In Energy Shortages, New Demand for Enron
The New York Times, 04/01/01

PULL THE PLUG / Not enough sunshine on politics of water board
Houston Chronicle, 04/01/01

USA: Exxon Mobil tops Fortune 500 list, replacing GM.
Reuters English News Service, 04/01/01

Exxon Mobil Tops 2001 Ranking of the Fortune 500; Oil giant replaces GM at
top of list after 15 years; Mega-Retailer Wal-Mart is No. 2
Business Wire, 04/01/01

Exxon Mobil Tops Fortune 500 List Amid Record Revenue; GM Drops to Third
Dow Jones Business News, 04/01/01

Exxon Mobil Replaces General Motors Atop Fortune 500 (Update1)
Bloomberg, 04/01/01

India: Maharashtra panel on SEB to submit report on April 10
Business Line (The Hindu), 04/01/01

The Winter of Our Disconnect ENERGY AND THE MAKING OF MODERN CALIFORNIA; By
James C. Williams; University of Akron Press: 465 pp., $49.95, $24.95 paper
THE NATURAL GAS MARKET Sixty Years of Regulation and Deregulation; By Paul W.
MacAvoy; Yale University Press: 140 pp., $35
Los Angeles Times, 04/01/01

India: CM objects to 'dumping' of IAS officers
The Hindu, 03/31/01

BROADBAND SERVICES: MILES TO GO
Computers Today, 03/31/01

Money and Business/Financial Desk; Section 3
In Energy Shortages, New Demand for Enron
By ELIZABETH R. SMITH

04/01/2001
The New York Times
Page 13, Column 1
c. 2001 New York Times Company

CALIFORNIA'S rolling blackouts and a looming energy crisis in other parts of
the country are stoking investor interest in companies positioned to reap
benefits from the power shortages.
Many investors, stunned by the market's precipitous fall, see energy as one
of the few sectors with a promising profit outlook.
And in that so-called energy merchant sector, the Enron Corporation stands
out as the industry leader. Based in Houston, it buys and sells wholesale
electricity, natural gas and scores of other commodities, including broadband
capacity for data-delivery services. In the fourth quarter of 2000, Enron's
revenue more than tripled, to $40.75 billion, from the period a year earlier.
That mushrooming revenue can be traced to the unprecedented surge in the
price of electricity and natural gas, particularly in California. On Tuesday,
California power regulators approved a 46 percent increase in electricity
rates, the largest in the state's history. Electricity shortfalls have also
been predicted for New York City this summer.
Despite its red-hot market, Enron is no bargain. Its share price surged 87
percent in 2000, to end the year at $83.125, up from $44.375 a year earlier.
It hit a 12-month, intraday high of $90.75 on Aug. 23, around the time that
California's utilities first sounded the alarm. And even though Enron has
taken some hits this year, the stock closed at $58.10 on Friday, 39.5 times
its 2001 earnings per share, well above its peers. On March 22, it fell to a
12-month low of $51.51 amid concerns about possible layoffs in its broadband
operations, but rebounded after Jeffrey K. Skilling, the chief executive,
assured investors that all was well in broadband.
Enron's edge is its sheer size and its recognized competence in helping
corporate clients cope with unprecedented swings in electricity prices. Enron
, in turn, charges a premium to manage the risk of energy price movements,
said Donato J. Eassey, a natural-gas analyst at Merrill Lynch. ''They have
market intelligence that is second to none,'' he said. ''They help firms
lower the cost by avoiding the spot market for power.''
The value of Enron's broadband effort and its core wholesale energy
operations have yet to be fully reflected in its stock price, he added,
predicting that shares will climb to $99.20 in 12 months.
Raymond C. Niles, an analyst at Salomon Smith Barney, also likes Enron
because of its dominance. The company has unit operating margins that are two
to three times that of its closest competitor, Dynegy, in wholesale energy,
he said: ''When the heat is on literally, people need a company like Enron
for physical delivery because it has so many ways to get them that
resource.'' He predicted that the stock would rise to $100 within 12 months.
Neither analyst is worried about developments in India, where Enron was
forced to invoke government guarantees to recoup payment for power generated
at its Dabhol power plant in the state of Maharashtra.
OTHER experts favor Enron because it is not just a pure power play. The
company, which is shedding many of its hard assets, has bet heavily on its
prospects for buying and selling broadband capacity. Skeptics say the demand
for broadband is nowhere near as immediate as the need for energy, but Amy M.
Jaffe, a senior energy adviser at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University in Houston, said Enron was smart to move into
broadband.
''They might be in broadband too early, but that's O.K., she said, ''There
will be demand for it.''
Enron's expansion into data delivery, as well as its market-making of energy
commodities, help distinguish it from classic energy businesses like oil
companies, she said.
Lawrence R. Fuller, a senior portfolio manager at the Merrill Lynch
Fundamental Growth fund, says Enron is his largest energy holding.
''The company is controversial because its valuation is very high,'' Mr.
Fuller said. ''But they have a tremendous lead over their rivals and a
mastery of their business. You have tremendous economies of scale here that
drive their profit.''

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

OUTLOOK
Editorials
PULL THE PLUG / Not enough sunshine on politics of water board
Staff

04/01/2001
Houston Chronicle
4 STAR
2
(Copyright 2001)

The time has come to pull the plug on the Houston Area Water Corp., the
citizen board called "the Hawk" that is in the process of recommending a
company to design, build and operate a water plant at Lake Houston.
The members of the Hawk board appear to have done their job thoroughly and
conscientiously. The board's chairman, attorney David Berg, has been
commendably outspoken about his concerns for the bidding process and the
wherewithal of Azurix Corp., a troubled affiliate of energy giant Enron Corp.
and one of three companies in the final running for the contract.
However, the political maneuverings and pressures being placed behind the
scenes on both city staff evaluating the bid proposals and the Hawk board
bear much more scrutiny than can be gained in the format of this
quasi-private corporation.
City Attorney Anthony Hall, reported the Chronicle's Mary Flood, started an
hourlong, heated argument with Berg at a March 21 mayoral fund-raiser over
the possibility that Azurix, rumored as the favorite of Mayor Lee Brown's
administration, might not win the bid.
Sources familiar with the argument told Flood that Hall threatened Berg that
he would dismantle the Hawk if the process that kept Azurix as the winning
recommendation was not followed. Hall denied he said anything like that,
saying his complaints were about procedures. Berg would not comment
specifically on that matter.
Hall, according to Flood's report, said he told Berg that because the
companies had relied on a long-established formula for choosing the
front-runner, it would invite trouble to change or ignore the formula now.
But the companies said they were never told about the formula and have had
nothing specific to rely on about how the staff or the Hawk board would make
its decision.
The pressure brought to bear on the Hawk, in such an unsavory way and without
public controls, is extremely troubling. These boards clearly were never
intended to handle projects so politically divisive, with so much money at
stake.
The water plant contract under bid is worth $150 million. The water project
it is part of could reach $2 billion.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, who wrote the statute allowing local
government corporations such as Hawk, said he never intended these citizen
boards to handle projects as large as the water plant.
Politicians who want to guide this process ought to be willing to do it
openly and face both the public scrutiny and the consequences of their
actions.
For that reason - not because the bid award may not go the way the city
administration wants it to - the Hawk corporation should be dissolved.

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

USA: Exxon Mobil tops Fortune 500 list, replacing GM.

04/01/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

NEW YORK, April 1 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. , aided by higher oil prices,
ousted automaker General Motors Corp. from the No. 1 ranking in the Fortune
500 list of the largest American companies, the business magazine said on
Sunday.
"The country faced an energy crunch as the drain on resources from several
years of economic expansion collided with utility deregulation, soaring
natural gas prices, and OPEC's maneuvering to keep oil prices high," Lee
Clifford, a writer for the Magazine, said the article about the reasons
behind Exxon's gain from the No. 3 spot in 1999.
With revenues for 2000 at a record $210 billion, Exxon, the most profitable
company with $17.7 billion in net income in 2000, outpaced No. 2 Wal-Mart by
$17 billion and No. 3 GM by $26 billion.
On the flip side of the surge for energy companies, high oil prices increased
the cost of doing business for most companies, and had a big impact on
corporate profits last year.
Five out of the top 15 companies made less money than they did in 1999.
Profits rose overall by 8.4 percent, down significantly from the prior year's
28.7 percent growth.
Rounding out the top ten of the Fortune 500 in order behind Exxon Mobil,
Wal-Mart and GM: Ford Motor Co. ($180.6 billion in 2000 revenues); General
Electric Co. ($129.9 billion); Citigroup ($111.8 billion); Enron Corp.
($100.8 billion); International Business Machines Corp. ($88.4 billion); AT&T
Corp. ($66.0 million); and Verizon Communications ($64.7 billion).

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

Exxon Mobil Tops 2001 Ranking of the Fortune 500; Oil giant replaces GM at
top of list after 15 years; Mega-Retailer Wal-Mart is No. 2

04/01/2001
Business Wire
(Copyright (c) 2001, Business Wire)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 1, 2001--Exxon Mobil vaulted into the top
spot on the annual FORTUNE 500 ranking of the largest American companies,
replacing 15-year veteran GM.
With revenues for 2000 at a record $210 billion, Exxon outpaced No. 2
Wal-Mart by $17 billion and No. 3 GM by $26 billion. The FORTUNE 500 ranking
has been dominated by two industries -- cars and oil -- since its inception
in 1955: in 47 years, only two companies have been at the top of the list,
Exxon (which merged with Mobil in 1999) and GM. The 2001 FORTUNE 500 list and
related stories are available at www.fortune.com beginning at 6:00 p.m. ET
Sunday, April 1.
Exxon Mobil wasn't the only oil company to jump in the rankings. "The country
faced an energy crunch as the drain on resources from several years of
economic expansion collided with utility deregulation, soaring natural gas
prices, and OPEC's maneuvering to keep oil prices high," FORTUNE's Lee
Clifford writes in the introduction to the list. Those high prices helped
other energy companies strike it rich: Duke Energy (No. 17) and Reliant
Energy (No. 55) nearly doubled their revenues to catapult up the list, as did
diversified energy companies like Enron (No. 7) and Dynegy (No. 54). "Of
course, should energy prices fall, these companies will have a tough time
hanging onto their new spots on the FORTUNE 500," Clifford says.
On the flip side of the surge for energy companies, high oil prices increased
the cost of doing business for most companies, and had a big impact on
corporate profits last year. Five out of the top 15 companies made less money
than they did in 1999. Profits rose overall by 8.4%, down significantly from
last year's 28.7% growth. Together, the FORTUNE 500 generated $7.2 trillion
in sales (up more than 13% from last year), made $444 billion in profits, and
employed 24 million people. No. 1 Exxon Mobil was the most profitable
company, with profits rising 124% to $17.7 billion.
No. 2 Wal-Mart, with revenues of $193 billion, is the largest employer in the
FORTUNE 500, with 1.2 million employees (about the same as the population of
Idaho). Geographically, California and New York top the state list with 55
company headquarters each (New York City tops the city list with 40 company
headquarters). Texas comes in third with 45 companies (including Irving-based
Exxon Mobil, the No. 1 company; Houston is second on the city list with 20
companies), Illinois is fourth with 39 and Ohio is fifth with 20 companies on
the list.
In related stories on FORTUNE 500 companies, Alex Taylor III looks at Exxon
Mobil's well-oiled profit-pumping machine. Carol Loomis visits Sandy Weill at
Citigroup (No. 6) to see how an acquisition addict manages the world's most
complicated company. Nelson Schwartz reveals how a toothpaste maker,
Colgate-Palmolive (No. 201), has outperformed Jack Welch's GE (for 17 years).
Devin Leonard asks who's the boss at Viacom (No. 101).
The April 16 issue of FORTUNE is available on newsstands beginning April 9.

For more information, or to schedule an interview with a FORTUNE writer or
editor, see contacts below. THE TOP 25 OF THE 2001 FORTUNE 500
(Rankings reflect revenues of previous year)

Rank Rank Revenue in % CHANGE
2000 1999 millions FROM 1999
1 3 Exxon Mobil
Irving, T.X. 210,392.0 28.4
2 2 Wal-Mart Stores
Bentonville, Ark. 193,295.0 15.9
3 1 General Motors
Detroit, Mich 184,632.0 4.6
4 4 Ford Motor
Dearborn, Mich. 180,598.0 11.1
5 5 General Electric
Fairfield, Conn. 129,853.0 16.3
6 7 Citigroup
New York 111,826.0 36.4
7 18 Enron
Houston, T.X. 100,789.0 151.3
8 6 Int'l. Business Machines
Armonk, N.Y. 88,396.0 1.0
9 8 AT&T
New York 65,981.0 5.8
10 33 Verizon Communications
New York 64,707.0 95.1
11 9 Philip Morris
New York 63,276.0 2.5
12 31 J.P Morgan Chase
New York 60,065.0 78.2
13 11 Bank of America Corp.
Charlotte, N.C. 57,747.0 12.4
14 12 SBC Communications
San Antonio, T.X. 51,476.0 4.0
15 10 Boeing
Seattle 51,321.0 (11.5)
16 28 Texaco
White Plains, N.Y. 51,130.0 43.3
17 69 Duke Energy
Charlotte, N.C. 49,318.0 126.8
18 14 Kroger
Cincinnati 49,000.4 8.0
19 13 Hewlett-Packard
Palo Alto 48,782.0 -
20 35 Chevron
San Francisco 48,069.0 47.1
21 15 State Farm Insurance Cos.
Bloomington, Il. 47,863.1 7.2
22 17 American International Group
New York 45,972.0 13.1
23 21 Home Depot
Atlanta 45,738.0 19.0
24 30 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
New York 45,413.0 33.9
25 29 Merrill Lynch
New York 44,872.0 28.7

CONTACT: FORTUNE, New York Susan Brown, 212/522-4071 susan_brown@timeinc.com
or Caroline Plauche, 212/522-2134 caroline_plauche@timeinc.com or Terry
McDevitt, 212/522-7149 terry_mcdevitt@timeinc.com
18:10 EDT APRIL 1, 2001

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

Exxon Mobil Tops Fortune 500 List Amid Record Revenue; GM Drops to Third

04/01/2001
Dow Jones Business News
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Surging U.S. energy prices gave oil, gasoline and power companies
new fuel in their climb through the ranks of the annual Fortune 500.
Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) posted its highest-ever revenue of $210
billion in 2000, boosting it to No. 1 on the list from its 1999 ranking as
No. 3. General Motors Co., the world's biggest auto maker, had revenue of
$184.6 billion and fell to No. 3 from No. 1.
Other energy companies also fared well in 2000, with Enron Corp. (ENE) rising
to No. 7 from No. 18. Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) shot up to No. 17 from 69 and
Reliant Energy Inc. (REI) made it up to No. 55 from 114.
The list of the largest publicly held companies, ranked by fiscal-year
revenue, has been compiled annually since 1955 by the editors of Fortune.
Detroit-based GM, which had held the top spot on the list for 15 years,
trails No. 2 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT).
Energy companies benefited from a surge in revenue brought about by falling
supplies, utility deregulation, soaring natural-gas prices and OPEC's
maneuvering to keep oil prices high. In the past year, crude oil has sold for
as much as $30 a barrel, and gasoline cost more than $2 a gallon last summer
in some parts of the U.S.
Other energy firms advancing included Texaco Inc. (TX), which went from No.
28 to No. 16; Chevron Corp. (CHV), which was ranked No. 20, up from No. 35;
and Dynegy Inc. (DYN), which rose to No. 54 from No. 112.
San Francisco-based Chevron agreed to buy Texaco in October for $35.1 billion
in stock, plus assumed debt of $7.5 billion. The deal is expected to close
this summer pending review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The Internet slowdown and uncertainty about the economy hurt a number of
companies, particularly telecom firms. AT&T Corp. (T) fell to No. 9 from No.
8.
But a merger helped Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), formed when Bell
Atlantic and GTE combined in May, leapfrog to the No. 10 spot from No. 33,
climbing past rivals WorldCom Inc. (WCOM) at No. 32, and SBC Communications
(SBC) at No. 14.
America Online Inc., which became the first purely Internet company to break
into the list last year at No. 337, rose to No. 271. Since then, it has
become AOL Time Warner Inc. (AOL) with its acquisition of Time Warner. The
combined company's revenue of $36.2 billion would have made it No. 39 on the
year 2000 list, but the deal didn't close until early this year.
Computer companies were led by International Business Machines Corp. (IBM),
which stayed in the top 10 but fell from sixth last year to No. 8.
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) rose to 79 from 84, and Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO),
which makes equipment for the Internet, advanced to 107 from 146, despite the
dot-com crash.
Wal-Mart, which remained in the No. 2 spot, had revenue of more than $210
billion. It also has the most employees of any company on the list, with more
than 1.2 million world-wide.
The top 10 also included Ford Motor Co. (F), the world's No. 2 auto maker, at
No. 4, a position it held last year. General Electric Co. (GE) stayed at No.
5 and Citigroup Inc. (C), the nation's largest financial-services company,
rose from seventh place to No. 6.
Total profits for the 500 corporations grew 8.4% for the year, down from
1999's level of 28.7%, to $444 billion. Revenue grew by more than 13% to a
combined $7.2 trillion for 2000. They employed more than 24 million workers.
The top 20:
1. Exxon Mobil, Irving, Texas, 3, $210.392 billion
2. Wal-Mart Stores, Bentonville, Ark., 2, $193.295
3. General Motors, Detroit, 1, $184.632
4. Ford Motor, Dearborn, Mich., 4, $180.598
5. General Electric, Fairfield, Conn., 5, $129.853
6. Citigroup, New York, 7, $111.826
7. Enron, Houston, 18, $100.789
8. International Business Machines, Armonk, N.Y., 6, $88.396
9. AT&T, New York, 8, $65.981
10. Verizon Communications, New York, 33, $64.707
11. Philip Morris, New York, 9, $63.276
12. J.P. Morgan Chase, New York, 31, $60.065
13. Bank of America, Charlotte, N.C., 11, $57.747
14. SBC Communications, San Antonio, 12, $51.476
15. Boeing, Seattle, 10, $51.321
16. Texaco, White Plains, N.Y., 28, $51.130
17. Duke Energy, Charlotte, N.C., 69, $49.318
18. Kroger, Cincinnati, 14, $49.000
19. Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, Calif., 13, $48.782
20. Chevron, San Francisco, 35, $48.069
Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

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

Exxon Mobil Replaces General Motors Atop Fortune 500 (Update1)
2001-04-01 21:40 (New York)

     (Adds that citation is from Fortune.com Web site)

     New York, April 1 (Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. topped the
new Fortune 500 ranking of the biggest U.S. companies, replacing
General Motors Corp., as higher oil prices contributed to $210.4
billion in revenue last year.
     GM fell to third, behind Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Fortune said
on its Fortune.com Web site. In the list's 55-year history, only
GM and Exxon have been No. 1. Energy companies fared well this
year, with Enron Corp. moving to No. 7 from 18th and Duke Energy
Corp. going to No. 17 from 69.
     Wal-Mart had $193.3 billion in revenue, about $8.7 billion
more than GM, Fortune said. The retailer employs 1.2 million
people, more than any other company on the list. Ford Motor Co.
was fourth and General Electric Co. fifth.
     Rounding out the top 10 were financial services provider
Citigroup Inc., computer maker International Business Machines
Corp. and telecommunications companies AT&T Corp. and Verizon
Communications Inc.
     The high oil and natural-gas prices that helped energy
companies hurt other industries, Fortune said. Five of the top 15
made less money than in 1999, and profits rose 8.4 percent, less
than previous year's 29 percent increase, Fortune said.
     California and New York led all states among the listed
companies with 55 headquarters each. Texas is home to 45 companies
on the list, while Illinois has 39 and Ohio has 20. Forty of the
companies are based in New York City, twice as many as in Houston,
the No. 2 city.

India: Maharashtra panel on SEB to submit report on April 10

04/01/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire

MUMBAI, March 31. THE Godbole Committee, set up to examine the problems faced
by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, will submit the first part of its
report on April 10. The first part, to be completed by April 9, will be
tabled in the House during the ongoing Assembly session, according to
sources.
The committee, headed by the former Chairman of the MSEB, Mr Madhav Godbole,
was formed last month to examine power purchases from Enron and other
independent power producers. The six-member committee would suggest
restructuring measures in part two of its report.
The committee met officials of IDFC and other financial institutions, said a
senior MSEB official. Enron officials, financial institutions and members of
the public have made presentations to the committee, apart from the MSEB top
brass.
The panel will review the position of overall demand and supply of power to
industries in Maharashtra with special reference to IPPs and purchase of
power by MSEB. It would also review the power purchase agreements, already
signed as well as proposed.
The committee is to examine the cost of DPC power and its distribution,
mounting losses of MSEB due to DPC power purchases and other implications.
- Our Bureau

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

Book Review; Book Review Desk
The Winter of Our Disconnect ENERGY AND THE MAKING OF MODERN CALIFORNIA; By
James C. Williams; University of Akron Press: 465 pp., $49.95, $24.95 paper
THE NATURAL GAS MARKET Sixty Years of Regulation and Deregulation; By Paul W.
MacAvoy; Yale University Press: 140 pp., $35
D.J. WALDIE
D.J. Waldie is the author of "Holy Land: A Suburban Memoir." His forthcoming
book, in collaboration with photographer Marissa Roth, is "Real City.'

04/01/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
3
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company

Could we have foreseen the winter of our disconnect? Could we have predicted
January's blackouts and this summer's promise of more to come or counted in
advance the windfall billions collected by Sun Belt power suppliers with
shiny, abstract names like Enron and Dynegy or the millions more owed them by
California's near-bankrupt utilities with their plodding 19th-century
gas-and-electric names?
The short answer is yes. We should have seen the darkness coming. We saw,
instead, the brightness of our beliefs about this golden place. We had
mistaken California for a continent-nearly a universe-from which everything
we wanted would come endlessly because we expected it to. California at the
beginning of 2000 was turning raw aspiration into profit as quickly as
post-Civil War America had and with nearly the same confident mixture of
technological bravura and financial cunning. In blacked-out, deregulated
January, after the briefest of gilded ages, we found that California really
is an island on the land, just as its most perceptive observers had said it
was, and that California's energy resources are as fragile and limited as any
island's.
We would have been better served if, in our haste, we had paused to read two
timely books on the history of power and its regulation. While they do not
foreshadow California's current electrical mess, they throw some historical
light on why we're in the dark.
In "The Natural Gas Market: Sixty Years of Regulation and Deregulation" by
Paul W. MacAvoy, the problem is the inadequacy of the regulatory models that
states and federal agencies have applied to natural gas production and
distribution since the 1930s. None, MacAvoy says, made natural gas plentiful,
cheap and profitable all at the same time, and no one-producers, pipeline
operators, retailers or consumers-has benefited from the failed attempts. The
current natural gas shortage, driving up household bills and the operating
costs of California's gas-fueled electricity plants, is the result, MacAvoy
would argue, of regulatory approaches that can't work.
MacAvoy believes a rational market could be made for natural gas through
complete deregulation, except for the irrationality of consumers. They don't
see natural gas as a substance-less commodity, to be priced and delivered by
the workings of the market forces that interest MacAvoy, a professor at
Yale's School of Management. Consumers see gas-and electricity-as something
real, like sunlight or air, that flows predictably from a "second nature" of
pipelines and transmission towers. The presence in the landscape of these
grids-like the grids of aqueducts and highways-is so necessary and expected
that ordinary nature is unimaginable without them. Californians have
superimposed a man-made "second nature" of energy production and distribution
on the state's unforgiving landscapes too, but our unique problem is a Gold
Rush mythology of abundance. Limitless power is part of the myth, beginning
with the belief in the 1860s and 1870s that California's hills, having
yielded gold for the taking, would yield coal just as abundantly to power the
state's transition to an industrial economy. California had plenty of gold,
it turned out, but almost no coal.
Nor could the state produce enough firewood where people needed it or
kerosene to fuel its lamps or manpower to till its fields. Wood, coal,
kerosene and labor were "power crises" in the 19th century that were
ultimately resolved by technical innovation, resource substitution and
historically higher energy costs for California consumers. In the 20th
century, new believers preached that the Sierra Nevada foothills would flow
with endless hydropower to keep city lights shining, that more oil fields
were ready to be discovered to fuel the state's power plants and that nuclear
technology would make electricity too cheap to meter. It hardly mattered that
there was no foundation for these beliefs either.
Our resilient faith in a "second nature" of power that is adequate to the
myth of California gives James C. Williams' "Energy and the Making of Modern
California" its poignancy. Williams, whose book was published in hardcover in
1997, does not forecast the "deregulation crisis" of 2001, but he might have.
Speaking of Americans generally, Williams says: "They have believed each new
energy resource to be without fault, to be infinitely abundant, and,
therefore, to have the potential to effect utopian societal change. Moreover,
people's faith in an energy resource seems to persist until ... its
shortcomings are obvious, and only then do they see it cannot bring utopia.
Yet the failure of a resource to live up to their expectations has not seemed
to dampen their enthusiasm, as they simply transfer the myth from a fallen
energy resource to the next resource appropriated for use." In 1996, the
California Legislature simply substituted a deregulated electricity
marketplace as the next energy resource expected to work on utopian
principles.
Williams ends his account of California's energy history at the hopeful
moment in the late 1980s when "a diversified, innovative, and less
centralized energy paradigm" seemed ascendant. Although not as radical as
environmental purists wanted, he says, California's emphasis on energy
conservation and alternative power sources-solar, geothermal, wind and
biomass among them-defined a more benign and flexible "soft energy" path
paralleling the "hard energy" path of gas-fired steam generators, nuclear
plants and hydroelectric dams. Between 1973 and 1988, Williams reports,
California's population grew 37%, and its economy, as measured in goods and
services, grew 46%, while the state's energy consumption grew only 8%, in
part because of some of the strictest standards in the world for building
insulation and appliance efficiency. Jerry Brown, California governor from
1974 through 1982, was right, after all: Weather-stripping and windmills do
make a difference.
Brown's career needs no rehabilitation now, as he begins his campaign for a
second term as mayor of Oakland, but the debacle of electrical deregulation
is set to consume other political futures when electricity bills jump 40% in
May to a projected 100% by the end of summer. Sen. Steve Peace (D-El Cajon)
and Public Utilities Commission President Loretta Lynch will take the fall;
Gov. Gray Davis probably will, too.
The blame for the state's slide into deregulated chaos goes well beyond
today's cast of bewildered politicians, but Californians are unlikely to
round up all the suspects-ourselves included-who might be made to answer for
it. We were too distracted by the collapse of the state's old economy in
1990, the L.A. riots, earthquakes and other disasters to attend to the tedium
of energy policy. No one seemed to notice how electricity deregulation,
launched without much meaningful debate in 1996, recycled the myth of energy
abundance that Williams lucidly details decade by decade (beginning in 1850),
or that deregulation required a rapid and sustained increase in generating
capacity if it was going to deliver the substantially lower electricity costs
promised for 2001. That was wishful thinking long before the legislature's
unanimous deregulation vote.
In 1994, John Bryson, chief executive of Southern California Edison, told the
California Public Utilities Commission, "Edison does not need any additional
power until at least 2005." Bryson's declaration that California faced an
energy glut-not a shortage-was in response to a controversial decision by the
PUC ordering the state's major utilities to purchase 1,400 megawatts of new
power annually beginning in 1998. The PUC order was driven by a 1992
California Energy Commission forecast, fairly accurate it turns out, that
Californians would need 55,819 megawatts of electricity in 2000. (The actual
usage was closer to 54,000 megawatts.)
To foster competitors to the state's largest utilities-Pacific Gas &
Electric, Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric-the PUC order also required
them to buy all this new power from independent suppliers, whose presence in
California's limited energy market would, the PUC believed, not only deliver
the required megawatts but also gradually cut consumer electric bills. In
addition, the PUC ordered the three utilities to buy part of this new power
from suppliers using alternative and renewable energy sources-windmills,
geothermal and solar -continuing California's successful experiment in a
parallel industry of "soft energy" supply.
The utilities resisted. With deregulation the goal of the Clinton
administration as much as of the power industry, the PUC's order to buy more
electricity-and expand the small-is-beautiful supply model that Williams
believed was possible in 1997 when his book was published-looked to the
utilities like the subsidization of future competitors. In 1995, Edison and
SDG&E convinced the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that giving
environmentally friendly generators preferential treatment was illegal and
that California, in the midst of a business-crunching recession, didn't need
more power anyway. Under pressure from the federal commission, the PUC caved
in.
And Edison and SDG&E got exactly what they wanted-relief from new
competition, continued centralization of production within the traditional
utility grid and a PUC committed to demolishing the state's 80-year-old
system of utility regulation. The PUC even discouraged the utilities from
signing long-term supply contracts at current prices, because the PUC
professed to believe that deregulation would generate lower energy prices
more quickly than anyone expected.
To show stockholders that they were no longer the dowdy power companies of
the old economy, the utilities sweetened short-term profits by refusing to
invest in plant construction, spun off revenues from their PUC-regulated
divisions into stock buybacks and worked very hard for full deregulation.
Their victory a year later was a catastrophe.
The deregulation consumers got-in the ironic words of State Sen. Jim Brulte
(R-Rancho Cucamonga), "one of the most far-reaching and forward-thinking
pieces of legislation" in California history-was peculiarly Californian in
its degree of institutional amnesia. As political cover for legislators who
feared prices would immediately climb, the deregulation bill cut electricity
rates 10% and froze increases until March 2002. That gave residential
consumers and businesses no reason to switch to alternative power sources or
conserve more. The bill satisfied the interests of consumer advocates because
it promised to break the utilities' three-way monopoly on electricity
production and shrink the power of the PUC (seen as too friendly for too long
with the power companies it was supposed to regulate). Deregulation, however,
continued to shield profits at Edison, PG&E and SDG&E by guaranteeing them
$26 billion in revenue to cover their massive debt for nuclear power plant
construction. Deregulation also pleased environmentalists because they
thought it would take the state further down the "soft energy" path. The
deregulation bill encouraged the utilities to sell off their existing
fossil-fueled generators, but it failed to offer enough incentives for the
construction of environmentally friendly ones, despite the 12-year gap since
the construction of the last major power plant anywhere in California.
Finally, deregulation created a power market so fragmented that it was
ludicrously easy to manipulate when the thin surplus of power supply in the
West began evaporating in the summer of 2000, although the evidence is masked
by the effects of a drought in the Northwest (which has reduced hydropower)
and an unlucky combination of plant maintenance, air pollution limits idling
older plants and higher than expected costs for natural gas.
The price of bad luck, bad weather and the cunning of power suppliers was
staggering. At one point in December, electricity that cost $250 a
megawatt-hour to produce was priced by the power brokers of the California
Independent System Operator at $1,500 a megawatt-hour. That was the
negotiated price; the suppliers had asked for $2,000.
Deregulation had set up a divided marketplace, more irrational than any Paul
W. MacAvoy picks apart in his analysis of natural gas, in which the
California Power Exchange was a clearinghouse where buyers and sellers set
the price of electricity and the California Independent System Operator was
the "buyer of last resort" if occasional gaps between production and
distribution unexpectedly failed to meet daily demand. The arrangement began
unraveling in mid-1998, and the Power Exchange effectively collapsed as soon
as SDG&E became fully deregulated in July 2000, leaving the poorly trained
bureaucrats of the Cal-ISO in December and January to struggle to buy 30% of
the state's daily power needs at arbitrary prices they passed on to utility
company managers.
The spectacle of the Cal-ISO gratefully paying a 500% premium over the cost
of production to keep the lights on last winter was a lesson in "market
fundamentalism" with a vengeance. Californians, tutored by earnest
neo-conservatives such as Peace, believed that a deregulated market would
generate abundant low-cost power simply because that's what a market freed of
regulation would do, despite the evidence that this particular market was
based on false assumptions and likely to be manipulated by the energy
suppliers who designed it.
In an empty contest of metaphors in 1994 and 1995, the dead hand of state
regulation had lost to the invisible hand of the marketplace. We'll never
know if gradual expansion of competition within the framework of regulation
would have made California's power system more flexible and environmentally
sustainable and less costly to consumers, as Williams suggested it might.
'Power tends to corrupt," Lord Acton said. He didn't mean that the powerful
are necessarily brutal or cruel. He was criticizing the blinding power that
flows from unexamined convictions, and he was writing about the papacy of
Pope Pius IX, who forced the doctrine of papal infallibility on the Catholic
Church. The makers of deregulation-state legislators, consumer advocates, PUC
commissioners and environmentalists-were convinced that the market they
constructed was infallible too. That belief led them to pursue their own
self-interest.
In the long run, consumers can expect deregulation's perverse effects to
include significantly higher electricity bills as we pay off $30 billion in
new debt, diminished local authority over power plant construction and
further disarray among the small-scale producers of renewable energy. The
failure of deregulation also will recast the way power is distributed in
California, as the state hesitantly moves to control part of the electrical
grid in exchange for bonding the utilities' debt. This first step in creating
a state power authority is being resisted by power suppliers, who rightly
fear that public anger over mismanagement of the power system has hardened
into sympathy for public ownership, as it almost did in the early 1920s.
In the short run, the failure of deregulation will determine if California's
hopeful new economy plays out as something more than the latest of the
state's many booms. There were extractive ones-gold, cattle, wheat, oil,
suburban house lots and military hardware. And there were booms that wove
myths-health-seeking in the sunshine, tourism, the movies and all the lost
dot-coms of last year. Apart from the good and the bad they've done our
state, our booms have reflected the belief, bordering on religious faith,
that what is true about California today will be true permanently.
California's utopian expectations about energy, whose history Williams
diligently surveys, are central to that myth. It sustained our optimism about
California's ability to power itself in the past. It's fueling our pessimism
today, as we lead ourselves deeper into the dark.

PHOTO: 'Nevada Transmission Line Tower at Night," by John Sexton; from
"Places of Power: The Aesthetics of Technology" by John Sexton with a
foreword by Walter Cronkite (Ventana Editions: 128 pp., $60);

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

India: CM objects to 'dumping' of IAS officers
Our Special Correspondent

03/31/2001
The Hindu
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire

BANGALORE, MARCH 30. The Chief Minister, Mr. S.M. Krishna, today spoke out
strongly against the "dumping" of IAS officers on the State and said a stage
would soon be reached when Karnataka would have to reject such postings.
He was replying to the discussion on the Budget estimates for 2001-2002 in
the Legislative Council. The House later passed the Appropriation Bill moved
by the Chief Minister who also holds the Finance portfolio.
Mr. Krishna, who received a round of applause for his stance against the
large number of IAS and IPS officers in the State, said the strength of the
IAS officers was swelling. "It is only Karnataka which is getting a large
number of officers from the other States while it is not the case in Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu."
The Chief Minister said it was not his desire to question the competence of
IAS officers from outside the State. "But then I have to be proud of my own
people. Even the few people who pass the central services examination from
the State are not posted here. A Karnataka girl who passed the IAS last year
was posted to the north-east despite her request to be posted in her home
State."
Mr. Krishna, reacting to a suggestion by some of the legislators that the
House adopt a resolution on this matter, said he would rather bring the
matter to the notice of the Union Home Minister. The Centre should rethink on
this matter. There was also the need for Karnataka to have a share of the top
posts at the Central level. "I am only expressing the feelings of the people
in public administration. The Centre should focus its attention on this
matter."
Referring to the power sector reforms and the Union Government selecting the
State as one of the first beneficiaries, the Chief Minister said the
transmission and distribution losses in the State were 38 per cent while the
national average was around 40 per cent. Karnataka could not be an exception
from what was happening in the other parts of the country although efforts
were now being made to improve the grid situation and ensure metering of all
electrical installations, which was the key to checking power theft.
He said it was a blessing in disguise that the State had dropped the 1,000 MW
Cogentrix power project in Mangalore. Otherwise the cost of power would have
been very high, not unlike what Maharashtra was now facing with Enron. The
construction of the Alamatti power project has been handed over to the
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. since the private sector Chamundi
corporation had quoted Rs. 1,400 crores for the project while the KPCL had
quoted Rs. 700 crores. "Our KPCL has a proven track record and the State
Government decided to go with it."The Chief Minister sounded a note of
caution to the excise sector and said the Government would come down heavily
on it if it continued with tax evasion (sale of seconds liquor). The
Government had set an ambitious target of Rs. 2,086 crores for the coming
year, in contrast to Rs. 1,500 crores for 2000-2001. The revenue from excise
had dipped in the mid-Nineties and had registered a 20 per cent increase over
the past two years.
Referring to the interim report of the Administrative Reforms Commission
headed by Mr. Haranahalli Ramaswamy, he said the State had taken a giant step
forward in pruning the administrative machinery. Around 80 per cent of the
vacancies which had been frozen over the past decade had now been abolished.
Mr. Krishna said that the proposal to divert the waters of the west-flowing
Nethravati was only to provide drinking water to around 72 taluks in the
plains of the State. Such a diversion of a small quantum of the waters would
in no way affect the agricultural operations along the natural course of the
river. The Government would hold discussions with all the political leaders
before arriving at a decision on the proposal, he said. The Chief Minister
denied the Opposition charge on the financial position of the State and said
there was no question of walking into a debt trap. The loans sought were well
within limits. The budget presented by him was quite transparent and there
was nothing that he had hidden from the public. The focus of the budget this
year was on agriculture.

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

COUNTRY BUZZ
BROADBAND SERVICES: MILES TO GO
SUDHIR CHOWDHARY

03/31/2001
Computers Today
76
Copyright 2001 Living Media India Ltd

No incessant dialling and always-on Internet connection sans fat telephone
bills. The promise was also of enriched and compelling content on the
desktop, in the living room, and on the field-anytime, anywhere-at a whizzing
speed. Unfortunately, these prospects don't seem to have fired the
imagination of home PC users in the country. The response to the first few
months of broadband connectivity in some affluent localities in Delhi and
Mumbai have been lukewarm, mainly because of the cost factor.
To make matters worse for the industry, major players like Spectranet and
Enron have made their intentions clear to exit from their broadband ventures
they have set up in Delhi and Maharashtra, respectively. Spectranet promoter
Atul Punj has decided to withdraw from the fibre optic network business and
concentrate on the family's core businesses of construction and pipelines.
Say top sources in the firm, the decision follows from the realisation that
the "business would be dominated by large groups and multinationals".
Analysts, too, opine that after a frenzied start, the broadband market will
settle down with fewer players. Reliance, Bharti Enterprises, BPL, Zee and a
few others are left in the fray.
Last fortnight, Enron also decided to exit from its broadband ventures in the
country. Along with MSEB and Global Telesystems, the company had proposed to
build a high-speed network in India to enable ISPs and corporate houses to
carry out their business efficiently. It had plans to build a Rs 600 crore
optical fibre cable network, covering 5,000 kms across Maharashtra.
Strategies to Cope
Why has broadband failed to take off in India? Siddhartha Ray, managing
director, Data Access, an affiliate of Richard Li's Pacific Convergence Corp.
(PCC) that has launched Network of the World (NOW) in India, quips, "It's
easy to talk about sexier technologies. But, are there any taker for them as
well?" According to him, shelling out more than Rs 1,000 per month besides
coughing up cash for a cable modem is not a sneeze for most of the home PC
users. Another reason, points out Ray, is that players like Spectranet can't
be compared to big giants like Reliance who are into a long haul. For
Spectranet, return on investment is vital and with the business plans already
going astray, they are desperate to get out of this venture, he points out.
While both the broadband players in Delhi, Spectranet and Mantra Online,
admit that there is future potential in the home segment for broadband, their
current subscription figures point out that the boom among home users for
broadband services is still a long way off.
Spectranet currently has around 1,000 subscribers in the home segment, while
Mantra has to make do with 500 only. As Spectranet managing director Uday
Punj says, "We are not aggressively marketing the home segment now, as the
potential in the business segment will any day outflank home demand." Only
that probably they won't be in the market to see that.
Spectranet, which was the first off the block in laying optical fibre
connections in Delhi, formally launched its services in October last year.
The company has already invested around Rs 160 crore in setting up 600 kms of
optical fibre in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad and Bangalore.
The other broadband player, Mantra Online, came with its Mantra-via-cable
offer last August. Mantra's broadband service has till date only covered a
few affluent colonies in Delhi.
While one big winner in the Delhi's not-so-hot broadband connections scene
has been the cable operators, who have provided the crucial last-mile
connectivity for both Mantra and Spectranet, via their existing network of
coaxial cables, a major deterrent in the spread of broadband has been the
exorbitant cost of the cable modem. They come at around Rs 15,000. The return
is still not alluring.
Return on Investment
Essentially, for the broadband environment the major costs include those of
the infrastructure and the subscriber. Those who are in the process of
optical fibre networks are investing about Rs 100-200 crore for covering
small towns to large cities.
More than 15 companies have already acquired infrastructure providers'
licences, which enable them to set up the network, right of way, towers and
infrastructure for end-to-end connectivity. These companies include industry
heavyweights like Reliance, Bharti, RPG, Satyam Infoway and Shyam. Two public
sector companies, Power Grid Corp. of India and Gas Authority, have also
entered the race. Spectranet, Reliable Internet, ICE Net.Net, RPG Netcom,
Atlanta Capital, Potential Solutions, S. Kumars, Satyam Infotel and Zoom are
the other companies that have got an IP licence.
Some of these companies plan to operate telephony services as well. These
include Reliance, Bharti and Shyam. The IP licences, which are free of cost,
enable them to set up the backbone network. These companies will acquire
national long distance (NLD) licences, which has an entry fee of Rs 500
crore, once their networks are ready.
Reliance has acquired the IP licence through a new company-Steadfast
Construction and Engineering-set up specially for this purpose. As per
Reliance's plans, it will first set up a network in 12 states. In two years,
it will cover the whole country. It has already started laying the cable in
major states, including Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The company's NLD
plan has synergy with its existing telecom operations. It has basic service
licence for Gujarat and is operating cellular services in Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, Orissa, the North East, West Bengal, Assam and Himachal Pradesh. It
covers more than 30 per cent of the geographical area of the country.
Therefore, it will also be able to use the same optical fibre network as the
backbone for its existing operations as well as for carrying long-distance
calls.
Similarly, Bharti has also announced its plans to enter the NLD service
segment. Through Spectranet, Bharti would be able to offer basic services in
Delhi and Bangalore, much ahead of the other players like Reliance and Essar.
Bharti, which has itself laid about 100 km of optic fibre in Delhi, has
applied for basic telephony licences in eight states, including Delhi and
Karnataka.
Great Expectations
Despite the hype, worldwide broadband penetration is presently very low. And
India is no exception. Take, for example, the United States where only 1.8
per cent of homes have broadband access, while 27 per cent have narrowband
access. However, most analysts say that in the next five years, at least 50
per cent of online homes in the US will have broadband access via modems.
However, the Asia-Pacific region is moving faster than the West as far as
broadband connectivity is concerned. For instance, Singapore is fully
broadband-wired. Similarly, Taiwan also has an extensive broadband network in
place. In India, it is expected that seven companies will soon be offering
their fibre-optic cable network commercially. Internet access via cable will
make further inroads into consumer homes as bandwidth prices shrink. It will
find more consumers in the institutional segment. But then even the cable TV
penetration is expected to grow only about 15 per cent in 2001. That makes
broadband initiative limp.

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


---------------------- Forwarded by Jason Williams/HOU/ECT on 04/04/2001 11:48 AM ---------------------------

Lisa_Currie@spe.sony.com on 04/03/2001 05:51:21 PM
To:	Jason.Williams@enron.com
cc:
Subject:	Re: Welcome Back Baby!

Hi again,

Hope your feeling better sweety. Good to hear you had a great time away.
Tan? When we were in Fiji you were trying to convince me that you had
one - baby, you have one all year round!! I love your skin.

I will probably be spending 1-2 weeks in London at this stage. We are
trying to plan the rest of our journey in Europe and I'm trying to get
four weeks off so that I can spend even more time with you.

Are both the girls still staying with you? Say hello to Jo for me. I
can't believe I haven't seen her since you left.
Have a great time going out for your B'day this weekend. It's your 30th!
But we both know you have the energy of a an 18 year old when it
counts!!

Speak to you in a couple of days.
Lisa. xx

|--------+------------------------>
|        |          Jason.Williams|
|        |          @enron.com    |
|        |                        |
|        |          04/04/01 03:32|
|        |          AM            |
|        |                        |
|--------+------------------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                    |
  |       To:     Lisa Currie/AU/AP/SPE@SPE                            |
  |       cc:                                                          |
  |       Subject:     Re: Welcome Back Baby!                          |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------|

I had a great time. The weather was macnificent. And I have a great tan.
My
brothers wedding went smoothley.
But its great news that you will be spending more time in London. How
much
time exactley? It would be a marvellous scope if you could pull off a
transfer to London as well. I am currently at the moment feeling a bit
sick
because last night I ate some dodgy food.

Jo and Nichole have settled in to London life. They are both cool. They
have both found jobs so its all going smooth.
We will all be going out this weekend for my birthday.

Love
Jason xxxxxxxxx9


There seems to be some question whether Utilicorp. can trade financial.  I
opened them to trade all financial (including power) on 7/26/00.  I think the
customer is calling Kathy for access.  There should be no change in their
physical power profile.


Tana,
I didn't have much luck with the gentlemen in London.  His counterpart in the
US is Jim Paul and he'll try to get it signed.  I wasn't sure if you need to
change anything in the document for the US.  Please email a revised copy to
jpaul@carrfut.com.  His mail address is Carr Futures, Inc., One World Trade
Center, 92nd Floor, NY, NY 10048.

Thanks,

Dan
---------------------- Forwarded by Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT on 03/07/2001
09:46 AM ---------------------------
From: Tana Jones on 02/22/2001 10:41 AM
To: mthomas@carrfut.com
cc: Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON
Subject: NDA - Carr Futures, Inc.

At the request of Dan Diamond, I am attaching our proposed form of
Non-Disclosure Agreement.   If the enclosed meets with your approval, please
execute the agreement and return it to me via fax no. (713) 646-3490.  I will
then have it executed by an officer of EnronOnline.  If you have any comments
or questions please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 853-3399, or Mark
Greenberg, Senior Counsel, at (713) 345-8897.  We look forward to hearing
from you.


I would like you to both to make a concerted effort to host upcoming Houston GISB meetings and if possible lets see if we can do it in Enron Center South. That would be great PR and also sends a signal to our partners that nothing here is different.

Let me know if we get one on the calendar, tks - Bob


The attached bullets give real-life examples that people will understand.  I
also told Karen Denne to reference the bullets at the beginning of our motion
if she needs to know what we're requesting at FERC.  Please notify Karen and
me if you see any problems with the message.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 10/20/2000 02:25 PM
---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "Seabron Adamson" <seabron.adamson@frontier-economics.com>
              10/20/2000 02:08 PM

To: <Mary.Hain@enron.com>
cc: <kdenne@enron.com>
Subject: Layman's Summary of FERC White Paper

Mary:

Please find attached a bried one page summary of the FERC White Paper, as
discussed. I have tried to make it simple and with analogies that are
comprehensible to the press, etc.

Seab

This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(617) 354-0060 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.

Seabron Adamson
Frontier Economics Inc
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Ph:  (617) 354-0060
Fax: (617) 354-0640
seabron.adamson@frontier-economics.com

 - 00-10-20 SA Summary of White Paper on Completing California's Power
Markets.doc


Book request #873 is complete.  Please contact Risk Controls if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Susan Trevino


DO NOT SEND YOUR STATUS UPDATES TO KITCHEN, BRADFORD, ROHAUER, JUST TO ST. CLAIR AND COOK.  WE WILL SUMMARIZE FOR THEM, THEY DO NOT WANT SEPARATE EMAILS FROM EVERYONE.  THANKS.

Cordially,
Mary Cook
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith, 38th Floor, Legal
Houston, Texas 77002-7361
(713) 345-7732
(713) 646-3393 (fax)
mary.cook@enron.com


----- Forwarded by Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2001 07:32 AM -----

	"Buddy & Doris" <muleman1@earthlink.net>
	05/14/2001 09:51 PM

		 To: "Betty Langham" <Bettye.Langham@excite.com>, <Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Mom's Birthday

Sunday really was good. We had a really good time also. I think Mom enjoyed
it also. Getting together for Mom's birthday sounds great to me Only have
one suggestion. Tell Mom that we are taking her out for her birthday or else
she will try to cook everthing. Then we can all show up with the food.
I don't know what to say about how she would feel about losing control of
her checking account. Some days she seems really concerned about what she
has in the bank and other times she handles things well. She did give Buddy
a signed blank check to go pay for fertilizer on a Sat. and then when he
went to pay for it on Mom. evening she had already gone in and paid for it
herself that morning. She had forgotten she had told him to do it.She still
thinks she will be put in a nursing home if she forgets things. She told us
again Sunday that they put Aunt Minnie in a nursing home because she forgot
the stove on. Though i'm sure it was more to it than that. I'm open to
suggestions.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dan.J.Hyvl@enron.com>
To: "Buddy & Doris" <muleman1@earthlink.net>; "Betty Langham"
<Bettye.Langham@excite.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Mom's Birthday

> Mom's Birthday is on a Saturday this year.  Should we get together?  I can
> fix a Brisket for barbecue sandwiches.  What do you think?  However, Dana
> will not have Haley that weekend.  Haley sure loves the necklace that
> Bettye gave her.  She was out from the time we hit the road until about
> 6:30 this morning.  See what a little exercise like walking to the tank
> will do for her little legs.  I'll probably never get her to go walking
> with me again.
>
> Bill mentioned that we should consider having Mom checking accounts
changed
> to require two signatures for checks over a certain amount.  What are your
> thoughts?  Do you think that Mom would be receptive to the idea?  I'll
> print out several copies of a general power of attorney form that we can
> have available should the need arise.
>
> Please respond with your thoughts on any of the above subjects.  I do
check
> email at work.  Just can't get in the habit at home.
>
> We really enjoyed yesterday.
>


Steve:

Your angle is much better for the corporation, and a lot of the below might
be "mastering the obvious," but here it is.

- Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
 The petroleum, natural gas, and electricity price situations have a
different set of facts but a common demoninator--very tight infrastructure
relative to energy demand.  Here is a general set of conclusions with a few
"sound bites."

* The current energy price situation is "all about economics."  It is
economics 101--supply and demand.  Demand has been rising faster than supply
with a predictable response.  This is the bad news for consumers.  The good
news is that there is reason to believe that prices for oil and natural gas
are at the top of their commodity price cycle.  The NYMEX futures market
shows a "backwardation curve" for both--look in the daily Wall Street Journal
in Section C under "Futures Prices"  that usually is around page 14.  Look at
the settle price for the different energy commodities and the prices after
the prompt month (October) fall over the next months and years except for
this winter's natural gas price.

* Big oil did not suddenly get big or greedy with petroleum prices any more
than "big gas" has with natural gas.  Many of the same players were
profit-maximizing during the previous price slump.

* The constraint on energy markets is not the resource base but the
infrastructure to produce, refine, and transport supplies.  Infrastructure
constraints have had a cumulative effect of slowing the great engine of
market supply,    reflected siting issues and also low profitability (partly
the result of rapid implementation of new environmental requirements).

* The solution is to stop taking supply for granted and build more
flexibility and incentives in the system to profitably meet ever-rising
demand.  Energy investment must compete against many New Economy investment
opportunities that have potentially high rates of return.

Oil

This is a global market so declining U.S. production is a very small part of
the world supply, but the real constraint is domestic refining capacity.
Since 1990, operable U.S. refineries have declined from 205 to 159 when 50
refineries closed and only 4 new refineries entered the market.  [National
Petroleum Council, "U.S. Petroleum Refining," June 2000, p. 23.  Other
refineries have been able to expand to increase overall capacity, but
capacity utilization has risen rapidly in recent years and is above 95%--a
tight situation.  EPA permits to allow further expansion is a major issue to
making sure that domestic infrastructure keeps up with demand (p. 27).  A
number of proposed requirements to further improve the environmental quality
of gasoline has raised profitability questions as well (pp. 27-30).

The two actions the U.S. can take in the short run to increase crude supplies
are to lift the embargo on Iraq and withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (up to 3 mmbd).  Liquidating the reserve could be part of a
privatization program to get support from the free market community, and the
proceeds could be used to help low income energy users this winter.  The days
don't get much more "rainy" than now given that without price controls price
and not supply is in question in an "emergency."

A longer run approach must be to encourage domestic and international
drilling to make the supply response as elastic as possible to higher
prices.  Alaska activity such as drilling at the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve (ANWR) would be a major contribution to world supplies.

On the gasoline side, much has been written about "boutique fuels" where
certain environmental requirements are required for certain regions that
makes the supply/demand balance very sensitive to interruptions (such as
refinery downtime or a pipeline closure).  The key to prevent price spikes
for consumers is to not let new environmental requirements outrace technology
or infrastructure constraints.  This discontinuity happened earlier this
summer in Chicago, for example, where gasoline prices rose well above $2 per
gallon.

Electricity

This is an infrastructure problem that could be alleviated by a more
efficient use of the transmission grid to get power to its highest valued
uses.  California in particular has followed a "soft" energy path where
conservation was substituted for permitting urgency for new power plants.
The digital age is driving demand growth although many traditional appliances
(such as refrigerators) are using less power.  General economic growth also
means many new appliances, traditional and new, are being produced and used,
adding to power demand.

Natural Gas

 Natural gas supplies (and infrastructure to some degree) must catch up to
high demand after many years of slumping gas prices and reduced incentive.
Over 200 Tcf of potential gas reserves is in areas that are off limits to
drilling--something that should be corrected given the advances in drilling
technology that make exploration and production much less invasive to surface
area than ever before.  Other public policy drivers should be a continued
emphasis on expedited certification for new pipelines and avoiding new short
run regulatory "fixes."  Past this winter, however, gas prices are expected
to decline, so consumers can lock in long term prices that are below current
prices.

Conclusion

Energy supply and infrastructure have been taken for granted for too long.
It was assumed that low prices would continue despite increasing
disincentives to increase supply and infrastructure to meet demand.  Demand
has also increased faster than thought due to economic prosperity and the
"wealth effect."  Market forces can correct the imbalance over time without
regulatory quick fixes and with reasonable incentives for industry
performance.

Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Director, Public Policy Analysis
Enron Corp.
P.O Box 1188, Room 4724a
[1400 Smith Street 77002]
Houston, Texas 77251-1188

(P) 713-853-3062
(F) 713-646-4702

Assistant: Joan Stransky 713-853-4702
jstrans@enron.com


Thanks.

Gabriel Monroy
04/06/2000 09:08 AM
To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Deal 218918, McIntosh Partnerships

Done,
Sorry, I thought somebody else had taken care of this.

Gabriel


Thanks again for your help, advice and Cristina's phone #.  We'll see where
it goes from here.  But I'm shocked.  I called Cristina, and NO answering
machine.  I didn't think that happened anymore.  Any way of leaving her a
message?  Thanks again.

Best,
Jeff


I was so incensed when I wrote this that I accidentally omitted both of your
names.  Sorry.  Under separate cover, I will send the series of e mails that
made me aware of these meetings.

Rebecca
---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca McDonald/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
11/30/2000 03:43 PM ---------------------------

Rebecca McDonald
11/30/2000 01:13 PM
To: Sanjay Bhatnagar/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: James A Hughes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob
Walls/NA/Enron@Enron, Wade Cline/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jeff
Skilling@ENRON, Kenneth Lay@ENRON

Subject: Meetings with Sharad Pawar

Sanjay,

Through several forwardings of memos it has come to my attention that you had
several meetings this week with Sharad Pawar and reached some agreements.  I
understand that a conference call to generate a strategy regarding our
approach to Mr Pawar was cancelled and no one is able to explain to me what
approach  you took or what the nature is of any agreements or accomodations
that you may have struck in these meetings.  I think it is important that I
and the rest of the task force be involved in the setting of strategy even if
we will call on you to conduct any of the discussions and it is clear that it
is cooperation and coordination is paramount.

Please call or write immediately with a briefing of those meetings and of any
agreements that were agreed to.  In the future, I would appreciate better
coordination and discussions on all matter related to Dabhol and to Metgas.
I am available by phone day or night.

Regards
Rebecca


If you could run the same valuation for Deal #'s QC1431.1 and QC1431.2 using
Post-id 956785, we could verify that they changes you've made correctly value
the basis offset whether a deal index flat or index +/- .  Call me if you
have any questions.

Thanks,
Susan


John:

Jim Fallon's office called me today requesting the updated Residual Book Analysis and Sensitivity  - Gas Power.  I've been told you are the person to contact in order to get this.  Please have a copy of this to me by noon on Monday.

Thank you!!

Megan Scott
Ext. 6908


Pls review

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vickers, Frank W.
Sent:	Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:23 AM
To:	Tycholiz, Barry; Ward, Kim; Fuller, Dave
Subject:	FW: ****NATURAL GAS  RFP - Bids due Wednesday, 9/19/01****

Looks like a western RFP, run with it as you see fit.

Frank

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Phil Glaessner <pglaessner@enermetrix.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Phil+20Glaessner+20+3Cpglaessner+40enermetrix+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:08 AM
To:	'fvicker@enron.com'
Subject:	FW: ****NATURAL GAS  RFP - Bids due Wednesday, 9/19/01****

   Here is a copy of the RFP that I discussed with Frank's secretary this morning.  Please call me to let me know who will be looking at it.
                                                                                Phil Glaessner
                                                                                713-344-2301
-----Original Message-----
From: Aguiar, Tony [mailto:aguiar@usourceonline.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: ****NATURAL GAS RFP - Bids due Wednesday, 9/19/01****
Usource invites your company to bid on our client's natural gas supply
requirements.  Please see attached documents for requirements.
Please direct any questions to Tony Aguiar, (603) 773-6472.
 <<noresco solicitation2_.doc>>
 <<Noresco Gas Usage.xls>>
Thank you,
Tony Aguiar
Usource, LLC
6 Liberty Lane West
Hampton, NH 03842-1720
phone:  (603) 773-6472
cell:   (603) 770-1037

 - noresco solicitation2_.doc
 - Noresco Gas Usage.xls


fyi.

Please follow up to make sure these $ are going to the correct p&l.

---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Neal/HOU/ECT on 08/14/2000 05:02 PM
---------------------------
From: Molly Sumrow on 08/14/2000 04:35 PM
To: Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: CES Update

The first invoice for $5.4 million went out a couple of weeks ago.  CES came
back to us and said they were not going to pay.  They claimed that the total
of all of the invoices to this date that they have already paid had covered
that amount.  I have researched all of their invoices, and it looks like
there was a demand invoice in the system for the month of June for
approximately $6 million to much.  CES incorporated a credit for that invoice
in with the charge for $5.4 million, netting out to approximately $600,000.
I am meeting with CES on Thursday to see if we are in agreement.  The other
invoice for $7.5 million was sent out last week, CES is in agreement and the
payment should be here shortly.
   If you have any questions don't hesitate to call me.

Molly
x34249

Robert Superty
08/14/2000 04:06 PM
To: Molly Sumrow/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: CES Update

Molly, please see Scott's note below and give us an update.

Thanks - Bob
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Superty/HOU/ECT on 08/14/2000
04:01 PM ---------------------------

Scott Neal
08/14/2000 03:18 PM
To: Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: CES Update

What is the status of these invoices/payments?

Robert Superty
08/03/2000 04:02 PM
To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent A
Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Molly Sumrow/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: CES Update

FYI - ongoing CES reconciliation. At this point we will be receiving app.
$5.4M (invoice sent on 7/27) with another $7.5M to be billed to them next
week.

Still more to come, for details read the attached from Molly.

Bob
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Superty/HOU/ECT on 08/03/2000
03:52 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Molly Sumrow                           08/03/2000 03:47 PM

To: Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Victor Lamadrid/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beverly
Beaty/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: CES Update

Attached is the current status of the CES reconciliation.  Please call me if
you have any questions.

Thank You,

Molly


Attached is the file I gave you a hadcopy of.
PL


---------------------- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 02/16/2000 09:04 AM
---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  John Suttle                           02/16/2000 09:01 AM

To: Marie Heard/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan
Bailey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Forcenergy Inc.

Team,

It has been brought to my attention that a worksheet for the above referenced
might not have sent in the first place.  So, I am attaching a worksheet, and
as usual, if you have any questions, please call me.  I will more than happy
to receive and if necessary, RETURN your call.

Thanks,

John


March 28, 1999

This is the first day of the Kurban Bayram (Holiday of the Sacrifice)
and Istanbul's streets are full of folks in their holiday best.

And blood.

For days cows, lambs, goats, rams, and other big animals, have been
being brought to Istanbul from the countryside.  (I read that in Cairo
you could see people bringing their animals in by cab.)  Tent cites
(consisting of rickety structures of unlumbered wood and huge plastic
tarps) full of these doomed animals have sprung up under bridges, in
garbage filled lots and along the highways.  The city's normal perfume
of car exhaust and coal fumes is now mixed with the heavy smells of the
barnyard.

And, today, the slaughter began.

Pools of blood and rain spotted the pavement in front of my building,
evidence of a recent butchering.  On a muddy hillside in one of the
older neighborhoods south of the Halic (Golden Horn) in Eski (Old)
Istanbul, I saw several women, all smiling, surrounding a man vigorously
chopping away at the rib cage of a cow with an ax.  The cow's recently
skinned hide was spread out neatly beside them, the rest of the animal
in a heap nearby.  I passed three men loading sagging plastic sacks, no
doubt full of the spoils of a recent kill, into the trunk of a car.
(Sorry, but my weak imagination couldn't help but conjure up to images
from Scorcese's "Goodfellas".)  By a mosque, three was a lone Ram's head
under a tree.  Its snout was pointing upwards, as if thinking about
stretching a neck that was no longer there to the leaves just above it.
On the sidewalk in front of a butcher shop a man, hacking off the skin
of a decapitated lamb, rolled the body back and forth like a water
balloon.  A few meters away, a pen full of sheep ate their feed
contentedly from a trough.  I looked closely at them, was surprised to
see that they seemed oblivious to the significance of what was going on
right next to them.  Mounds of entrails lay in the gutter of one street.
I walked bye the opening of a narrow alley, from which I was assaulted
by a draft bloated with the now unpleasant order of fresh meat.  Later,
I watched, with absolutely no idea what it meant, a young man put his
fingers into the blood runoff of one butchering then walk to his car and
wipe it on the license plate.

The Kurban Bayram is an extremely important holiday for Moslems, second
only Ramadon ("Ramazon" in Turkish).  It's the time for the hajj ("hac"
in Turkish), or pilgrimage, to Mecca, which all Moslems of any means are
to make at least once in their lifetimes.  Here, in Turkey, most folks
get at least two days off work, some the entire week.  During the
holiday, throughout the Moslem world, many families buy an entire animal
for sacrifice, using only a part of it themselves, giving the bulk of it
to others, including most importantly the poor.  Some play amateur
butcher, but I have been told the vast majority of them have an "expert"
do it.  Indeed, the Koran demands that the sacrifice be as quick and
painless as possible.

The holiday itself celebrates the Old Testament story in which Ibrahim
(Abraham to non-Moslems) was ordered by God to sacrifice his son.
Abraham reluctantly agreed, but was given a last minute reprieve and was
allowed to sacrifice a ram instead.  It is a powerful story about belief
and faith (and must give animal rightists a few textual problems).  I
can see why Moslems have picked the story out as paramount.  It
certainly provides an interesting contrast to the New Testament story of
God's sacrifice of his son.

As I walked around Istanbul today I overwhelmed.  The city was a
slaughterhouse, full of, for me, somewhat gruesome contrasts.  Young
girls in flowered dresses and boys in tiny three-piece suits ran around
the streets laughing and playing games, with blood on their shoes.  I
passed a curious boy kicking at some unfortunate creature's stomach,
which had been left on a pile of garbage.  I saw a little girl holding
her mother's hand, smiling at me shyly, as her mom picked through a pile
of discarded intestines.

April 5, 1999

My discontent at the sights of the Kurban, I concluded later, was a bit
sanctimonious.  Americans eat considerable more meat than Turks, it's
only that in the United States the dismemberment is done quite a bit
more discretely.  But why should it be?  Isn't it a better, or at least
a  lot more honest, to understand what the animal part, and animal,
you're eating looked like when it was still alive (including rippling
muscles, forlorn gaze, and all)?  I thought of my canoe trips to Canada,
and how much more meaningful my fish dinner was because I had caught and
cleaned the unlucky critter myself.  A sharpening of reality, I think,
is always a good thing (especially in this time when so much of our
"knowledge" and "experience" comes secondhand through the media,
including, I have to reluctantly admit, my beloved books).  If our
rituals, often the most powerful means of creating reality-blindness,
can be infused with as much truth as possible, all the better I'd say.
(Then, perhaps, when those flimsy dreams we try to kid ourselves with
disintegrate like pieces of wet toilet paper....)

Today is the five-month anniversary of my arrival here in Istanbul.
It's an amazing thing I've done for myself, I think.  I am as close to
totally engaged in my life, and the world around me, as I have ever
been.  It will be hard to live any other way again, I imagine.

In the last week and a half, three terrorists here in Turkey succeeded
only in blowing themselves up, much, I suppose, to their martyred soul's
chagrin.  I've got to hope that these crazy acts are evidence of the PKK
(or whomever) being on its last legs.  There are important elections,
national and local, coming up on April 18th, so we'll probably get a
chance to see just how long those legs are.

Hope all is well.  Drop me a line.

Mark-O

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Please feel free to forward this.

I am a senior financial advisor with American Express Financial Advisors in
the Woodlands, TX.  If you or someone you knows has experience helping to
run an office in a fast paced environment and has an interest in the
financial world, I would love to visit .  I am offering a competitive
salary, great work environment, fabulous learning opportunities and an
unlimited growth potential.  Benefits are included.

Position Purpose:

To assist me in areas of financial planning, marketing and administration.
 Tasks include but are not limited to setting appointments with clients,
completing applications, communication with the corporate office,
confirming appointments, ordering supplies, typing letters, staff
management, and more.

Please feel free to forward your resume to me or call directly at the
number listed below.

Make it a great day!

Byron W. Ellis, CFP, CLU, ChFC
American Express Financial Advisors
Town Center One
1450 Lake Robbins Dr.
Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX  77380
Phone (281) 367-8658
Fax     (281) 364-9628


agreed.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Presto, Kevin M.
Sent:	Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:45 PM
To:	Lavorato, John; Shively, Hunter S.
Cc:	Belden, Tim
Subject:	RE: Competitive Analysis

I think this guy should be independent from the fundies.   There may be special projects that are "highly confidential" in nature that should be directed by you, Hunter, Tim and myself.   I think Robert would be more successful in a freelance role.

Other input?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lavorato, John
Sent:	Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:26 PM
To:	Shively, Hunter S.; Presto, Kevin M.
Subject:	FW: Competitive Analysis

I think he should report to Gaskill and Will (is will doing fundies?)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Johnston, Robert
Sent:	Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:44 PM
To:	Lavorato, John
Subject:	Competitive Analysis

Hi John- thanks for the generous offer which I have accepted.  A couple of outstanding questions-

1. Who am I reporting to?  I would welcome the opportunity to report to you or Greg.  I think my job was a lot easier in the past because our group had the backing of the Office of the Chair. This gave us credibility, independence, and the chance to contribute to strategic issues as well as the tactical issues of interest to the traders. However, I am obviously open to any reporting relationship you might suggest and I understand that my day-to-day duties will consist largely of interaction with the Fundy teams.

2. Are there any slots that have opened because of offers that were not accepted?  I would love to be able to take one of the folks from my group with me, particularly Kristin Walsh or my assistant Sharon Purswell.

Thanks again for the great offer and the chance to join UBS.

Robert
x39934
cell: 713-594-7995


Start Date: 4/24/01; HourAhead hour: 17;  No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Generation schedule.
Variances detected in SC Trades schedule.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001042417.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 17 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EES
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  UNIT_ID: BADLND_7_PL1X2

---- SC Trades Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblInt_Interchange.
     Details: (Hour: 17 / Preferred: -270.00 / Final: -265.52)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EPMI
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  TRADING_SC: DETM
  PNT_OF_INTRC: SP15
  SCHED_TYPE: ENGY
  PURCH_SALE: 1
  DEAL_NO: 1

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 17 / Preferred: 126.61 / Final: 121.96)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: SDG1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  SC_ID: EPMI


Hey, you guys are copying my model!

Congrats

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 08/28/2000
10:39 AM ---------------------------
 Office of the Chairman
From: Office of the Chairman@ENRON on 08/28/2000 10:19 AM
To: All Enron Worldwide
cc:
Subject: EES Organizational Announcement

Enron Energy Services has created explosive growth in the retail energy
business.  To advance EES, leadership position and to rapidly expand the
reach of its energy management services, the company is forming four new
business groups and promoting several key individuals.

EES continues to see an ever-increasing demand for energy management services
in North America, with interest coming from a growing number of customer
classes.  EES North America, headed by Marty Sunde, President and CEO, has
been established to bring outsourcing, commodity and mid-market solutions to
industrial and commercial customers in North America.  Harold Buchanan and
Jeremy Blachman have been named co-Chief Operating Officers of the group.

EES Europe is responsible for energy outsourcing across Europe, as well as
rapidly growing mid-market business (Enron Direct, Enron Directo) and heavy
industrial business (ETOL).  Matthew Scrimshaw, President and CEO will lead
this group.

As EES and Enron,s customer base grows, world class execution capabilities
and customer relationship management skills are required to maximize value.
Global Energy Services, headed by Dan Leff, President and CEO, is being
established to manage execution, delivery, operations & maintenance, account
/ customer management and contract value enhancement of Enron,s asset and
energy outsourcing activities worldwide.  This group will include Enron
Facility Services (EFS), led by Joe Earle, President & CEO and Operational
Energy Corporation (OEC), led by Mark Dobler, Vice President.

EES continues to see additional opportunities for business that will benefit
from the growth of its energy outsourcing business.  To manage and develop
these new business opportunities, EES New Business Ventures has been
created.  Mark Muller, President and CEO will lead this group.

All four new business leaders will report directly to EES, Office of the
Chairman, Lou Pai, who will continue as Chairman, and Tom White, who will
continue as Vice Chairman.  In addition, Kevin Hughes, Vice President and
Chief Accounting Officer, Vicki Sharp, Managing Director and General Counsel,
and Beth Tilney, Managing Director of Marketing, HR and Customer Satisfaction
will continue to report to the Office of the Chairman.

Please join us in congratulating these individuals.


How difficult issues are resolved in Illinois..........
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 11/30/2000
08:06 AM ---------------------------
From: Susan M Landwehr on 11/29/2000 10:08 PM
To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:

Rick/Harry/Jim--- it's a tie this year for who is the worst player in the
energy business---I can't decide which is more appalling---  Commissioner
Ruth Kretschmer's blatant grab for her legacy or Commonwealth Edison's sleazy
tactics.

You'll recall that Com Ed has been trying to get accelerated collection of
the decommissioning costs ($120 mil per year for 6 years) despite the fact
tht they're planning on transferring their nuclear plants to an unregulated
Genco.  The battle has been ongoing at the ICC, and the customers and CUB and
other intervenors have been successful in getting the hearing examiner to
state that Com Ed should not be able to collect any dollars if they transfer
the assets.  Our hope was that the ICC would actually agree with the hearing
examiner and deny the request, and that Com Ed would have to go to the
legislature to get language that would allow them to collect.  The ICC has
not ruled yet.  Anticipating that COm Ed would simultaneously work the
legislative side,we have been working at the statehouse for about a month to
sow the seeds to make sure that we could block them enough to get a trade
such as a year or two of CTC early roll off.  The legislature is in veto
session right now, and Com Ed has not been able to get enough backing to move
a bill.

So....low and behold, a fax comes across this evening and it's a letter to
the ICC from Com Ed offering to donate 2 of it's nuclear station sites to the
citizens of Illinois to use as public parks after the sites are
decommissioned if they are given the full $120 mil/6 year collection. And
gee, do you think that maybe one of the parks would be named after the woman
who brought it to the people!!??

There has been a rumor for about a year that Ruth had been angling with John
Rowe to have one of the nuclear sites donated in her name, and she started
ruminating in public and in semi public meetings about 6 weeks ago about the
general concept.

Part of me wishes that we didn't have any business interests that need
protecting in Illinois, as I  really would like to give a quote to Crains or
the Tribune tomorrow slamming Kretschmer and Com Ed. Isn't this just the
height of arrongance and corruption??!!

I'll be sending out a general info e mail tomorrow on this development to the
Project Lincoln team and of course Roy that is a bit more sanitized, but
wanted you guys to know the real scoop (plus I think I just wanted to vent!)


Please see attached.

Regards,

Wendi LeBrocq
3-3835


Here's the talking points for ANNGTC.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)

-----Original Message-----
From: Coughlin, Michelle <Michelle.Coughlin@Williams.Com>
To: 'Brad D. Reese' <bdreese@duke-energy.com>
CC: 'andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com' <andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com>; Bob Bissett <BBissett@wei.org>; Reinecke, Bryan <Bryan.Reinecke@ENRON.com>; 'Bruce Scott' <BScott@wei.org>; 'byron.wright@elpaso.com' <byron.wright@elpaso.com>; Carlton, Cavan C <Cavan.C.Carlton@Williams.com>; 'dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com' <dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com>; 'donna_friesen@transcanada.com' <donna_friesen@transcanada.com>; 'dpentzien@nisource.com' <dpentzien@nisource.com>; Gadd, Eric <Eric.Gadd@ENRON.com>; 'jay.holm@elpaso.com' <jay.holm@elpaso.com>; Moore, Jim C <Jim.C.Moore@Williams.com>; 'john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com' <john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com>; John Taylor <JTaylor@wei.org>; 'lauri.newton@neg.pge.com' <lauri.newton@neg.pge.com>; Moench, Mark C <Mark.C.Moench@Williams.com>; 'marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com' <marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com>; Murray Birch <mbirch@wei.org>; Thomas, Peter C <Peter.C.Thomas@Williams.com>; 'peter.lund@neg.pge.com' <peter.lund@neg.pge.com>; Hill, Robert <Robert.Hill@ENRON.com>; 'rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com' <rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com>; 'skschroeder@duke-energy.com' <skschroeder@duke-energy.com>; 'spatrick@sempra.com' <spatrick@sempra.com>; 'tony_palmer@transcanada.com' <tony_palmer@transcanada.com>; 'vincent_lee@transcanada.com' <vincent_lee@transcanada.com>; 'wpurcell@sempra-intl.com' <wpurcell@sempra-intl.com>; 'rocco.ciancio@foothillspipe.com' <rocco.ciancio@foothillspipe.com>
Sent: Fri Dec 21 10:09:53 2001
Subject: Talking Points

Brad - I could not agree with you more.  We do not want to negotiate this in the public arena. I felt the stories in the Calgary Herald, National Post were unfortunate in timing and substance.

 As per your suggestion I have eliminated the last 2 bullets and attached the talking points here.  The last bullet in the revised talking points was devised to take media pressure off of both us and the Producers.  There has been an incredible amount of political hay being made with this project and it has realized an inordinate amount of media attention.  We need to give the media (only if asked or questioned - not to be released) some reasonable expectations for time frames.  In any discussions we have with government bodies or if questioned by media representatives we need to make it very clear we cannot discuss the terms of the proposal at this time and help them understand that the Producers will have only received an executive summary and the meeting in January will be the first glance at a large complex proposal and is intended to be the beginning of a process.  Outlining this timeframe clearly stating there will be no immediate results from either receiving the proposal or the early January meeting will hopefully set the media and government minds at rest that there is no story here for a while so no need to dig further.  Normally a timeframe and a process is a better answer than no comment.

Please let me know if you have any other concerns or would like to see additional revisions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad D. Reese [mailto:bdreese@duke-energy.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:27 AM
To: Coughlin, Michelle
Cc: 'andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com'; Bob Bissett;
'bryan.reinecke@enron.com'; 'Bruce Scott'; 'byron.wright@elpaso.com';
Carlton, Cavan C; 'dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com';
'donna_friesen@transcanada.com'; 'dpentzien@nisource.com';
'eric.gadd@enron.com'; 'jay.holm@elpaso.com'; Moore, Jim C;
'john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com'; John Taylor;
'lauri.newton@neg.pge.com'; Moench, Mark C;
'marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com'; Murray Birch; Coughlin, Michelle;
Thomas, Peter C; 'peter.lund@neg.pge.com'; 'robert.hill@enron.com';
'rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com'; 'skschroeder@duke-energy.com';
'spatrick@sempra.com'; 'tony_palmer@transcanada.com';
'vincent_lee@transcanada.com'; 'wpurcell@sempra-intl.com'
Subject: RE: ANGTS Commercial Proposal - Executive Summary - Dec. 20
Versi on

Michelle - - my comments are very much based on the impact of comments as
seen recently in TCPL's Calgary Herald article followed by the "scaled down
pipeline" article published by the Petroleum News Alaska:
   I firmly believe the less said in public before jan 8 discussions with
   producers the better off we are - we do not want to negotiate this deal
   in public.
   I'd prefer to keep advertisements down to a minimum and keep to the
   staight and narrow for now; hence,
   collapse the third and fourth bullets into one very concise bullet
   indicating a proposal being sent before year end to be followed up by a
   meeting in early Jan - I would not say anything further about whats in
   the proposal nor the attributes.
   Again, in the less said the better mode - I'd delete the last two
   bullets.

I appreciate Tony's email on Mr. Kvisle's comments and timing and can
understand how these types of things occur.  It indicates to me we need to
keep to a very tight script in all discussions (media and politicians
alike) until we make meaningful progress with the customer, hence my desire
to keep the talking points as brief as possible so we have the most
integrity with producers.  I'll defer to the collective wisdom of the group
since I have no real editorial comments on your talking points - my real
comment is policy-wise to keep them as brief as possible; i.e. all we
really need to say right now is we're going to be meeting with producers in
early jan on a pipeline proposal.  Thanks

                    "Coughlin, Michelle"
                    <Michelle.Coughlin@Wil        To:     "'Bruce Scott'" <BScott@wei.org>,
                    liams.Com>                    "'spatrick@sempra.com'" <spatrick@sempra.com>,
                                                  "'wpurcell@sempra-intl.com'"
                    12/20/01 04:56 PM             <wpurcell@sempra-intl.com>,
                                                  "'eric.gadd@enron.com'" <eric.gadd@enron.com>,
                                                  "'robert.hill@enron.com'"
                                                  <robert.hill@enron.com>,
                                                  "'skschroeder@duke-energy.com'"
                                                  <skschroeder@duke-energy.com>,
                                                  "'bdreese@duke-energy.com'"
                                                  <bdreese@duke-energy.com>,
                                                  "'byron.wright@elpaso.com'"
                                                  <byron.wright@elpaso.com>,
                                                  "'jay.holm@elpaso.com'" <jay.holm@elpaso.com>,
                                                  "Moore, Jim C" <Jim.C.Moore@Williams.Com>,
                                                  "Carlton, Cavan C"
                                                  <Cavan.C.Carlton@Williams.Com>, "Thomas, Peter C"
                                                  <Peter.C.Thomas@Williams.Com>, "Moench, Mark C"
                                                  <Mark.C.Moench@Williams.Com>,
                                                  "'dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com'"
                                                  <dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com>,
                                                  "'peter.lund@neg.pge.com'"
                                                  <peter.lund@neg.pge.com>,
                                                  "'lauri.newton@neg.pge.com'"
                                                  <lauri.newton@neg.pge.com>,
                                                  "'bryan.reinecke@enron.com'"
                                                  <bryan.reinecke@enron.com>,
                                                  "'dpentzien@nisource.com'"
                                                  <dpentzien@nisource.com>,
                                                  "'marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com'"
                                                  <marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com>,
                                                  "'andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com'"
                                                  <andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com>,
                                                  "'rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com'"
                                                  <rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com>,
                                                  "'john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com'"
                                                  <john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com>,
                                                  "'tony_palmer@transcanada.com'"
                                                  <tony_palmer@transcanada.com>,
                                                  "'donna_friesen@transcanada.com'"
                                                  <donna_friesen@transcanada.com>,
                                                  "'vincent_lee@transcanada.com'"
                                                  <vincent_lee@transcanada.com>, Murray Birch
                                                  <mbirch@wei.org>, Bob Bissett <BBissett@wei.org>,
                                                  John Taylor <JTaylor@wei.org>, "Coughlin,
                                                  Michelle" <Michelle.Coughlin@Williams.Com>
                                                  cc:
                                                  Subject:     RE: ANGTS Commercial Proposal -
                                                  Executive Summary - Dec. 20 Versi     on

Attached are the talking points we discussed - I have not put in any
details of the proposal.  Please send me back any comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Scott [mailto:BScott@wei.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:47 AM
To: 'spatrick@sempra.com'; 'wpurcell@sempra-intl.com';
'eric.gadd@enron.com'; 'robert.hill@enron.com';
'skschroeder@duke-energy.com'; 'bdreese@duke-energy.com';
'byron.wright@elpaso.com'; 'jay.holm@elpaso.com';
'jim.c.moore@williams.com'; 'cavan.c.carlton@williams.com';
'peter.c.thomas@williams.com'; 'mark.c.moench@williams.com';
'dave.vandriel@neg.pge.com'; 'peter.lund@neg.pge.com';
'lauri.newton@neg.pge.com'; 'bryan.reinecke@enron.com';
'dpentzien@nisource.com'; 'marty.heeg@foothillspipe.com';
'andrew.ilnycky@foothillspipe.com'; 'rob.cohen@foothillspipe.com';
'john.ellwood@foothillspipe.com'; 'tony_palmer@transcanada.com';
'donna_friesen@transcanada.com'; 'vincent_lee@transcanada.com'; Murray
Birch; Bob Bissett; John Taylor; 'michelle.coughlin@williams.com'
Subject: ANGTS Commercial Proposal - Executive Summary - Dec. 20 Version

Attached is the latest draft of the covering letter and executive summary,
reflecting yesterday's discussion and subsequent edits and changes by
Cavan,
Dave, Michelle and myself.  I have left a few comments/questions imbedded
in
this draft (in bold italics) to make sure we don't miss any details in the
last-minute rush.  Please provide me with your final comments on both of
these documents by 3:00 p.m. Mountain time today.  If you need to talk to
me, please call my cell at 403-862-0706.  Thanks.
 <<ANGTS_Letter_Dec19.doc>>  <<ANGTS_Proposal_Dec19.doc>>

Bruce Scott
Office:  403-699-1415
Cell:  403-862-0706

  (See attached file: Talking PointsANGTS .doc)