchase of a gathering
system?????

	Mark Whitt@ENRON
	Sent by: Mark Whitt@ENRON
	11/27/2000 01:30 PM

		 To: Arvel Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Audrey O'Neil/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky
Caudle/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher K Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT, Don Rollins/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joan Quick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark
Castiglione/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Whitt/NA/Enron@Enron, Nick
Cocavessis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rusty Belflower/NA/Enron@Enron, Scott
Josey/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Teresa G Bushman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Walt D
Hamilton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barbara N Gray/HOU/ECT@ECT,
"Ken" <kckrisa@apex2000.net> @ ENRON, jjosborne@apex2000.net
		 cc:
		 Subject: Wildhorse/Tom Brown Acquisition

__________________

I spoke with Bob Mustard of Tom Brown today and we are going to get access to
the Wildhorse information on Wed. Nov. 29 at 1:00 MST in the Kinder Morgan
offices.  We will have until Christmas to agree on a value for the assets we
have an interest in acquiring.  Tom Brown plans to have a Data Room open Jan.
3-12 to sell all of their Pieceance and Uintah gathering assets.  If we have
agreed on a value for this system by Christmas then they will not include
these assets in that Data Room.  Let's discuss the particulars in the Tues
morning meeting tommorow.

Mark


SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX 859
PM CDT SAT MAY 12 2001

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED A

* SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING FOR...   NORTHERN HARRIS COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST
TEXAS

* UNTIL 945 PM CDT

* AT 857 PM CDT...DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM 5   MILES
NORTHWEST OF SPRING...MOVING SOUTH AT 15 MPH.

* LOCATIONS IN THE PATH OF THE SEVERE THUNDERSTORM INCLUDE...   HOOKS
AIRPORT   SPRING   BUSH-INTERCONTINENTAL AIRPORT...HUMBLE   ALDINE

MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF YOUR HOME OR BUSINESS. STAY
AWAY FROM WINDOWS!

PLEASE REPORT SEVERE WEATHER TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF...LOCAL POLICE... OR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY WILL RELAY YOUR REPORT TO THE NATIONAL
WEATHER SERVICE.


FYI --

Although Milbank has stated that "EOLympics" is probably permissible use,
both Japanese and UK counsel have taken the position that this is still
impermissible use of the term "Olympics".

I know its not your first choice, Dave, but especially if we are going to
promote the game on the home page -- which can be searched by any Olympic
committee checking the Web for infringing use -- it would help to insulate us
from detection, and possibly liability - to call the game "EOL-ympics" or
even better from a detection standpoint "EOL-mpics".

Mark -- Have we trademarked the term "EOL" and if so, in what countries?

Leslie
----- Forwarded by Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT on 08/23/2000 09:26 AM -----

	"Murton, Rachel" <rachel.murton@linklaters.com>
	08/23/2000 09:22 AM

		 To: "'Leslie.hansen@enron.com'" <Leslie.hansen@enron.com>
		 cc: "'Dhudanish@enron.com'" <Dhudanish@enron.com>, "'justin.boyd@enron.com'"
<justin.boyd@enron.com>
		 Subject: olympic flier - and use of EOLympics

Further to my previous e-mail, I have now checked the flier with a
colleague in the IP department.

Providing Leslie's suggested amendments are made, the flier should not
expose Enron to passing off liability, since it is unlikely to confuse the
participants into thinking that the site is officially endorsed.  The best
thing to do, however, would be to include a disclaimer along the lines of
"the EnronOnline Competition has not been set up in collaboration with any
other parties {other than sports.rocket.com]."  Although common sense tells
us that  Enron should be able to use the word "olympic" in a disclaimer,
common sense does not necessarily seem to prevail with regards the use of
the word "olympic" in the UK, so the general wording  mentioned above should
be used!

My comment as to the possibility of fliers alerting the British Olympic
Association to the game still stands, particularly if they are to be paper
fliers.  If they are just to be e-mails, I guess the practical risk is less.
[I'm sure this has already been thought of, but if the flier is to be
e-mailed out, it can't be sent as Enrononline.com OlympicsMailer!]

On this point, am I still "up to date" in thinking that the proposal is
still to mention the word "olympic" in explaining the rules of teh game.

Regarding the use of EOLympics, from a UK point of view, this should
definately be avoided - as explained in an earlier e-mail of today, one of
the actions that "in particular" (i.e. definately!) infringes the Olympic
Symbol Protection Act is "offering or supplying services under a sign which
consists of or contains  the word olympic - it would be difficult to argue
that EOLympic does not contain the word "olympic"!

Thanks

Rachel

____________________________________________________________

This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
____________________________________________________________


Vince,

Thank you very much. I applied for the position yesterday (via e-mail
address) and mentioned your name in the cover letter. I'll keep my fingers
crossed.

Sincerely,
Helen

-----Original Message-----
From: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com [mailto:Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:42 AM
To: demianen@ruf.rice.edu
Subject: RE: Job posting

Helen,

FYI.

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/25/2001
09:40 AM ---------------------------

From: Lee Ferrell/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/24/2001 06:20 PM

To:   Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:  RE: Job posting

Hi Vince,

This posting is for my group.  Thanks for the referral.

    -----Original Message-----
   From:   Kaminski, Vince
   Sent:   Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:31 PM
   To:     Goodpasture, John; Watson, Kimberly; Ferrell, Lee; Kaminski,
             Vince
   Cc:     Krishnarao, Pinnamaneni
   Subject:  Job posting

   I am teaching a class at Rice and one of my very bright students sent
   her resume
   in response to this posting. Do you know who posted this job?

   Vince Kaminski

   ---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on
   04/24/2001 05:27 PM ---------------------------

   (Embedded image moved to file: pic05601.pcx)
   "Helen Demianenko" <demianen@hydrant.ruf.rice.edu> on 04/24/2001
   02:11:05 PM

   Please respond to <demianen@rice.edu>

   To:  <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
   cc:
   Subject:     Job posting

   Dear Vince,

   Thanks for talking to me this morning about the Sr. Risk Analyst
   position.
   Here is where you can find the job description for that position:

   http://www2.enron.com/jobs/cgi-bin/get_details.pl?id=0000108729&b=4x

   Also, I have cut and pasted it down below, just in case.

   I appreciate your assistance in this matter and will start working on my
   cover letter right away.
   I would also like to talk to somebody to get a better feel for the
   position
   (Is this really an MBA level position and how much of the in-depth
   learning
   opportunities for the derivatives market does it entail?)

   Sincerely,

   Helen Demianenko

   P.S. I have attached my resume (one more time).

   SR RISK ANALYST
   ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: Primary accountability for managing the ETS Risk
   Book
   structure and processes from a pipeline (front office) perspective. Work
   within current NNG and TW Marketing organizations to effectively
   integrate
   risk books into daily marketing and structured product activities.
   Provide
   feedback to management regarding overall and specific risk positions.
   Provide support for consistent and accurate deals entry/reporting for
   stand
   alone risk management system. Create ad-hoc reports to assist management
   in
   risk analysis. Responsible for managing and providing enhancements to
   the
   Capacity Books :? Maintain functionality and provide leadership for new
   functionality from a users perspective. Provide support and direction
   for
   integration of Capacity Books and Revenue Management Project.Support
   Revenue
   Management Team
   ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: BA/BS in Finance or Accounting (MBA preferred).
   Minimum of two years financial instruments experience. Excellent
   quantitative/analytic and systems skills. Knowledge of commodity risk
   book
   concepts. Understanding of physical natural gas market, interstate
   transportation and financial derivatives. Ability to interface with
   structuring/marketing groups in order to define business requirements.
   Ability to provide leadership for business and system processes.
   Excellent
   communication skills with an ability to communicate across organization
   with
   varied skill sets and ideas. Must be self-motivated with a high level of
   energy

   PREFERRED SKILLS: NA.

   SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS: This job functions in a team-oriented,
   fast-paced
   environment with multiple concurrent assignments and constantly changing
   priorities.

   CONTACT: Responses will be accepted through May 3, 2001. Respond to
   Enron
   Corp., Human Resources 235, P O Box 3330, Omaha, NE 68103-0330 or
   e-mail:
   dea.crum@enron.com as a .doc or .txt attachment. Please include this
   requisition number.

   Job ID  0000108729
   Department  RISK MANAGEMENT & REPORTI
   Company  ENRON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
   ENRON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
   Location  HOUSTON, TX
   Type
   Posting date 19-APR-01

    - Helen_D_resume.doc << File: Helen_D_resume.doc >>


No problem - we'll take care of it.  This is monthly, right?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ward, Kim S (Houston)
Sent:	Friday, October 05, 2001 1:12 PM
To:	Little, Kelli; Moon, Eric
Subject:	Call option for the City of Palo Alto

Kelli,

Could you (or someone) price up an @ the money call option for 1500/day (physical) at Malin for July - October, 2004?  Please let me know if you have any questions!

thanks,

Kim


Is it correct to say that no confirmation was sent by ENA or Southwest for
our Stara #538767?   If so,  how was the Southwest deal for Jan delivery
papered?

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


Glad you liked it.  There is a while series of e-mail symbols people use like
smiley faces - they even have a name: emoticons.  They don't often look like
you'd expect and most of them are sideways -  only one I know is the smiley
face  :-)   Hope you had a nice birthday!

Love , Mark


You may think you've seen this, but don't be so sure.  There's lots of good
stuff on this one - takes a while to see it all, but worth it (probably only
if you're Republican, though!).  Be sure to click on "Palm Beach Pokey,"
"GORinch," and the other links at the top of the page.

Have a great weekend!  SRS

 - Dancin Dubya.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Gadd, Eric
Sent:	Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:07 PM
To:	Hyatt, Kevin
Subject:	FW: Sun Devil

. . . unless you can address with OBAs . . .

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gadd, Eric
Sent:	Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:05 PM
To:	Hyatt, Kevin
Subject:	FW: Sun Devil

Looks like we've got a problem with hourly deliveries at 1/16th of MDQ.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lowry, Phil
Sent:	Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:40 PM
To:	Gadd, Eric
Cc:	Pribble, Dan; Asante, Ben; Martin, Jerry D.; Harris, Steven; Keller, John R.
Subject:	RE: Sun Devil

Eric, here are my thoughts on your Sun Devil issues.

I assume that a guarantee will not include Liquidated Damages, if it does we would want to rethink the response.  However,

?	Current Sun Devil facility design and cost estimates are based upon a 24hr MDQ to match with existing TW Mainline services.
?	Additional facilities will be required to accommodate 24hr ratable nominations at shipper receipt points.
?	Minimum delivery pressures of 500-600 psi should not be an issue for current Sun Devil scope (at 24hr MDQ).  We will run transient modeling to confirm.
?	If requested, we can re-design and re-estimate Sun Devil at a 16hr MDQ, 24hr ratable noms at receipt points and minimum delivery pressure obligations (with Liquidated Damages or not), but it will be enormously more expensive than the current proposed Sun Devil project.
?	Notwithstanding the engineering required to provide these types of services, there may be issues with existing certificates, tariffs, customers etc. due to the fact that Sun Devil gas will run in the same pipeline facilities along with existing Transwestern services.  But I'm not much of an authority in that area.
?	If you would like us to proceed with the re-design and re-estimate please advise John Keller and he will start the paperwork.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gadd, Eric
Sent:	Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:01 PM
To:	Lowry, Phil
Subject:	Sun Devil

Phil,

I wanted to get your thoughts on service conditions that we're discussing with prospective Sun Devil shippers.

Hourly swings.  We've indicated that the shippers can nominate 1/16th of their MaxDQ at delivery points in any hour subject to-
- Proper notice
- 24 hour ratable nominations at receipt points
- no obligation on the pipeline to deliver more than the MaxDQ in any gas day

Pressure guarantee.  All prospective shippers are power generators and they want pressure guarantees in the range of 500-600 psig.


Ben,

We have a draft of the VEPCO "standard" interconnect, which has been
internally reviewed by Mitch Robinson and Christi Nicolay.  Would you like a
copy? Nancy Wodka (Bracewell & Patterson, DC office) is outside counsel
working on it as well.  We have had no substantive discussions with VEPCO
about this agreement at all.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

Thanks,

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/12/2000 11:06
AM ---------------------------

Heather Kroll@ECT
09/12/2000 10:44 AM
To: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Ozzie Pagan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: VEPCO Interconnection Agreement

Ben,

I spoke with the VA Power contact today who is responsible for the
interconnection agreement.  His name is Wayne Duman (804.257.4096,
Wayne_Duman@dom.com).

He suggested e-mailing him dates when Enron was available to go to Richmond
to discuss the interconnect.  I don't know if you want to go or if you plan
on sending one of the developers, but will you schedule this meeting (since I
won't be negotiating this part of it).

Thanks.  Let me know if you have any problems.

Heather


Please find attached the latest draft of the Brattle Group's recommendations
for the Japanese power industry and the accompanying appendices.

You will find changes in emphasis and structure, which make the paper more
convincing, comprehensive and readable. We have tried to include a global
view of market objectives in keeping with your approach in Houston, to give
better explanations of why our recommendations are right for Japan at this
stage and to address potential objections from deregulation's critics in
Japan.

In addition to its earlier content, the new draft:

includes a new section setting up the objectives of a competitive market and
defining a workably competitive market, before making specific
recommendations to achieve those objectives in Japan;

addresses objections by utilities, etc. in Japan to our proposals. Current
opinions or issues circulating in Japan include: California crisis,
discrediting of a tight pool, success of PJM ensured by lack of requirement
to unbundle, nuclear power development;

emphasizes the need for a strong, independent regulator given METI's recent
inability to provide clear rules to support its recommendations and lack of
expertise in the Fair Trade Commission;

de-emphasizes final section on public policy issues to emphasize market
structure, by merging the public policy issues into one section, placing
reliability at the top of the list and providing alternatives to achieve
nuclear policy issues;

proposes implementation timetable in keeping with Japanese review process;

takes a punchier, more urgent approach in the executive summary and the paper
as a whole.

The paper will be published as a Brattle Group paper commissioned by Enron
Japan. Much input has been provided by Enron Japan but the economic arguments
and general approach are in keeping with Brattle's written positions and
standards. The written style of the paper is, of course, theirs.

We would appreciate any comments you might have on the contents of this
paper. Since we will release the paper on 15 May and will create completed
published versions in both English and Japanese by 11 May, please send us any
comments by the end of this week, i.e. Friday, 4 May.

Best regards
Mark Crowther
Public Affairs
Enron Japan


Jeff Shankman

Thanks for your email. I am pleased to tell you that the book is available.

Kind Regards - Nick Higbee

Chichester Gallery
Art Books


---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 05/24/2001
02:39 PM ---------------------------

eserver@enron.com on 05/24/2001 03:37:44 PM
To: "Steven.J.Kean@enron.com" <Steven.J.Kean@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: <<Concur Expense Document>> - JB 004

The following expense report is ready for approval:

Employee Name: John Brindle
Status last changed by:  Automated Administrator
Expense Report Name: JB 004
Report Total: $2,566.85
Amount Due Employee: $2,566.85

To approve this expense report, click on the following link for Concur
Expense.
http://xms.enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/24/2001
05:40 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Elena Chilkina                           04/19/2001 01:49 PM

To: mlwang@uts.cc.utexas.edu, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Weather and energy price Data

Mulong,

Please find attached a file with Henry Hub natural gas prices. The data
starts from 1995 and given on the daily  basis, please let us know when we
can proceed with electricity prices.

Sincerely,
Elena Chilkina

Vince J Kaminski@ECT
04/16/2001 08:19 AM
To: mulong wang <mlwang@uts.cc.utexas.edu> @ ENRON
cc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elena Chilkina/Corp/Enron@Enron,
macminnr@uts.cc.utexas.edu

Subject: Re: Weather and energy price Data

Mulong,

We shall send you natural gas Henry Hub prices right away.
Please look at the last winter and the winter of
95/96.

We shall prepare for you the electricity price
information (Cinergy, Cobb and Palo Verde) but
you have to approach FT (the publishers of
Megawatts Daily, a newsletter that produces the price
index we recommend using)  and request the permision
to use the data. We are not allowed to distribute
this information.

Please, explain that this is for academic  research and that
we can produce the time series for you,
conditional on the permission from the publishers
of Megawatts Daily.

Vince Kaminski

mulong wang <mlwang@uts.cc.utexas.edu> on 04/15/2001 03:43:26 AM
To: vkamins@ect.enron.com
cc: Richard MacMinn <macminnr@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Weather and energy price Data

Dear Dr. Kaminski:

I am a PhD Candidate under the supervision of Drs. Richard MacMinn and
Patrick Brockett. I am now working on my dissertation which is focused on
the weather derivatives and credit derivatives.

Could you kindly please offer me some real weather data information about
the price peak or plummet because of the weather conditions?

The past winter of 2000 was very cold nationwide, and there may be a
significant price jump for natural gas or electricity. Could you
please offer me some energy price data during that time period?

Your kind assistance will be highly appreciated and have a great day!

Mulong


Except that my understanding of the SCE model is that the CTC structure will continue beyond 3/31/02 (and may then apply for PG&E).  I agree that if you were to go to a bottom's up, it would require the CPUC to put in place a surcharge for remaining stranded costs (non-generation, for example QFs) and a second surcharge for Negative CTC "overpayment".  Key question is who will pay the Negative CTC "overpayment"?

On trying to understand the PX Credit algorithim, my concern is that to understand how much the "overpayment" was during Oct - Feb, we need to understand how costs hit the structure during that time period.  Otherwise we don't know what form or amount of discount is required in the Settlement talks.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:24 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

After 3/31/02, the CTC should no longer be a function of the PX credit, no?  So a customer's CTC payments should not be affected by refunds.

If refunds are distributed prospectively, we do not need to really know the PX credt algorithm and can instead simply estimate PG&E's expected refunds, divide it by total load, and assume that the PX credit will be depressed by that amount.  This is more akin to a lower shopping credit than a higher CTC.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:32 PM
To:	Comnes, Alan
Subject:	RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

Alan --

The only way to collect the "overpayment" is to artificially reduce the PX Credit going forward to thereby allow for more CTC.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:15 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

I am not sure I understand your second paragraph.  If PG&E reduces going-forward procurement costs to reflect FERC-ordered refunds, I do not understand why it would affect already-issued CTC charges.  The cost of power would be cheaper going forward.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:24 PM
To:	Comnes, Alan; Dasovich, Jeff; Tribolet, Michael; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; 'Jan Paul Acton (E-mail)'; Swain, Steve; Mara, Susan
Cc:	Alvarez, Ray
Subject:	RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

Thanks for the thoughts.  I fully agree on BF costs and DWR costs.  I believe that you are right on Est RT$ = CAISOM Imbalance, but I need to check.

On the question of retroactive ratemaking, it is my understanding that you are correct.  PG&E probably won't rebill, but will need to put in place an adjustment to the going forward PX Credit to "collect" the overpayment of Negative CTC.

All of this means that the impact of the FERC refund is less than 100c on the $ for the Negative CTC.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Comnes, Alan
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:35 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.; Dasovich, Jeff; Tribolet, Michael; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; 'Jan Paul Acton (E-mail)'; Swain, Steve; Mara, Susan
Cc:	Alvarez, Ray
Subject:	RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

I assume that if an hourly PX market clearing price is mitigated per a FERC order it would affect variable "HC" in the formula laid out in the attachment.

It is not clear to me which  variable represents hourly ISO imbalance energy costs, but I assume its "Est RT$".  If I am right, that variable would be affected by  the mitigated market price (MMP) for CAISO imbalance energy.

My comments are:

The FERC is able to only order refunds to jurisdictional entities and, given appeals, it may take years before the full extent of thre refunds are known.  Therefore there will be a significant difference between the change in the mitigated market price (MMP) as declared by FERC and the PX credit.  That is, a 10% reduction in the MMP should not be construed as having a 10% effect on the PX credit, assuming it can be recalculated at all.  Specifically, only some of the "HC" or  "Est RT$"  costs can  be adjusted per FERC refund orders.

Also, the PX credit is a tariffed rate.  I do not believe the PU code allows for retroactive adjustments to tariffed rates unless there was an explicit cost tracking account (e.g. a balancing A/C).  To my knowledge, no such account exists here.

Finally, I do not see a relationship between MMPs and (1) block forward costs on any date and (2) PG&E and/or DWR's procurement costs for the net short position post January 19.  So, those PX credit costs should be unaffected by any FERC refund order.

Alan Comnes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:22 AM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Tribolet, Michael; Curry, Wanda; Mellencamp, Lisa; Jan Paul Acton (E-mail); Swain, Steve; Mara, Susan; Comnes, Alan
Subject:	PG&E PX Credit Calculation

Attached is a summary of PG&E's notes on how they calculate the PX Credit (until January 19, 2001 when they hardwired $150/mwh).  We continue to try and get a handle on how the FERC Refund case will impact the PX Credit and Negative CTC.  If anyone has any issues or comments, please let me know.

Thanks.

Jim

 << File: PG&E PX Credit Calculation.doc >>


Thank you for all your interest in Trent Green, however he has always been on
Mike Morris' team.  Maybe next time before you bid on someone you should make
sure they are a free agent (Goss and Greg Martin)!

Gary Taylor  Kimble Anders  43
Gary Taylor  O. Gasden  7
Greg   D.  Mason  25
Gary L   N.O. D   3
Goss   R. Anderson  5
Kas   St. L. K   2


Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 06/07/2000 02:22 PM -----

	Carol St Clair
	06/07/2000 10:00 AM

		 To: rjr@houston.rr.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Final Form of Schedules

Rob:
Enclosed is what I think should be the final form of the Schedules.  I have
made some clean-up chnages.  In the LC,. my notes indicate that we were going
to keep the renewal language in.  Please let me know if this draft is okay
with you and then we will coordinate getting it executed.  Thanks for your
help.
Carol


OK then.  Don't forget about me.  Someday you are going to want me working over there.

I'm a jewel, and modest too.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Bartlo, Noel" <Noel.Bartlo@ElPaso.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:50 AM
To:	Germany, Chris
Subject:	RE: Contact

sure do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Germany, Chris [mailto:Chris.Germany@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:45 AM
To: Bartlo, Noel
Subject: Contact

I hope I have the right email address.  Let me know.

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

******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso
Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender.
******************************************************************


RW, I have suggested to Ann that Bob Williams might be a good candidate to oversee this program.  Do you agree? Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ballard, Ann
Sent:	Monday, April 02, 2001 5:19 PM
To:	Derrick Jr., James; Rogers, Rex
Subject:	FW: Enron compliance program and summary

I previously mentioned to you that Enron may have to enter into a consent decree with the FCC relating to Enron's failure to file for authorization to transfer FCC licenses held by Portland General Corporation in connection with the 1997 merger.  Before the FCC prepares a draft consent decree they asked that we submit a proposed Compliance Program.  V&E prepared the attached compliance program and summary.  As you can see by the date on the e:mail from Bob Mazer I have had the draft for a couple weeks and have not reviewed it until today.  I have spoken to a couple people in Regulatory Affairs to see if they would be interested in taking ownership of this compliance program.  They don't want it. Sue Nord, who covers EBS for regulatory affairs, is checking with outside counsel used by EBS to see if they agree that we must enter into the consent decree.  I am concerned about Enron's ability to implement this program and want to get your prospective on it.  I am also concerned about whether or not we have other violations that will come to light after we sign the consent decree.  As far as I can tell, at this point Enron doesn't have a centralized system for tracking FCC licenses.  Please let me know what you think the next steps should be for reviewing this compliance program and responding to V&E.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Mazer, Robert A." <rmazer@velaw.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Mazer+2C+20Robert+20A+2E+22+20+3Crmazer+40velaw+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Thursday, March 15, 2001 3:53 PM
To:	Ballard, Ann
Subject:	FW: Enron compliance program and summary

As requested. Best regards, Bob Mazer
          ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.  This
email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any,
or the information contained herein is prohibited.  If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email
and delete this email from your system.  Thank You

 - DC_122524_1.DOC


Thanks a lot for getting that going, John. I'm sure it'll make Carla happy
not to have my mistakes under her name anymore.

Kate


The West books should be GD and GDY for Canadian deals.  I would think that the central books should have two set up, one for P/B/I and one for GD.  I believe I had called you and said that the books should be set up like FT-ONT-GDL for the gas daily books.  This is correct.  Thanks.
PL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cheung, Cecilia
Sent:	Monday, January 14, 2002 5:31 PM
To:	Keiser, Kam; Love, Phillip M.
Cc:	Wong, Jeremy; Lim, Francis S.
Subject:	New NETCO books

Phillip/Kam,

The following new Canadian gas books are all assigned to "MC" but a canadian book can either be price/basis/index or gasdaily but it cannot be both (otherwise cause problems in PortCalc).  I remember we discussed about this last time and I was told to use FT-ONTARIO as the example, but there are a lot of FT-ONTARIO books like FT-ONT-CENTRAL and FT-ONT-GDL with different setup.

For example, 166860 has all P/B/Idx/GD checked which it shouldn't be.  And 166859 has GD checked so does it mean it should be set up as a Canadian gasdaily book?  Then if 166860 - 166877 are Canadian price/basis/index, another book code should be assigned instead of using MC.  Please advise.

CP ID	Short Name	Code	Region	Commodity	Uom	Currency	Commodity/UOM/Curr	P	B	Idx	GD	PHY	Y
166860	FB-CENT1-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166863	FB-CENT2-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166867	FB-CENT3-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166871	FB-CENT4-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166875	FB-CENT5-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166877	FB-CENT6-CAD	MC	CENT	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD	X	X	X	X		X
166859	FB-WEST1-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166865	FB-WEST2-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166869	FB-WEST3-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166873	FB-WEST4-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166876	FB-WEST5-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166880	FB-WEST6-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166881	FB-WEST7-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166882	FB-WEST8-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X
166883	FB-WEST9-CAD	MC	WEST	NGGJ	GJ	CAD	NG/GJ/CAD				X		X

Also as per our conversation with Kam, all PB-HDG books set up from the original list have been removed from the database as they were not supposed to be set up in Tagg/Erms.

Thanks,
Cecilia
x53362


Unfortunately there're not.  I already checked.


Please find attached list of Association memberships to be discussed.


---------------------- Forwarded by Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT on 11/28/2000
10:18 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Amanda Huble @ ENRON                           11/28/2000 09:32 AM

To: Melinda Joyce Lynn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Helen Marie Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tamara
Jae Black/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chuck Ames/NA/Enron@Enron,
Nate Blackburn/NA/Enron@Enron, Sachin Gandhi/NA/Enron@Enron, Chris
Gaskill/Corp/Enron@Enron, Amanda Huble/NA/Enron@Enron, Massimo
Marolo/NA/Enron@Enron, Tara Piazze/NA/Enron@ENRON, Vladi
Pimenov/NA/Enron@Enron, Elizabeth Shim/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sabina
Rank/NA/Enron@Enron, Mog Heu/NA/Enron@Enron, Colin Tonks/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris
Hyde/Corp/Enron@Enron, Yan Wang/Corp/Enron@Enron, Angela
Hylton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Junellen Pearsall/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca
Mata/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marc Bir/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David Dronet/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Demetrion Ware/Corp/Enron@Enron, Gloria Solis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Perla
Montemayor/NA/Enron@Enron, Rochelle Dent/NA/Enron@ENRON, Humaira
Badat/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Gas Fundamentals Website Update

Please forward to your groups...

Thank you,
Amanda Huble

---------------------- Forwarded by Amanda Huble/NA/Enron on 11/28/2000 09:11
AM ---------------------------

David Dronet
11/28/2000 08:41 AM
To: Amanda Huble/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Gas Fundamentals Website Update

Morning,

 As some of you may have noticed we have added security to the Gas
Fundamentals Website.
If you encounter this screen when accessing http://gasfundy.corp.enron.com

simply login with your Windows Domain name and password.  This is the same
account you would use to logon to
your PC.  If you do not wish to be prompted with this information again,
check the "Save this password in your password list" option and
you will not encounter this pop up when accessing the website.

Thank you,

David Dronet
xt 53482


And the blessings just continue......

c:
Subject: Your Friend

Darlene,
I have a friend in my Sunday School class who is the Josten's distributor
here in Dallas. This is the company that makes class rings. He will sell me a
class ring at cost! (How 'bout that?) So, if you will get the info from your
friend about her daughter (ring size, school, name, etc) I will get her a
ring. I don't know that I can afford gold, but I can silver, if that is ok.
If we want gold, we could maybe pool some money. The cost of a gold ring is
$175 vs $75 for silver. Anyway, just let me know as soon as you can so that I
can get it ordered. I'm not sure on the delivery time, but we do need to get
moving on it so that she can enjoy it before the school year is over.

Blessings!
Kent


Please put this on my calander for Wed (5/3) at 3:30 in 30C1.

Thanks,

Fletch


Hello again Everyone,

The email that I sent yesterday had the wrong new address.  The right one is darin.jen@shaw.ca not .com.

Sorry!

Jennifer Darin and Jonathan


Erica, thanks for the note.  Joannie has left the office for the day, but
will return tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, I'll run this by Jeff to see if he thinks it makes sense.
Do you have any dates for future dinners in mind?  The vast majority of
Jeff's time is committed through February 2002, so knowing what the
dates/timeframes are would be most helpful in the event we need to try to
free up some time.  Thank you.

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

Erica Harris <EHarris@insightpartners.com> on 05/14/2001 12:16:12 PM
To: "'Jeff.Skilling@enron.com'" <Jeff.Skilling@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: RE: Telephone Call with Jerry Murdock

Probably the best thing is for the call to go ahead, that way Jerry can
brief Mr. Skilling on our plans for the remaining dinners throughout the
year and Mr. Skilling can decide on the best one for him to attend.

Does that sound feasible to you?
Erica

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff.Skilling@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Skilling@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:10 PM
To: Erica Harris
Subject: Re: Telephone Call with Jerry Murdock

Erica, Jeff is currently scheduled to be on vacation July 19.  Would it be
possible to schedule during the next quarter?

Thanks,
Joannie

Erica Harris <EHarris@insightpartners.com> on 05/14/2001 12:09:54 PM

To:   "'jeff.skilling@enron.com'" <jeff.skilling@enron.com>
cc:

Subject:  Telephone Call with Jerry Murdock

Dear Mr. Skilling:

I write on behalf of Jerry Murdock, who is currently in Europe.  Mr.
Murdock
asked me to pass on the following information regarding your telephone call
scheduled for 10:00am (CST) on Tuesday, May 15.

Insight Capital hosts a quarterly dinner with Robert Rubin and Steve
Friedman and other selected guests.  Our next dinner is scheduled for July
19 and will be held in Aspen, Colorado.  The Current State of the Global
Market will be one of the topics under discussion and Jack Welch of GE is
one of your fellow invitees.

The purpose of your conversation with Mr. Murdock is to discuss the above
in
more detail and to more fully brief you on the purpose of these dinners.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further
information.

Erica Harris
Insight Capital Partners
680 Fifth Avenue
8th Floor
New York, NY  10019
(212) 230-9276

_______________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information.
If it has been sent to you in error, please reply immediately to advise the
sender of the error and then destroy this message, any copies of this
message and any printout of this message.  If you are not the intended
recipient of the message, any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or
copying of the material in this message, and any attachments to the
message,
is strictly forbidden.

_______________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information.
If it has been sent to you in error, please reply immediately to advise the
sender of the error and then destroy this message, any copies of this
message and any printout of this message.  If you are not the intended
recipient of the message, any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or
copying of the material in this message, and any attachments to the message,
is strictly forbidden.


fyi -- if you have any questions or need assistance, please let either Scott, Joe or myself know.

Robert is the evening person this week.

Thanks.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Forbish, Sherry
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 8:05 AM
To:	Cara Vaughan (E-mail); Chris Greaney; Debra Scurlock; Harry Woodson; Janet McDaniel; Jean Adams; Joe Linhart; Kathy Sturr; Randy Janzen; Robert Benningfield; Scott Hibbard; Sherry Forbish
Subject:	Randy J.

Randy called in this morning -- he's still not feeling well and won't be in today.


This is a Zone 4 to 4 fuel percent.  Doyle is .8 miles off the Transco
mainline.  What do you think?

I thought Chris Meyers said they took this into consideration when talking to
Transco.  It has no impact on pricing when flowing the gas from St 85 or St
65.

To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Trco Backhaul Rates

this is a Z6 NNY to Doyle fuel %  ??

Chris Germany
12/05/2000 12:00 PM
To: Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Trco Backhaul Rates

Type  Comm Fuel  Total at $8.70
FT  .044 1.90%  .2125
IT  .1907 1.90%  .3592

Diff  .1467


Thanks John.
I got a huge kick out of Paige struggling with the email to you.  She's a
terrific writer, but had horrible writer's block.  I think it was the dose of
reality which comes from looking for a job.

Kay


We regret the recent response to the subject email "Password Security Notice"
that you may have received.  The particular email was inappropriate and the
ISC has therefore taken immediate disciplinary action against the individual
responsible.

Allan Sommer
Integrated Solutions Center (ISC)


---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 12/27/99 02:23
PM ---------------------------

pdrexel@columbiaenergygroup.com on 12/27/99 02:04:43 PM
To: Dan Junek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: RG&E Jan 2000 NOMS

---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Drexelius/CES/ColumbiaGas on
12/27/2000 02:11 PM ---------------------------

Heidi Boyd
12/27/99 02:09 PM

To: Morgan Sharifi/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas
cc: Noel Bartlo/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Paul
Drexelius/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas
Subject: RG&E Jan 2000 NOMS

FINAL

Hi  Morgan,

My FINAL number to RG&E is 83 dth's/day off of CNG.

Thanks a bunch!


FYI

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold, Cheryl [mailto:carnold@iso-ne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:24 PM
To: Sacks, Edward; Steffes, James D.
Cc: McKenna, Edward
Subject: Notice of Financial Assurance Default

Please see attached notice of Financial Assurance Default.

 <<Enron Financial Assur Default 12_11_01.doc>>


hope everyone is okay with this -- i talked to the people that were here and
we all agreed.
---------------------- Forwarded by Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT on 04/17/2001
01:48 PM ---------------------------

Tori Kuykendall
04/17/2001 01:25 PM
To: Ina Rangel/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Phillip

not to be inconsiderate, but we did get him a gift last year and it seemed
like nobody was really that interested in doing it.  we think it's dangerous
to start buying birthday presents for some people and not others and the
group thinks it's best if we dont start the trend.  we definitely want to do
something for boss's day every year, but we think it's best to keep the
birthdays simple.


See attached.


Yes.  Sorry I forgot to cc you.  If it got lost in the process, have them
send it again, or forward this email to payables as my approval.  thanks df

DENISE LAGESSE
12/05/2000 10:51 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Susan's expense report 11/16/00

Drew,

Did you already approve this expense report and send it to accounting?

Denise

---------------------- Forwarded by Denise LaGesse/ET&S/Enron on 12/05/2000
10:50 AM ---------------------------

DENISE LAGESSE
11/16/2000 04:04 PM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Susan's expense report 11/16/00

Please approve the attached expense report and cc: me on your approval.
Thanks!


Also attending, Tana Jones, Sheri Thomas, Frank Davis


Does anyone find it interesting that we've heard nothing but silence from
Dennis and Tino?  I suspect that their big meeting with DOE on the 25th
didn't go so well.  If you hear anything let me know, otherwise I'll try to
get ahold of Tino sometime next week to find out what DOE said.  DF


Background

As you may remember, in September John Miller called to find out if we want to sell Willow Farms.  At that time, I told him I would find out from the group.

In December, he called again, and we missed one another, but I finally told, via voicemail, that we would entertain and consider and offer to buy Willow Farms but that we would not consider any kind of partnership or joint venture and we wanted a straight sale.  I then told him that if he was still interested that he should give it his best shot, and we would consider whatever he sent us.

My Discussion of 1/30/02

John called me back on 1/17/02, and I returned his call today.  I told John the following:

1.  The group is still interested in whatever he would propose, but I wanted to make some things clear so he didn't think we were wasting his time.

2.  I told him that in reality, all don't want to sell, but 2 out of 3 do, and I won't stand in the way of a satisfactory sale.

3.  We still do not want to participate in any development or sale, the price cannot be dependent on success of sales and a sale must be all or nothing.  I told him that I could not agree to any sale that allowed a "cherry picking" of good lots and left other lots behind, because once sales started it puts pressure to complete the development or else all prices suffer under perception of "undesirable" development.

4.  I told him that the only reason we are having this discussion now is that due to the property tax revaluations the carrying costs of the lots has increased.  Therefore, any sale must be structured to take that carrying cost pressure off, hence, a sale of all or nothing.

After stating these ground rules, I told him that I would understand if he wasn't interested, but that if he was, he should just give us his "best" proposal.

He then asked how many lots, and I told him 8 with a 9th possible, but owned only by my mom.  He said let's keep that out for now.  I also told him that within the next 2 years, the lot with the house might also be sold, but that that was up to my parents.

He then said the following:

1.  He is interested too in reducing his risk, so he might be interested in deal where he would guarantee the purchase of 2 lots every year for 4 years.  It would be a guarantee.

2.  He asked me if we had any idea of the value we wanted for the lots.  I said there are different ideas and no consensus, so I said I had no number to give him.  I reiterated to him that he knows more than me (since I'm just a lawyer in Denver) and he should give it his best shot.

I then commented to him on his suggestion:

1.  I told him that any deal that did not ensure sale of all lots was just not acceptable, so the extent of his guarantee of 2 lots per year had to be firm as to 8 lots over 4 years to even be considered.  I told him then it would appear just to be a means of financing the sale (not reducing his risk) and allowing us to keep title to the unsold lots rather than tie them up with a mortgage.

2.  I told him that his proposal may not be worth considering if it allowed the kind of cherry picking I referred to above and the kind of pressure to pick up the remaining lots at lower prices that I referred to above. I told him to consider these concerns in his proposal.

3.  I told him that because what brought us to the table now is the increased carrying costs of the lots, any proposal by him that still puts pressure on us to carry these lots and expend finds, will not be well received.  For example, I told him that I have some concern that any 2 lot per year deal will result in immediately increased carrying costs resulting from revaluation of the remaining lots for property tax purposes based upon the first purchases.  I told him that that would not be well received by us.

How We Ended It

I told him that I wanted to make clear my concerns so that he doesn't waste his time and feel resentful if we reject his offer. I told him that I wanted to be above board and that my reputation was important to me. He said he understood and appreciated the details.

He said he will put a proposal together, and I told him to send it to Leonard at the office, since I am not good at being the middleman.

Let me know if I goofed up or did ok.

- Dan
1/30/02


Just so that everyone is aware, the units at Station 4 can be operated at levels above their rated horsepower of 4,000 during periods of lower ambient temperatures.  Clark ambient rating increase from 100% torque at 100degF to 108% torque at 40degF.  I realize that this rating is weather dependent, but the horsepower is available if weather temperatures permit.
	To obtain ambient rating as ambient temperatures permit, three unit modifications would have to be implemented; these might be handled by unit control programming only.  Clark allows ambient rating when jacket water and lube oil temperatures can be driven down proportionally to 135 and 125 degF respectively.  Jacket water and lube oil control valves may be needed to reduce jacket water and lube oil temperature as ambient temperature permits, and unit control programs would require modification to accommodate ambient ratings.
	There may be environmental emission issues such as permitting the site for the higher horsepower.  Also, previous checks with Legal indicated these units could operate in the ambient rated zone if the units were purchased with this capability; ambient rating capability was part of the original purchase and stated as such in the unit purchase orders.
	Again, I am just making sure everyone is aware of the unit capability at Station 4.
Ken N Young

From:	Eric Faucheaux/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/24/2001 02:11 PM
To:	Darrell Schoolcraft/ENRON@enronXgate, Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Arnold L Eisenstein/ENRON@enronXgate, Dan Pribble/ENRON@enronXgate, Gary Maestas/Enron@EnronXgate
cc:	Morgan Gottsponer/ENRON@enronXgate, Steven January/ENRON@enronXgate, John R Keller/ENRON@enronXgate, Ronald Matthews/ENRON@enronXgate, Dennis Alters/ENRON@enronXgate, David Roensch/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kenneth Young/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject:	FW: TW Sta. 4 capacity in 3 unit scenario

Viewing Tip: maximize window and increase zoom to 150% to get better view of figures below (View, Zoom..., select percent number and type 150)

Based on recent capacity concerns or inquiries by E&C, Gas Control and Operations regarding Compressor Station 4 capacity in a 3 unit Red Rock Project, Planning and Optimization have re-evaluated models to put these concerns to rest.  Figures 1 and 2 below detail steady state results from modeling that Planning used for determining the respective capacities, as have been provided in the past.

Figure 1 shows the pipeline simulation maximizing horsepower at CS 1, 2 & 3 to pull discharge pressure off of CS 4, thus allowing CS 4 to operate within its Rated HP (11800 BHP).  Note: CS 1, 2, & 3 in the first diagram Figure 1 are modeled conservatively using 83% efficiency; however, Gary Choquette represents that having evaluated the horsepower curves made available by the vendor, there is still much horsepower available for compression at CS 1, 2 & 3.  The compression efficiencies at the stations may be achieved as high as 87%, thus providing more capacity to pull gas from CS4.  It is customary Planning practices to error on the conservative side until facilities are installed.  Once installed and the true performance can be realized then the opportunity shall exist for further optimization.

Based upon the pipeline model with CS1, 2, & 3 at 83% efficiency, the range of conditions that may be expected at CS4 are suction pressures between 769 - 776 psig with discharge pressure at about 923 psig.  The HTSCompress model for CS4 has been modified to closely match field performance testing.  These results shown in Figure 2 also represent that the 1230 MMcfd capacity will be more than achievable even at the lesser operating conditions shown.

However, if any capacity shortfalls might be experienced, several measures can be implemented to improve conditions (some of which are currently planned).
1.	Operate San Juan Junction pressures at or above 960 psig (currently achievable, measure would provide higher suction pressure to CS4)
2.	Perform engine and compressor overhauls at CS4(work is slated for March-April 2002 timeframe)
3.	Install/modify scrubbers and inlet piping at CS4 to reduce inlet piping losses (work is slated for post Red Rock, scrubbers from CS 1, 2, & 3 will be relocated to CS4)
4.	Relocate evaporative cooling skirts from CS 1 or 2 after Red Rock unit installation to CS 4 to prevent horsepower derating due to high ambient temperatures.
5.	Modify programming at CS4 to optimize speed control maximizing available HP (this done at existing CS 1 & 2 have realized 1% throughput improvements).  Also modifying unloading sequence could be considered.
6.	Pig/clean main and loop lines from CS 5 to CS 4 (pipeline efficiency in this segment is lower compared to segments due west, cleaning would increase suction pressures at CS4 or allow lower junction pressures.)
7.	Maximize available HP at CS1, 2, & 3 (all horsepower at 86% efficiency as shown in second diagram Figure 1)

Should further discussion be required, do not hesitate to give us a call.  A conference call can be scheduled if needed; otherwise, save this information for August 2002.  EF

 =sj?*I?????B|???????3-	?_?hI?? ??????=???r?Z?+?