Please see the following articles:

Sac Bee, Fri, 7/20: PG&E announces deals with smaller suppliers
Sac Bee, Fri, 7/20: Dan Walters: Six months later, utility debts are still
the toughest nut to crack
SD Union, Thurs, 7/19: California selling surplus power at fraction of cost
it paid
SD Union, Thurs, 7/19: PUC reveals plan to transfer much of watchdog role
SD Union, Thurs, 7/19: Variety of plans to help Edison find friends, foes
SD Union, Thurs, 7/19: Baja is hoping energy squeeze can spark boom
SD Union, Thurs, 7/19: GOP pushes energy bill with billions in tax breaks,
emphasis on coal, oil, nuclear power
LA Times, Fri, 7/20: Edison May Avert Bankruptcy Filing
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Summer blackout seers missing the mark -- so far
Blackout visions only bad dreams
WHAT OUTAGES? State efforts paying off

SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: State advisers forced to sell energy stocks
CONFLICT: Holdings called unethical
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Democrats defy Davis with bill on PUC
Utilities panel would keep power over rates
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Developments in California's energy crisis
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Energy Secretary to speak at forum on California energy
crisis
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Energy secretary in S.F. to push Bush program
Abraham says supply is the key, not conservation
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: More energy fallout
SF Chron, Fri, 7/20: Wilson says Davis ignored warnings about energy
Former governor defends himself
Mercury News, Fri, 7/20: California buzzing with power - but for how long?
Individual.com (AP), Fri, 7/20: Western Utilities Appeal To Protect Their
Customers California
Bail-Out by FERC Threatens to Increase Bills for Millions of Customers
NY Times, Fri, 7/20: Rate Proposal For Electricity In California
LA Times, Fri, 7/20: Edison Bailout Bills Remain Stalled
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E announces deals with smaller suppliers

(Published July 20, 2001)
SAN FRANCISCO -- Two weeks after reaching a long-term agreement with a major
electricity supplier, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Thursday announced
similar pacts with 130 smaller alternative energy companies.
The deals, which must be submitted to a federal bankruptcy judge for
approval, are expected to provide about 1,600 megawatts at 5.37 cents per
kilowatt hour -- a price set by the Public Utilities Commission for long-term
agreements sealed by July 15. The total is about two-thirds of the
electricity that the utility usually receives under contracts with
alternative energy suppliers.
The utility has promised to repay the 131 companies the $740 million it owes
them when its plan goes into effect.
It owes an additional $260 million to other small producers who have not
settled. Some of those companies are trying to get out of PG&E contracts.
--Claire Cooper
County sues over bond sale
Monterey County officials sued the county's investment adviser for selling
them $4.9 million in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. bonds as the utility was
collapsing financially.
PG&E defaulted on the bonds, which came due March 26, although it has paid
the county $5,334 in interest, the county said in its lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, says Banc of America
Securities sold the bonds to Monterey County on Dec. 11 even though the
county "was seeking a conservative, low risk investment."
At the time, the securities firm was aware that PG&E "was financially
unstable and its securities subject to potential default," the lawsuit says.
BofA Securities said the PG&E bonds were "similar in risk to investment in a
certificate of deposit and less risky than an investment in treasury bonds,"
the suit says.
BofA Securities couldn't be reached for comment.
--Dale Kasler

Dan Walters: Six months later, utility debts are still the toughest nut to
crack

(Published July 20, 2001)
When Gov. Gray Davis and other state politicians finally became engaged in
the energy crisis last January -- a half-year late -- the state's major
investor-owned utilities had already amassed more than $13 billion in debt
from runaway power costs and were out of credit.
Davis and the Legislature launched a massive state power purchase program, a
speed-up of new power plants, conservation subsidies and other actions, not
all of which have been successful. But everyone involved knew that the
utilities' debts, which had driven them to the brink of bankruptcy, would be
the most complex and politically difficult aspect of the crisis.
Six months later, that's still true.
An administration team negotiated for weeks with Pacific Gas and Electric and
Southern California Edison on schemes to retire their debts and bring them
back to a creditworthy status. The talks with PG&E went nowhere, and three
months ago, the huge San Francisco-based utility filed for bankruptcy
protection. Davis, clearly concerned that Edison would follow, hammered out a
deal with the smaller utility within hours.
It was, by any standard, a sweet deal for Edison and its parent company,
Edison International -- too sweet for just about everyone in the Legislature
-- and immediately, efforts began to change it.
Edison lobbyists worked the Legislature, and the utility cranked up a massive
advertising and public relations campaign, to no apparent avail. And Davis,
oddly, pulled back from the fray. The Democratic governor concentrated on
another aspect of the crisis with greater political sex appeal: demanding
that power generators, many of whom are PG&E and Edison creditors, be forced
to repay many billions of dollars because, as he put it, they had gouged the
state. Ultimately, Davis' campaign failed, although his strident advocacy
did, apparently, arrest his decline in public opinion polls. Meanwhile, the
Edison deal languished. With the Legislature now poised to leave Sacramento
on a monthlong summer recess and a self-imposed deadline for enacting the
Edison plan approaching, the Capitol is newly aflutter with efforts.
"Complex" doesn't even begin to describe the situation. There are at least
three alternative plans kicking around, none of which can be passed as
written. Davis may be willing to accept almost anything that would save him
from the embarrassment of another utility going to bankruptcy court on his
watch, but currently backs a scheme ginned up by Assembly Democratic leaders.
Edison, however, has split with Davis and now favors an alternative offered
by Republicans and some moderate Democrats -- one that consumer advocates
denounced as a corporate bailout. Meanwhile, liberal senators are pushing
another version that Edison likes even less, but its critics among consumer
activists like more.
With both lawmakers and outside interest groups so widely scattered over
what, if anything, should be done to rescue Edison, a consensus developed
late Thursday to keep the vehicles alive with preliminary floor votes but
continue private negotiations through the monthlong legislative recess.
The many-sided stalemate stems from both the rival plans' provisions --
farmers, for example, fear environmentalists' gaining authority through the
state over Edison-owned watershed in the Sierra -- and the convoluted
dynamics of the Capitol.
Legislative leadership is very weak in the era of term limits, especially in
the Assembly, and lawmakers are leery about voting for any complex utility
measure, particularly one that might raise rates. Some call it "1890 disease"
for the number of the 1996 deregulation bill that backfired so badly.
Then, too, some liberals and consumer activists appear to want all of the
measures to fail, forcing Edison into bankruptcy court. Then, they believe,
the newly created but still inactive state power authority could step in,
using its $5 billion in untapped bonding authority, and pick up assets of the
utilities on the cheap, thus creating a massive state utility system.
Wheels within wheels, and none of them meshing.

The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or dwalters@sacbee.com
<mailto:dwalters@sacbee.com>.

California selling surplus power at fraction of cost it paid

\
objattph
By Karen Gaudette ASSOCIATED PRESS  July 19, 2001  SAN FRANCISCO ) California
has begun selling power for a fraction of its purchase price as cool weather
creates an abundance of electricity, spending that has been criticized by
some watching the state's power crisis closely.  Power the state bought at an
average of $138 per megawatt is being sold for as little as $1, energy
traders say, though the price is disputed by state officials.  The state
acknowleges the power sales, but says the surplus represented only a blip in
an otherwise typical scorching summer and that blackouts still could roll if
temperatures increase again.

However, the surplus power selloff could encourage criticism that the state
bought too much power at too high a price in its haste to fend off rolling
blackouts and power prices 10 times higher than the year before.  "If the
price is $138 on average for a month and you have to turn around and sell a
chunk of it for a dollar, you're not going to look real good to a number of
people," said Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading
Forum in San Jose.  "I just don't think many people in California truly
understood what their state did when they stepped into this business."
Unlike natural gas, extra electricity cannot be stored away for a later day.
Since Californians haven't been running their air conditioners as often as
expected over the past week, the state hasn't needed the entire 38,000
megawatts it had figured it would need.  The state Department of Water
Resources, in charge of buying power for three financially ailing utilities,
has spent the past few months arming the state with long-term energy
contracts while weaning itself away from buying the highest-priced power on
the last-minute electricity market.  Those contracts, along with last month's
20 percent boost in energy conservation and the temperate weather, mean
there's suddenly more power than Californians can use.  Energy traders say
the state has tried to sell as much as 6,000 megawatts at one time, Ackerman
said.  That's around 16 percent of the 38,000 megawatts the state estimated
it would use around this time of year, Ackerman said. A megawatt is enough
electricity to power roughly 750 homes.  "We know from traders who have
bought that it's gone as low as a dollar and last week we know it was as low
as $5," Ackerman said. "When a seller shows up with an enormous amount of
power for sale and the market knows it, it has a depressing effect on
prices."  California Energy Markets, a trade weekly, said the state sold
power last Thursday at $25 per megawatt ) a price that Steve Maviglio, a
spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said was "much closer to reality."  The state
"never sold anything more than 1,000 megawatts on any single day," Maviglio
said. "(Ackerman) has no evidence" of California selling power for $1,
Maviglio said. "California Energy Markets is much closer to reality."  Oscar
Hidalgo, a DWR spokesman, acknowledged the state has been trying to sell as
much as 20 percent of its daily megawatts, though he would not say at what
price. That could put the state at a disadvantage in the market if
competitors knew how much it was paying, Hidalgo said.  "This is unusual, but
it was anticipated, it is typical in the power buying operation," Hidalgo
said.  "It's better than doing nothing with surplus power," Hidalgo said.
"Scheduling energy is a balancing act because you can't store the item."
Hidalgo said the state is sending some of the extra electricity up to the
Bonneville Power Administration to repay it for power it had loaned
California earlier this year.  "This is not a bad position for us to be in
every once in a while," Hidalgo said. "If someone were to make these
long-term contracts go away, we would fall off a cliff and be back where we
were in January."

PUC reveals plan to transfer much of watchdog role

\
objattph
By Craig D. Rose  UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER  July 19, 2001  The California
Public Utilities Commission laid out a framework yesterday for transferring
much of its watchdog role in ensuring fair electricity rates to the state
Department of Water Resources.  The controversial proposal is in response to
legislation earlier this year that puts the water department in charge of
state power purchases. Utilities commission action is needed to ensure that
the water department has enough revenue to make the purchases and to clarify
areas of responsibility, including oversight of power rates.  Under the draft
agreement made public yesterday, the commission would guarantee that
consumers pay enough to cover interest payments on a planned $13.4 billion
bond sale later this year. The guarantee is considered an essential element
for completing the bond sale.  The bonds' proceeds are needed to repay some
$8 billion the water department already has spent to purchase electricity and
to cover future payments.  California began buying electricity through the
water department earlier this year after the state's utilities were unable to
make purchases because of credit problems brought on by the state's failed
deregulation plan.  No mention was made in the draft agreement of the
possibility of further rate increases to cover electricity purchases. Some
observers have speculated that the current rate structure, even after two
rounds of rate increases, may not cover all costs.  On the other hand, the
draft agreement states that the water department itself will determine if the
prices it pays for electricity meet the legal test of being just and
reasonable, a determination heretofore made by the utilities commission.
Under the utilities commission's procedure, the public is invited to comment
on the draft. An administrative law judge for the commission will consider
the draft before issuing a proposed decision. A full commission vote is
expected Aug. 23, a deadline that would have to be met if the bond offering
is to proceed as planned later this year.  Harvey Rosenfield, president of
the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said the utilities
commission's draft agreement would allow a "secretive agency of dubious
competence controlled by the governor and completely unaccountable to the
public" to unilaterally order rate increases.  "It was deregulation which got
us into the mess we are in today," Rosenfield said. "Now Wall Street is
demanding that the (utilities commission) be forced to surrender its
authority and legal responsibility."  He urged the commission to reject the
draft proposal.  Carl Wood, one of five members of the Public Utilities
Commission, said the draft agreement was driven largely by legislation
empowering the water department as an electricity purchaser. With a state
department buying power, Wood said, oversight shifts to the governor and the
Legislature.  Commissioner Richard Bilas said he saw the agreement as
empowering the water department as "prosecutor, judge and jury" in matters of
electricity purchasing.  "The argument is that it's better off this way than
the way we were," Bilas said. "And that's true in the short run. But what
about in the long term?"

Variety of plans to help Edison find friends, foes

\
objattph
Agreement in Legislature doesn't seem likely soon By Ed Mendel  UNION-TRIBUNE
STAFF WRITER  July 19, 2001  SACRAMENTO -- Plans to aid Southern California
Edison met mixed fates in legislative committees yesterday amid opposition
from business, consumers and Edison itself, which said one of the plans would
not restore its ability to borrow money.  The Senate energy committee
rejected a plan that is tough on Edison, but the committee plans to consider
it again today.  In the Assembly, a committee approved two plans. One has the
support of Democratic leaders, is viewed more favorably by Gov. Gray Davis
and has not drawn opposition from Edison. The other, crafted by the committee
chairman, Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, and Republicans, is supported by
businesses and Edison.  Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton, D-San
Francisco, told an Edison official during a committee hearing that financial
experts have told him repeatedly that bankruptcy is the logical course for
Edison.  "They keep saying they don't understand why a business in your
situation does not avail themselves of that," Burton said.  The Senate leader
told the Edison official not to expect the usual legislative compromises that
would give the utility most of what it is seeking in a rescue plan.  "I want
to disabuse you of the fact that somehow you are going to get some great big
deal at the end of the rainbow," Burton said. "Because you are not going
to."  The Senate and Assembly Democratic leadership plans require businesses
to pay off most or all of Edison's debt, while also preventing businesses
from shopping around for cheaper power. Business groups oppose the plans
because of those provisions.  Davis is pushing for a legislative plan that
would keep Edison from joining Pacific Gas and Electric in bankruptcy. He
wants an Edison rescue plan that could become a model for getting PG&E out of
bankruptcy.  Once their financial health is restored, the utilities could
resume buying power for their customers, allowing the state to get out of the
power-buying business it entered in January, when the utilities were crippled
by a failed deregulation plan and no longer able to borrow money.  But the
lengthy and sometimes emotional debates in legislative committees yesterday
made it clear that reaching an agreement on an Edison rescue plan in the next
few days will not be easy.  A plan that Davis negotiated with Edison in early
April found little support in the Legislature and is not being considered.
Opponents said the plan was too generous to Edison.  But the alternative
rescue plans prepared in the Legislature also are called too generous to
Edison by a consumer group, the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights,
which is threatening to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal any Edison
"bailout."  Edison, on the other hand, fears that it will be saddled with too
much debt and placed under a regulatory system that does not assure lenders
that the utility will be able to pay costs for operating and buying equipment
and power.  "We don't believe this bill in its present form would restore us
to creditworthiness," Bob Foster, an Edison vice president, told a committee
hearing the Senate plan.  The plan by Wright and Republicans was supported by
business groups and Edison but opposed by consumers. All ratepayers would pay
off the Edison debt and businesses would be allowed to shop for cheaper power
as state long-term contracts expire.  "What will come out of the mix is hard
to tell," said Steve Maviglio, Davis' press secretary. "Everyone is working
feverishly to get something passed in the next few days."

Baja is hoping energy squeeze can spark boom

\
objattph
New electricity, gas plants seen spurring a fresh wave of growth By Diane
Lindquist  UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER  July 19, 2001  Energy shortages in
California and Mexico are firing hopes for a new wave of industrial
development in Baja California, where a maquiladora slowdown has cut
thousands of jobs.  The power squeeze has triggered a rush to build
electricity and natural gas projects in Baja California.  Once those plants
are up and running, energy experts and Tijuana boosters say, the state will
be able to make an unusual pitch to global manufacturers: Come to Baja
California, where power is plentiful, reliable and relatively cheap.  "It's a
new frontier for Baja California," said Institute of the Americas president
Paul Boeker, a frontier that "opens up investment opportunities that aren't
possible at the moment."  To seize the possibilities, Tijuana's Economic
Development Corp. is pushing the Baja California government to fund a study
to identify the United States' biggest electricity and natural gas users.
"When we saw the price of energy going up so high in California, we thought
we might be able to use this as a marketing tool," said David Mayagoitia, a
director of the development group.  The hope is that an influx of big-energy
users, such as high-tech firms that operate clean rooms, will offset serious
problems in the region's sputtering maquiladora industry.  Since October,
Baja California has lost 11,700 maquiladora jobs, 4 percent of the sector's
total. In Tijuana alone, 7,600 positions have disappeared.  "I've never seen
so many large and small and medium companies narrow their operations in such
a short amount of time," said Deloitte & Touche accountant Mauricio Munroy.
Maquiladora insiders like Munroy blame the U.S. economic downturn, rising
costs, a strong peso and a new Mexican regulatory regime for reining in the
operations.  Mayagoitia calls it a crisis.  "Our labor costs are going up.
We're not as competitive as other places in the world. We have to look for
other angles."  Over the past three decades, the arrival of foreign-owned
maquiladoras has pushed Baja California's population to 2.5 million and
transformed the state into one of the world's manufacturing hot spots. The
region now ranks as a top producer of televisions and other consumer
electronic products, and many other goods.  There are 1,287 factories in the
state, employing 278,900 workers.  New operators continue to come. Since
October, when employment began dropping, 33 companies have established
factories in the state. Other companies, including Korean electronics giant
Samsung, the state's largest operator, are expanding.  But in the past nine
months, the sector's growth has dropped below its routine double-digit rate.
Some companies, such as Sanyo and Day Runner, have shut factories. Others are
threatening to. And so many have trimmed operations that Munroy said, "I
don't think we can feel comfortable the industry's going to recover."  But
now, California's energy crisis and cross-border power demands could alter
that picture. A natural gas pipeline and three power plants in the works will
boost the state's electricity output by 2,200 megawatts. As much as 1,500
megawatts could flow to California consumers.  Additional plants are
anticipated. Mexican Energy Secretary Ernesto Martens has said there's no
limit to the number that could be built in Baja California. And California
and Mexican officials are considering recruiting energy companies to start
projects in Baja California.  Meanwhile, numerous companies -- El Paso and
Phillips, Sempra, Chevron and Chiyoda among them -- have expressed interest
in building liquid natural gas facilities near Rosarito and Ensenada. The
operations would convert into vapor form liquified natural gas imported from
other regions for use in Mexico and the United States.  Such projects could
give Baja California billions of dollars in investment, thousands of
construction and operating jobs, and a reputation as an energy-abundant place
to do business.  "Large energy consumers could come down here, set up
operations and get a big break on their utilities," Mayagoitia said.
Previously, such operators have shunned Baja California.  "They've always
said electricity down here is not constant. There are too many fluctuations
on the line," Mayagoitia said.  While a bigger supply would overcome that
obstacle, other challenges must be met before the region can use energy as a
marketing tool.  At a San Diego Dialogue forum on energy last week, Boeker
listed the key elements needed to attract the next wave of industrial
development to Baja California. As he sees it, they need at least one liquid
natural gas import facility, to allow power generators to export to
California and sell directly to companies in Baja California, and to upgrade
the cross-border gas and electricity transmission infrastructure.  Mexico
also needs to make sure its business laws and regulations, which in the past
have restricted the energy sector, allow corporations to get the supplies and
prices they need to be competitive, Mayagoitia said.  "We think if the
numbers make sense, and they have confidence that Mexico can deliver what
they need, then we'll have the market niche."

GOP pushes energy bill with billions in tax breaks, emphasis on coal, oil,
nuclear power

\
objattph
By H. Josef Hebert ASSOCIATED PRESS  July 19, 2001  WASHINGTON ) House
Republican leaders hope to pass a broad energy package in the coming weeks
that offers billions of dollars in tax breaks and favors for the coal, oil
and nuclear industries as well as conservation incentives.  Much of the
legislation, which emerged in bits and pieces this week from four House
committees, mirrors ) and in some cases goes beyond ) the energy blueprint
outlined by President Bush two months ago.  House GOP leaders have promised
to enact energy legislation before Congress leaves for its summer recess in
August.  The energy package includes drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, a
top priority of the White House; incentives for technology to allow continued
use of coal for power production; and tax breaks for high-mileage hybrid
gas-electric automobiles.  But in some cases, the House committees have
cleared measures not even sought by the administration.  Within one of the
energy bills is a provision giving some of the largest, most profitable oil
companies a waiver on having to pay the government royalties on oil and gas
taken from new lease areas in the Gulf of Mexico. During the presidential
campaign, Bush opposed such a royalty waiver, which critics claim amounts to
a $7.3 billion windfall to the oil companies.  The House tax-writing
committee, meanwhile, produced $33.5 billion worth of energy-related tax
breaks ) a much broader sweep of tax incentives than Bush has sought ) even
though some Democrats wondered whether there will be money available.  About
half the tax breaks would go to oil, gas and coal industries and an
additional $9 billion was earmarked to promote conservation and energy
efficiency  Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, said the aim was to produced "a balanced package of tax measures"
that helps conservation and development of energy supplies.  But the breath
of the tax incentives went far beyond those proposed by the White House
energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.  In addition to tax
breaks for clean coal initiatives, refineries, pipelines and nuclear power
plants, the committee also approved tax credits on a wide range of
conservation programs, from helping to sell hybrid-fueled cars to making it
cheaper to insulate homes, buy residential solar panels, reduce energy use in
commercial buildings and develop and sell more efficient appliances.  Still,
"overall the (legislative) package is disappointing," said David Nemtzow,
president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a private energy conservation
advocacy group.  While Nemtzow praised the tax writers for some of their
provisions, he said big-ticket energy saving items ) such as a major increase
in automobile fuel economy and tougher appliance standards ) were largely
rejected in other energy legislation advanced to the House floor this week.
The disagreements over energy efficiency, a fight Democrats pledged to
continue when the legislation is considered by the full House, was apparent
during the Energy and Commerce Committee's crafting of its energy bill.  A
proposal to boost the federal corporate average fuel economy standard, or
CAFE, from the current 27.5 mpg to 37.5 mpg was soundly defeated, 43-11.
Another fuel economy increase and an attempt to force the Bush administration
to accept a more stringent federal air conditioner standard also fell by
similar margins.  Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the committee chairman, dismissed
the criticism. He called the legislation that emerged from committee by a
50-5 vote a "landmark conservation bill" that for the first time in years has
Congress taking steps to increase motor vehicle fuel economy.  The bill
requires that CAFE standards for light trucks be adjusted to reduce gasoline
consumption by new sport utility vehicles and minivans by 5 billion gallons
over six years. Critics called that far too little, noting that the gasoline
savings over six years would amount to about what all cars and trucks consume
in two weeks.  The Bush administration's biggest victory came in the
Resources Committee, where Democrats failed 19-29 to strip the legislation of
a provision that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge in northeastern Alaska.  Opponents vowed to kill the provision on the
House floor, where Democrats will be joined by many moderate Republicans in
opposing it. Senate Democrats also have said no Arctic refuge drilling
measure would pass.  Nevertheless, Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, sponsor of the
legislation, said he was optimistic. "It's a selling job," he said, noting
that with the various energy bills before the full House, "we're now down to
serious business."

Edison May Avert Bankruptcy Filing
Energy: Thanks to a rate increase and natural gas price drop, the utility's
improved cash flow may cover its electricity costs.
By JERRY HIRSCH
Times Staff Writer

July 20 2001

For the first time in months, Southern California Edison is collecting more
money than it is spending on electricity, a shift that could enable the
utility to avoid bankruptcy without a state intervention as dramatic as the
proposed $2.8-billion purchase of the company's transmission lines.

The turnabout has come during the last several weeks as natural gas prices--a
major component in the cost of electricity--have plummeted and as Edison has
collected more money from customers through a record increase in rates
approved by state regulators.

The utility this month expects to collect more than it will spend on
electricity--the first time that has happened since the state's power crunch
started in May 2000. If the trend holds, Edison would be able to cover
several hundred million dollars in losses that piled up after Feb. 1 from its
purchases of electricity, said executives at the Rosemead-based company.

Edison's relief comes against a backdrop in which the California power crisis
appears to be easing, as consumers conserve energy, new power plants come
online and wholesale prices moderate from the high levels of last winter.

The executives said that barring an unusually severe heat wave, which would
prompt customers to crank up energy-guzzling air conditioners, or another
spike in natural gas prices, Edison by early next year also could make
payments on a proposed bond offering to pay down its $3.5 billion in debt
from energy purchases before Feb. 1.

Creditors of the utility and consultants working with the governor's office
agree that such a scenario could mean that Edison would be able to stay out
of U.S. Bankruptcy Court without the state buying the company's transmission
lines, which is a key element in Gov. Gray Davis' now-stalled proposal to
rescue the utility.

Jim Scilacci, the utility's chief financial officer, has hinted at improving
company finances during conference calls with creditors holding $931 million
in defaulted bonds and notes in recent weeks. Investors have responded
positively, boosting the company's depressed stock price about 45% in the
last six weeks to a Thursday close of $14.70 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Although Edison's cash flow may be enough to cover its electricity costs, its
huge debts keep it far from solvency. Moreover, the company still faces two
wild cards in its fight to avoid bankruptcy: California's own claims on that
cash and the utility's uncertain prospects of gaining state approval to use
the money to repay its debts.

The Department of Water Resources is buying electricity for 27 million
Californians served by Edison and the state's two other regulated utilities.
The agency could disclose as soon as today how big a slice it will take from
Edison's rate collections to repay a proposed $13.4-billion bond offering to
cover the state's purchases.

The water agency began buying electricity from private generators in January,
after Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the Northern California utility,
became mired in debt. PG&E went on to file for bankruptcy protection in April.

"What this means for Edison all depends on how much money it can keep," said
Paul Patterson, an analyst with investment bank ABN Amro in New York.

The water department's requirements could eat up much of the margin that has
provided Edison with its small cushion this month. However, Joseph Fichera,
chief executive of Saber Partners, which is advising the governor, said the
latest numbers indicate that there is enough money in current rates to
implement the governor's plan to pay for the utility's debt as well as the
state's current and future power purchases.

Even if the water department allocation still left room for Edison to pay off
its debts, such a course of action would require approval by the state
Legislature and the Public Utilities Commission. Although energy trends
appear to allow the utility to regain its financial footing, analysts
cautioned that the utility still could find itself in Bankruptcy Court if the
state doesn't provide a method for Edison to pay its debts.

"While we might be able to cover our costs going forward, it is equally
important that we have a way to pay off that $3.5-billion debt," said Brian
Bennett, an Edison vice president. "But without knowing what [the water
department's] revenue needs are, we won't know what is left over in rates to
cover our costs."

Bennett blamed the utility's so-called under-collection--debts that piled up
as frozen consumer rates could not cover soaring wholesale electricity
costs--on what he called "flawed regulatory policies."

Based on recent energy prices, Bennett said, "We are just only beginning to
repay the under-collection."

The recently enacted rate increases, which kicked in last month, have pushed
what Edison can charge customers for the electricity component of their bills
from about 7 cents a kilowatt-hour to 10.27 cents.

At the same time, declining natural gas prices have sliced in half what the
utility must pay to a group of small and alternative-energy companies that
generate about 27% of its electricity needs. Edison, for example, paid this
group 18.6 cents a kilowatt-hour in February. That dropped to 13.6 cents by
May and now stands at about 7.5 cents. Each penny decline in the cost of
electricity from this group of generators represents more than $200 million
in savings for Edison on an annual basis.

Bennett cautioned that if the water department requires additional funds or
if Edison's energy costs were to turn upward again, "then rates once again
may not be adequate to cover our generation costs. It is therefore imperative
that this uncertainty in the rate structure be cured now so we establish
predictable, stable rates for our customers."

Three plans to aid Edison to varying degrees are working their way through
the Legislature, though late Thursday it appeared none would be approved
before lawmakers adjourn for a summer recess. Several legislators have said
they are content to let Edison join PG&E in bankruptcy.

Any plan that would allow Edison to use a portion of the rates it is
collecting to pay off a bond offering would meet the objection of some
consumer groups, which label the concept a corporate bailout.

"Just as the utilities gambled on deregulation and were winners at first,
Edison now has to be responsible for its losses," said Harvey Rosenfield,
president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica.
He said Bankruptcy Court is the most appropriate place for Edison to resolve
its financial problems.

Several creditors of the utility, however, said that as long as Edison can
tread water or even work down its debts, there is little incentive to put the
company into bankruptcy, which would only add another legal layer and more
expenses to an exceptionally complicated situation.

Creditors could move against the company if they believed its finances were
declining and thus shrinking the amount of cash and assets that could be
distributed in a bankruptcy proceeding. They also could put Edison into
involuntary bankruptcy if some creditors exacted payment from the company
ahead of others that are owed money.
Copyright 2001, Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com>

Summer blackout seers missing the mark -- so far
Blackout visions only bad dreams
WHAT OUTAGES? State efforts paying off
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/20/MN215347.DTL>
Months ago, the experts said there might be a blackout today.
If not today, then probably this week.
Well, most likely this month.
If not, then for sure sometime this summer, so Californians had better unplug
the toaster and pray for rain because there are going to be 260 hours of
blackouts this summer. Or more.
It's starting to feel like the day after Y2K around here.
An unexpected thing happened on the way to California's summer of darkness -
- nothing. Zero blackouts this summer, thanks to Gray-friendly skies and
Californians conserving power in record amounts.
Now the state is so flush with power that it's selling back the surplus at a
loss. Even Disneyland has cranked up its flashy Electrical Parade again.
Still, the doomsayers aren't backpedaling, merely clarifying their fevered
springtime predictions. Like Michael Zenker, of Cambridge Research
Associates.
"I think (the reporter) was asking me to speculate," Zenker said of his
comment in May that there could be hundreds of hours of darkness this summer.
Officially, he said, his organization predicted 20 to 40 hours of blackouts.
And it doesn't plan to adjust that figure. "We've decided not to do any live
forecasting," Zenker said.
Who knew what the summer would bring? Not California's power officials. The
state's Department of Water Resources was in such a blackout-fearing frenzy
earlier this year that it purchased too much power. So, over the past few
days,
the state has been forced to sell power it bought for as much $133 per
megawatt for between $15 and $30, department spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said
yesterday.
"If you would have told us last winter that there would be a week in July
that there would be a surplus of power, a lot of people would have had smiles
on their faces," Hidalgo said.
That isn't the only fallout from the summer of surprising light. A group of
California business and development leaders worries that the rest of the
country is asking the same misinformed question as your Aunt Minnie in
Cleveland: "How do all you people in California work by candlelight all the
time?"
That kind of ignorance cost a Hewlett-Packard manufacturing plant in
Roseville some business two months ago. A longtime Midwestern customer was so
afraid that his company's order wouldn't be filled on time because of
blackouts that he sent his business to an HP plant in California's energy
nemesis: Texas.
"If that company thought that way, then how many others back East are
thinking that way?" said Ken Larson, a spokesman for Hewlett-Packard. He is
helping a $150,000, six-month promotional campaign called the Power of
California, which will send economic and business leaders across the country
to counter the misrepresentation that blackouts are a part of daily life in
the Golden State. The campaign is being funded mostly with private money.
Looking back, there was no shortage of blackout Henny Pennys last spring.
The North American Electrical Reliability Council predicted 260 hours of
darkness. The Bay Area Economic Council said there would be a blackout every
business day this summer.
Neither organization regrets yelling "Blackout!" in a crowded state.
"At the time (March), there was good reason to expect that things would be
that bad," said Sean Randolph, president of the Bay Area Economic Forum, a
group of public and private leaders.
"Without that elevation of public consciousness, we wouldn't have gotten the
demand change (conservation) that we expected."
Others resorted to two favorite scapegoats: the weather and the media.
"The headlines on blackouts were around last summer," said Ellen Vancko, a
spokeswoman for the North American Electrical Reliability Council in New
Jersey. "You should check out your own paper."
Besides, Vancko said, nobody could have predicted that temperatures would
remain at or below average in California's major cities.
Actually, temperatures were 1.3 degrees above normal at San Francisco
International Airport in June and 3 degrees above normal in most Central
Valley cities. And yet, no blackouts.
Nearly every forecaster cautions that summer is only half over and the
hottest part of the season lies ahead.
"Conservation is still important," said Stephanie McCorkle, a spokeswoman for
the California Independent System Operator, which runs the state's power
grid. She offered a prediction on when Californians could relax about the
threat of blackouts.
"At the first frost," she said. "November, maybe?"
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 1

State advisers forced to sell energy stocks
CONFLICT: Holdings called unethical
Mark Martin, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:mmartin@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/20/MN75216.DTL>
Sacramento -- One consultant hired by the state to negotiate long-term
electricity contracts owned stock in a company that signed billion-dollar
deals with California.
Another fresh hire bought more than $10,000 in stock in Enron Corp. -- the
Houston power trader frequently vilified by Gov. Gray Davis and lawmakers --
as he helped the state develop electricity buying strategy.
A top Davis lawyer told the two consultants and seven others on Wednesday
morning to sell off stock in companies like Enron and Calpine Corp. within
four hours or lose their jobs.
Having a financial interest in electric companies while working for the state
on power issues was not ethical, said Barry Goode, Davis' legal affairs
secretary, in a memo.
All nine complied with the directive, said Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio
said, but controversy intensified yesterday over whether some of the state's
hired guns managing the energy crisis have conflicts of interest.
The stock investments have come to light in the past week as 35 consultants
hired by the state to buy and schedule power and to negotiate energy
contracts have submitted documents detailing their personal finances.
Most of the consultants who owned stock list their jobs as schedulers --
those who schedule electricity deliveries after power has been purchased.
But others more directly involved with power trading also owned stock in
energy companies, documents show.
Richard Ferreira earns $200 an hour to help negotiate and manage the state's
long-term contracts with power companies. He started his job Jan. 31.
According to Ferreira's financial statement, he owned between $2,000 and
$10,000 worth of stock in Calpine Corp. -- the company based in San Jose that
announced on Feb. 28 it had signed two long-term contracts with the state
worth $8.3 billion.
Ferreira could not be reached for comment, and spokesmen for the Department
of Water Resources, which hired the consultants, said he did not know if
Ferreira worked on the Calpine contracts.
Another consultant, Richard Nichols, bought between $10,000 and $100,000
worth of stock in Enron in April -- more than three months after his company
signed on with the state to help "in the procurement of power supplies,"
according to his job description. The stock buy came at a time when the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was taking a hard line against wholesale
electricity price caps for California.
Nichols' company, Navigant Consulting, Inc., could make as much as $800,000
for its work for the state this year. Nichols could not be reached for
comment.
Citing invoices from Controller Kathleen Connell's office, Secretary of State
Bill Jones, an announced GOP candidate for governor, argued that there are at
least seven other Navigant employees who are billing the state for work on
energy issues. None of them have disclosed their financial interests.
Jones said he takes issue with the Davis administration's decisions on who
should file financial statements and who should be exempt.
FINANCES NOT DISCLOSED
Several consultants, including two Wall Street firms that made $275,000 a
month to negotiate the state's attempts to bail out troubled public
utilities, have not disclosed their finances because Davis officials have
concluded they do not fit the definition of a consultant.
Jones has suggested that the state's long-term deals with several companies
to deliver electricity might be invalid if negotiators had a financial stake
in those companies.
Maviglio said Davis officials were investigating whether there had been any
direct conflicts. The state attorney general's office and the state's Fair
Political Practices Commission also are reviewing Jones' allegations.
Maviglio and a spokesman for the state's Department of Water and Power could
not say yesterday whether new employees were asked before they were hired
whether they had any financial stake in the energy market.
STOCKS SOLD VOLUNTARILY
But some consultants acknowledged a potential conflict and got rid of stocks
before this week. In his filing, Mark Skowdronski reports owning more than
$10,000 worth of Reliant Energy stocks when he began his job in March of
negotiating long-term contracts for the state. When he was given the task of
negotiating with Reliant, he said he sold his stock on March 20.
Jones has stopped short of accusing anyone of criminal activity. And a letter
from Attorney General Bill Lockyer to Jones notes that the consultants would
have to own more than 3 percent of a company they dealt with to be prosecuted
criminally.
Maviglio said the accusations come from a man who is launching his run for
Davis' job next year.
"This is all politics," said Steve Maviglio, Davis' press secretary. "We're
following the law."
He said that when the state was forced to enter the business of buying power
earlier this year, officials had to quickly hire people who knew the energy
business, including some who still had investments in power companies.
"If you want a plumber, you hire a guy who has plumbing experience," Maviglio
said.
E-mail Mark Martin at markmartin@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:markmartin@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 1

Democrats defy Davis with bill on PUC
Utilities panel would keep power over rates
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau <mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/20/
MN222719.DTL>
Sacramento -- Lawmakers moved with lightning speed yesterday to undo a plan
that would force California regulators to raise electricity rates whenever
state power buyers deem it necessary.
A hastily introduced bill pits Democratic lawmakers against the
administration of Gov. Gray Davis, which is counting on the state Public
Utilities Commission to approve rate increases to pay for electricity without
questioning whether the state got a good price.
Historically, utilities bought their electricity and asked the PUC to approve
rate hikes. The PUC decided whether the requests were justified.
But with the utilities now deeply in debt and the state buying electricity,
the old system has broken down. This week, the PUC issued a draft agreement
that would guarantee the state would get as much money as it needs to pay for
the electricity it is buying.
Consumer advocates said the proposed agreement would force the PUC to cede
its responsibility to protect customers from unreasonable rate increases.
Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, called the agreement
"overreaching" by the governor's Department of Water Resources, which is
buying the state's power.
Under Burton's bill, consumers would still have to repay $13.4 billion in
bonds that the state plans to float to cover its purchases. But the bill
would allow the PUC to scrutinize the state's expenses beyond those covered
by the bond -- costs mounting to billions of dollars over the next 15 to 20
years.
The bill passed out of two committees with bipartisan support yesterday and
now faces a vote by the full Senate. Both business and consumer groups
expressed their support for the measure.
"This is better for ratepayers," said Lenny Goldberg of the Utility Reform
Network. "It makes the bond issue secure and gives a chance to look into all
of the contracts."
PUC Commissioner Richard Bilas said some change is needed to restore
commission oversight.
"The only check and balance on the Department of Water Resources as it is
would be the governor," Bilas said. "I think it takes a different branch of
government to do that oversight."
But Bruce Van Dusen, a lawyer hired by the Department of Water Resources,
said Burton's bill could delay the bond sale and jeopardize the general fund.
The concern is that while Burton's bill guarantees that the bond issue would
be repaid, it does not spell out how all the long-term electricity contracts
that the state has signed will be covered. The contracts stipulate that the
generators will be paid through electricity rates.
Chronicle staff writer Bernadette Tansey contributed to this report. / E-mail
Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 19

Developments in California's energy crisis
The Associated Press
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/20/state
1023EDT0173.DTL>
(07-20) 07:23 PDT (AP) --
Developments in California's energy crisis:
FRIDAY:
* No power alerts Friday as electricity reserves stay above 7 percent.
THURSDAY:
* Legislators continue struggling with competing versions of a plan crafted
by Gov. Gray Davis to rescue Southern California Edison from bankruptcy.
Davis' plan, announced in April, offers Edison $2.76 billion for its
transmission system and lets the utility issue revenue bonds to repay the
rest of their debts. Edison is estimated to have amassed $3.5 billion in
debts from record-high wholesale electricity prices to customers. A competing
bill by Speaker Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblyman Fred Keeley,
D-Boulder Creek, would trims at least $300 million from the governor's offer,
and also would allow Edison to issue the bonds, which would be repaid by
Edison ratepayers over a decade.
* Pacific Gas and Electric Co. decides to extend contracts to buy electricity
from 131 small power plants for the next five years, the utility announced
Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. As part of the deal, the utility also will
pay those power plants $740 million for unpaid electricity deliveries they
had made to PG&E before it filed for federal bankruptcy protection on April
6. The power plants throughout the state, which largely harness energy from
the sun, wind, biomass and natural gas to produce electricity in
environmentally friendly ways, agreed to supply PG&E with nearly 3,000
megawatts of power for 5.37 cents per kilowatt hour on average.
* Assemblyman John Campbell sends a letter to the director of the Department
of Water Resources, demanding to know how much surplus power the state is
selling and at what price. Since January, the state has bought electricity
for the customers of three financially ailing utilities. Cooler July
temperatures than expected have led to a sudden surplus of power, which
energy traders say is being sold for more than $100 less than it was bought.
State officials say the extra power shows the state planned ahead well, and
that if the weather heats up, it will be prepared.
* In sharp contrast to a poll released in May, Californians now say that
although the state needs power, nuclear energy is not a safe enough source.
The poll, released Thursday by the Public Policy Institute of California,
showed that 55 percent of residents believe nuclear power is too dangerous,
even if building more nuclear power plants would help alleviate the country's
energy problems. In a Field Institute poll of 1,015 adults released in May,
59 percent of Californians favored nuclear power and 36 percent were opposed.
* PG&E Corp. shares rise 30 cents to close at $15.40. Shares of Edison
International rise 25 cents to close at $14.70. Sempra shares rise 65 cents
to close at $27.12.
* No power alerts Thursday as electricity reserves stay above 7 percent.
* The Senate and Assembly are expected to vote on competing versions of deals
to rescue Southern California Edison from bankruptcy. Legislators are trying
to clear their agendas before leaving for a monthlong summer break.
WHAT'S NEXT:
* The Department of Water Resources, the state agency that since January has
been buying electricity for the customers of three financially ailing
utilities, is set to release on Friday numbers that will indicate whether
state power regulators will need to order an electric rate increase so the
state can recoup its power buying and administrative costs.
THE PROBLEM:
High demand, high wholesale energy costs, transmission glitches and a tight
supply worsened by scarce hydroelectric power in the Northwest and
maintenance at aging California power plants are all factors in California's
electricity crisis.
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric say they've lost
nearly $14 billion since June 2000 to high wholesale prices the state's
electricity deregulation law bars them from passing on to consumers. PG&E,
saying it hasn't received the help it needs from regulators or state
lawmakers, filed for federal bankruptcy protection April 6. Electricity and
natural gas suppliers, scared off by the companies' poor credit ratings, are
refusing to sell to them, leading the state in January to start buying power
for the utilities' nearly 9 million residential and business customers. The
state is also buying power for a third investor-owned utility, San Diego Gas
& Electric, which is in better financial shape than much larger Edison and
PG&E but is also struggling with high wholesale power costs.
The Public Utilities Commission has approved average rate increases of 37
percent for the heaviest residential customers and 38 percent for commercial
customers, and hikes of up to 49 percent for industrial customers and 15
percent or 20 percent for agricultural customers to help finance the state's
multibillion-dollar power buys.

Energy Secretary to speak at forum on California energy crisis
KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/20/state
0328EDT0124.DTL>
(07-20) 00:28 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham spent only a few minutes addressing
California's power woes as he spoke to an audience of business leaders and
city representatives who have seen blackouts roll through their factories and
technology firms.
California's power woes will not be solved with conservation and increased
reliance on renewable energy alone, Abraham told the crowd of local business
leaders in echoing statements from other Bush administration officials.
"If you don't have enough energy supply you face the threat of blackouts,"
Abraham said. He devoted the rest of his speech promoting key aspects of the
Bush administrations energy plan.
The nation needs to expand and improve its electricity transmission system to
make sure power can get where it needs to go, unimpaired by political and
geographical borders, Abraham said.
"It's not just enough to just have an adequate supply. It has to be
reliable," Abraham told the crowd.
Abraham urged the technology industry to focus on developing methods to move
power more efficiently, and added that charging more for power at certain
times of day would trigger more conservation than the government urging the
public to cut back usage.
He praised the efforts of Washington State-based Puget Sound Energy to bill
its ratepayers more if they used electricity during times of highest demand
-- when electricity is most expensive -- to encourage them to conserve or
shift their factory production or laundry to cheaper hours of the day.
Rather than relying solely on distant power plants for electricity, Abraham
hopes homes and businesses will soon run their appliances on power they might
produce in their own backyards and parking lots.
Abraham arrived in San Francisco after telling a crowd of Hispanic community
advocates in Milwaukee that the Bush administration saw partnerships with
neighboring countries, including Mexico, as essential to developing untapped
energy sources.
Abraham's speeches around the country coincide with a House Republican effort
to approve broad-ranging energy legislation before the end of the month when
Congress leaves for its summer recess.
The GOP's energy package would offer billions of dollars in tax breaks and
favors for the coal, oil and nuclear industries as well as conservation
incentives. That plan is similar and in some cases exceeds the energy
blueprint outlined by President Bush two months ago.
The package of legislation includes drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge;
incentives for technology to allow continued use of coal for power
production; and tax breaks for high-mileage hybrid gas-electric automobiles.
It exceeds the Bush plan in a provision that gives some of the largest, most
profitable oil companies a waiver on having to pay the government royalties
on oil and gas taken from new lease areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Bush opposed
the royalty waiver, which critics claim amounts to a $7.3 million windfall to
the oil companies.
Vice President Dick Cheney is also visiting cities around the country
promoting the Bush energy plan, fearing it is losing steam as gas prices and
other energy costs continue to slide.
Both the Bush plan and the House's energy package have been criticized by
environmental groups as being too soft on expanding energy efficiency and
conservation programs and too easy on extending tax breaks to energy
companies.
Some of the criticisms stem from Cheney's refusal to identify all the
industry leaders who met with the energy task forced chaired by the vice
president which developed the Bush energy policy.
,2001 Associated Press

Energy secretary in S.F. to push Bush program
Abraham says supply is the key, not conservation
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:dbaker@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/20/
MN238054.DTL>
In San Francisco to stump for President Bush's energy plans, Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham yesterday praised California's conservation efforts but
insisted that frugality alone would not solve the power crisis.
Abraham, speaking to a group of Bay Area business leaders, warned against the
perception that the crisis is lessening even though rolling blackouts haven't
materialized this summer as expected.
"There's a pervasive myth," he told people at the Bay Area Council's annual
dinner at the San Francisco Hilton on O'Farrell Street. "It's the idea that
we have no real energy crisis, or if we do, it can be overcome with
conservation."
He insisted that California and the rest of the country still need to
increase power production, decrease dependence on foreign oil and fix an
inadequate electricity transmission system -- key elements of the
administration's plan.
"We've not only got to have more supply, it has to be reliable," he said.
Abraham also delivered a pitch aimed straight at some of the technology
companies with representatives at the dinner, saying the government needed
their help to create a radically different power system in decades to come.
He described a future in which superconductors would make energy transmission
more efficient, with electricity flowing easily across the country through a
"transmission superhighway."
The United States would join Canada and Mexico in hemispheric power planning,
and consumers would have their own home generators and sell power back to the
grid. He also suggested that environmentally friendly hydrogen fuel devices
could one day replace much of the need for gas and oil.
"I challenge high-tech to embrace this agenda, to fight for this agenda, and
apply your genius to it," Abraham said.
His address came as the federal government's latest broad energy bill --
including new fuel economy requirements for sport utility vehicles and
subsidies for clean coal technology -- was sent to the House of
Representatives floor. Although the proposal received substantial bipartisan
support in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, many Democrats have
argued that it does not do enough to promote conservation.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. / E-mail David R. Baker at
dbaker@sfchronicle.com <mailto:dbaker@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 19

More energy fallout
 <mailto:chronfeedback@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/20/
ED56451.DTL>
THEY SAY nothing is fair in love and war. It isn't. But nor is it fair when
it comes to energy.
In Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney, champion of the drill-and-burn
industry, asks the Navy to foot the electric bills for his mansion.
At the same time, the vice president refuses to disclose the costs incurred
by his energy task force or to reveal the hot shots from the oil and gas
industry who helped shape its final policies.
Closer to home, California residents brace for the aftershocks of the energy
crisis. With the state now locked into secret, long-term and costly energy
contracts, it is the public -- not the energy suppliers who made out like
bandits -- who will be burdened by the billions spent purchasing electricity.
At present, only 39 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Gov. Gray
Davis has handled this crisis. Approval may drop even lower when California
residents absorb the astonishing news that we suddenly enjoy an energy
surplus and that our state is now selling it on a glutted market.
Add to the disgruntled those folks who were already in the habit of shutting
off lights and lowering their thermostats. For them, the mail brought no 20
percent rebate on their electricity bill. It is the watt hogs, who never
lowered the air conditioner and left lights burning all over their homes,
whose paltry efforts netted them the governor's award.
Give the governor credit for keeping the lights on in California. But his
less-than- bold decisions will result in serious political and economic
consequences. Soon, we will have to confront the grave reality that we have
mortgaged many of our dreams ( for expanded health care, improved education
and support for the mentally ill ( for a future burdened by crushing debt.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 24

Wilson says Davis ignored warnings about energy
Former governor defends himself
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
<mailto:cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com>
Friday, July 20, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/20/
MN187903.DTL>
Former Gov. Pete Wilson, who signed the controversial 1996 energy
deregulation bill into law, blasted his successor Gray Davis yesterday for
failing to aggressively use the governor's most forceful tool -- emergency
powers -- to contain the state's energy crisis.
"There are people who have ignored the supply and tried to blame the crisis
on everyone else," the Republican former governor told nearly 100 academics
and reporters at the Public Policy Institute in San Francisco yesterday.
Arguing that Davis ignored early warnings about brewing problems and "put in
jeopardy parks, schools and other capital needs," Wilson said the Democratic
governor has skillfully engaged in finger-pointing and public relations to
blur perception of the current energy troubles.
"They've sought to blame me, and have done so with some success. . . . And
they've found a much more profitable and exciting target, President Bush,"
said Wilson, who wryly pronounced Bush's recent trip to California as "a
triumph -- for Davis."
But Davis' strategy, he said, "doesn't create one watt of new power."
Wilson's speech -- his toughest public remarks to date on the energy crisis
-- came the day the Public Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank,
released polls showing Californians now believe energy ranks far and away as
the state's most pressing problem. Many of those voters blame Wilson, not
Davis, for the power shortages and rolling blackouts, the poll shows.
The former governor's sharp words were rejected by Davis' senior political
adviser, Garry South, who said Wilson is trying to "revise history."
"If there is one shred of evidence that Pete Wilson said one thing or raised
one red flag about energy supply, let him produce it," South said yesterday.
"Pete Wilson accusing Gov. Davis of being responsible (for energy) is like
Herbert Hoover blaming FDR for the Depression. We're trying to clean up his
mess."
The GOP former two-term governor spoke on the issue of California energy as
members of the Bush administration fanned out across the nation, including a
California trip by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, to push the White
House's energy policy.
But even the president appeared to point the finger at Wilson for some of
California's problems. "They hadn't built a power plant in 12 years" in
California, Bush told reporters Wednesday. "And guess what? When you grow
your state the way they have . . . it creates problems."
Such words chafe Wilson, who produced California Energy Commission figures
that, he said, showed that small plants were built during his administration.
In fact, he argued, the 1996 deregulation bill encouraged energy producers to
seek state approval for new plants.
While acknowledging the 1996 bill he signed was "flawed," Wilson said, "I
thought the flaws would be addressed."
"We knew it was not a perfect free market mechanism," said Wilson, adding
that he had strong reservations about the utility rate caps included in the
legislation. "(That) was a gamble, but it was one that paid off for while."
But, he insisted, the bill -- which critics say kicked off California's
energy woes -- had benefits for the state.
Wilson said it was believed deregulation would spur private industry to build
new plants that would fuel industry and "lots of jobs for Californians."
Deregulation was also seen as a means to balance power companies' concerns
about a lengthy, "nightmarish" process -- which he said dated to the early
1970s -- to build large power plants.
Davis "is now posing in front of those plants" opening because of decisions
made before he took office, Wilson noted. "I hope that he's pleased with our
handiwork."
Wilson, also lambasted Davis for failing to heed 1998 warnings from the
California Energy Commission about coming blackouts.
And, Wilson said, as the state faced rolling blackouts, job losses, and
skyrocketing energy costs, Davis failed to use one of his greatest tools in a
crisis: emergency powers.
Wilson noted that after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, estimates suggested
it would take 2 1/2 years to rebuild downed freeways and overpasses. He used
his emergency powers to offer incentives to contractors that rebuilt the
bridges within 65 days.
South, noting that Davis has used his emergency powers to deal with the
energy crisis, said there is no comparison between an earthquake and a full-
blown statewide energy crisis.
E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 19

California buzzing with power - but for how long?
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Gray skies, chill fog, unseasonable rain, and
moderate temperatures might not make for a perfect California summer -- but
this year, it is exactly what the sun-loving state was praying for.
With power supplies critically short and forecasts of summer blackouts
swirling, California headed into the hot months geared up for repeated power
outages that threatened to throw the West Coast into chaos.
But a state that prides itself in defying prediction has done it again,
sailing through the first weeks of summer with so much power it is selling
its excess on the open market.
``Various forecasters have predicted various horror stories, and we have got
through the summer so far without blackouts,'' said Steve Maviglio, spokesman
for Gov. Gray Davis -- who has staked his career on beating the blackouts.
``But the situation is unpredictable, and the weather is the most
unpredictable thing of all.''
No one is saying California's energy crisis is over. The state is still
struggling to control the wreckage of its power deregulation scheme, a 1996
policy which was supposed to bring lower power prices and more consumer
choice. Instead it sparked spiraling wholesale power costs, a major utility
bankruptcy, critical power shortages, and six days of blackouts between
January and May.
The last outages swept the state May 8, unplugging tens of thousands of
customers in what industry experts warned was the first of as many as 260
hours of summer blackouts.
The absence of new blackouts has been attributed to consumer conservation
among the state's 34 million residents, improved power supplies, increased
federal price controls and above all, the unexpected blessing of a dreary
summer.
``Mother Nature has been very, very kind to us,'' said Severin Borenstein,
director of the University of California Energy Institute.
While temperatures have been several degrees lower than normal over the past
few days throughout California, meteorologists say the summer so far has
actually been marginally warmer than most.
But the state has so far escaped the governor's worst nightmare -- a searing
stretch of extremely hot days that sends people running to their air
conditioners.
``Temperatures have been nominally above normal, but you haven't had a lot of
extremely hot days. If it's only moderately warm, the state can deal with
it,'' said Ed O'Lenic of the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction
Center. ''The cloudiness and the precipitation has probably helped.''
The cooperative weather has been matched by Californians' own conservation
efforts. Electricity use, adjusted for economic and population growth and
weather, has been falling steadily every month this year, culminating in a
12.3 percent savings in June compared with the year-ago level.
Conservation during the critical peak demand hours, when the threat of
blackouts is greatest, cut use an even more significant 14.1 percent -- a
saving of some 5,570 megawatts, or the equivalent of five big nuclear power
plants.
The energy picture -- further improved by three new power plants -- has
boosted supplies to such a degree that California recently found itself
selling extra power on the open market.
Locked in to long-term purchasing contracts and unable to store the
electricity, California has dumped excess power for prices far lower than it
paid, leaving consumer groups fuming.
Officials dismiss the complaints as absurd, noting the amount of power
involved is ``inconsequential'' and stressing the entire state's power supply
could tip back into crisis within 24 hours of the start of a heat wave.
``After being blasted for blackouts, I am very happy to be criticized for
having a tiny bit too much,'' said David Freeman, Davis' chief energy
adviser.
The question now is whether California will be able to keep up its energy
balancing act for the rest of the summer.
The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), an industry group
which projected the 260 hours of blackouts this summer, has conceded those
forecasts might have been high. But it points to continued problems dogging
California's energy system including transmission bottlenecks, and inadequate
power generation.
Officials and industry analysts say the biggest danger the state faces is a
sudden change in the weather, followed closely by a relaxation of consumer
conservation efforts.
Those worries are increased by the fact that August and September are
historically the hottest months across the most heavily-populated areas of
California, where late autumn heat waves are not uncommon.
``When we get the three-day, West-wide heat wave we are in deep trouble, and
it is very likely we will get that sort of a heat wave at some point,''
Borenstein said.
Vancko of NERC said the current spate of good news about California's power
situation could soon be a memory. ``Nobody thinks this is more than a
temporary respite,'' she said. ``We may have dodged the bullet but we haven't
bitten it.''

Western Utilities Appeal To Protect Their Customers California Bail-Out by
FERC Threatens to Increase Bills for Millions of Customers

July 20, 2001    <JavaScript:userButton(> <JavaScript:userButton(>  BELLEVUE,
Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 19, 2001 via NewsEdge Corporation -  West-wide
price controls on electricity implemented June 19 by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission threaten to prolong the energy crisis affecting the
West, according to petitions filed today with FERC by utilities serving
millions of customers.  If not revised, the price controls will quickly
result in higher bills for those customers.  "The FERC action in June was
focused solely on solving the immediate crisis in California," said Tim
Hogan, Puget Sound Energy's vice president, External Affairs. "The unintended
consequence is that it has aggravated the crisis for utilities and their
customers in surrounding states, as we experienced during the early July
blackouts in Nevada." In addition, one western utility, Avista Corp. of
Spokane, Wash., on July 18 announced a 37 percent power cost surcharge filing
as a direct result of the FERC price controls.  In today's FERC filing, Puget
Sound Energy said price controls are discouraging new generating facilities
and demand-side management programs in the West, which will cause the current
shortage of power to continue, resulting in extended periods of high consumer
costs. Already, more than 1,300 megawatts of planned new generation for the
region have been cancelled due to the effects of the price controls.
Utilities routinely sell on the wholesale market excess power and rely on
those sales to offset purchases they have to make when their customers need
additional power. The price controls, as currently structured, threaten to
force utilities to sell power at a loss, resulting in additional costs that
will have to be passed on to their customers.  "Puget Sound Energy customers,
as well as those of other utilities, are the ones who are at risk of paying
the price for the California bail-out under the current FERC plan," Hogan
said. "Our ability to continue the successful effort to balance our energy
portfolio and keep customers' rates stable has been damaged during the rush
to solve California's problem."  PSE and other utilities filing today asked
FERC to review its June 19 order and make modifications to the price controls
that will not only stabilize wholesale prices in California, but also prevent
the crisis from spreading to other states. The recommended changes would
allow the market to set prices that would encourage new generation and allow
utilities to effectively manage their energy purchases and sales so their
customers would not pay higher costs.  CONTACT: Puget Sound Energy | Media
Relations | Grant Ringel, 888/831-7250 | or | Investor Relations | Julie
Williams, 425/462-3808

National Desk; Section A
Rate Proposal For Electricity In California

07/20/2001
The New York Times
Page 15, Column 1
c. 2001 New York Times Company
SAN FRANCISCO, July 19 -- A proposed agreement between state regulators and
the agency that buys electricity for millions of Californians would allow the
state to raise electric rates without outside review.
The California Public Utilities Commission issued the agreement on Wednesday
and it will become effective after a period for public comment in August.
The proposal explains how the commission will work with the Department of
Water Resources to ensure that the state is repaid for the billions of
dollars it has spent buying electricity for customers of three financially
ailing utilities.
In the agreement, the commission vows to assess electric rates at least
annually and adjust them so the department has enough money to pay for its
power purchases and administrative costs.
Harvey Rosenfield, the president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights, said on Wednesday that under the agreement the commission waived the
right to deny a rate increase if it was deemed unfair to California
ratepayers. Mr. Rosenfield said the agreement gave unelected officials ''the
unilateral right to order rate increases for the next 15 years.''
Geoff Dryvynsyde, a legal adviser at the Public Utilities Commission, said
the commission would be ''no longer in charge of determining what costs are
reasonable before it changes rates.''
The commission's agreement is a vital step toward California 's efforts to
issue $13 billion in bonds to recoup the more than $8 billion it has spent
since January buying electricity .
California wants to improve its credit rating to lower interest rates on the
bonds and to assure Wall Street of a reliable stream of money rolling in from
electric rates.
In May, the Public Utilities Commission issued a record rate increase that
followed another January increase of roughly 10 percent.
The state has bought electricity for the customers of three companies since
January, when the utilities warned the state that high power prices and the
inability to recoup their costs through frozen electric rates were driving
them into bankruptcy.

Metro Desk
Edison Bailout Bills Remain Stalled
MIGUEL BUSTILLO; CARL INGRAM

07/20/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page A-25
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company
SACRAMENTO -- Leading lawmakers conceded they would probably leave on their
summer break without passing legislation aimed at rescuing Southern
California Edison from its financial straits as competing bailouts stalled in
the Legislature Thursday.
The Assembly is expected to consider one of two rival measures to save Edison
today, and the Senate is expected to take up an Edison rescue deal of its
own.
But all three pending measures face long odds and none have sufficient
support to clear both houses, legislative leaders said.
With the Legislature set to quit for the summer as early as today, the
leaders predicted they would be forced to continue negotiations during the
monthlong recess in hopes of brokering a deal.
"I can't imagine that in the next 24 hours" lawmakers will reach consensus on
an Edison rescue, said Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek), who
coauthored one of the lower house's rescue bills with Assembly Speaker Bob
Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks).
One indication of the lack of enthusiasm for the legislation is that Keeley
himself does not support the measure that bears his name. "I don't believe
that this bill in its current form should become law," he said. "This bill is
not ready."
The maneuvering in both houses Thursday capped a day of frenetic activity in
the state Capitol, which has become flooded with cell phone-carrying
lobbyists seeking to influence the Edison deal for seemingly every special
interest in the state.
Yet amid the flurry of action, there seemed little chance of actually making
law. Many of the participants said the legislative debate appeared to be less
an attempt to pass a bill than a war of one-upsmanship between the houses to
see who could "lob a grenade" into the rival house and go home until August.
That way, if Edison soon winds up in Bankruptcy Court, leaders of each house
could argue they were not to blame.
Hoping to head off a growing sentiment among lawmakers that bankruptcy may
not be such a bad alternative, Gov. Gray Davis spent the day working the
phones in hopes of persuading legislators that a government rescue of Edison
would be good for the state.
To avoid mass blackouts, California has been purchasing billions of dollars
worth of electricity since the beginning of this year because the state's two
largest private utilities, Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric, are no longer
credit-worthy enough to buy power on behalf of their customers.
The utilities lost that status and ran up billions in debt the last two years
because they were paying high prices for power on the wholesale market and
could not recover those costs from customers because of a state-imposed rate
freeze.
As a result, the state government is stuck in the power-buying business until
the utilities regain their financial footing--an expensive predicament that
threatens the state's financial health.
Davis attempted to head off the crisis by negotiating rescues of the two
utilities, but PG&E lost faith in the talks and opted to take itself into
Bankruptcy Court in April, embarrassing the Democratic governor.
Days later, Davis reached a tentative rescue deal with Southern California
Edison. But the plan hit the Legislature with a thud amid concerns it was
overly generous to Edison, and it has languished for months.
Last week, lawmakers finally picked up the pace and began moving forward with
a series of competing proposals to alter the governor's deal with Edison. But
it was clear from the outset that no consensus had emerged, and many
lawmakers are becoming convinced that legislative inaction--even if it means
bankruptcy--may be the best way to resolve Edison's financial predicament.
"We're bailing out people who don't need to be bailed out," said Sen. Ross
Johnson (R-Irvine).
Legislative leaders hoped to pass something before today when the Assembly
and Senate are scheduled to break for their traditional summer recess. The
date is considered important because Edison and Davis had set an Aug. 15
deadline for lawmakers to take action on the rescue deal. If no bill is
passed by then--as seems likely--the utility has the right to walk away from
negotiations.
However, it became evident Thursday that the dueling measures making their
way through both houses lacked strong support.
In the Assembly, the Hertzberg-Keeley bill, a modification of Davis' original
plan, was competing against a rival bill by Assemblyman Rod Wright (D-Los
Angeles), who had teamed with Republicans to push what he bluntly called a
"straight bailout" of Edison.
In the Senate, Davis' original plan was amended by Sen. Byron Sher
(D-Stanford) and turned into a trimmed-down rescue plan that was opposed by
Edison.
Sher's bill was voted down twice in policy committees Wednesday and Thursday,
but it was resuscitated both times, and is now on the Senate floor.


WHAT is this?
----- Forwarded by Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT on 01/30/2001 09:45 AM -----

	eSource@ENRON
	Sent by: Enron Announcements@ENRON
	01/30/2001 12:57 AM

		 To: All Enron Worldwide
		 cc:
		 Subject: Happy New Year from eSource!

eSource, Enron's premier research group, wishes you a happy and prosperous
New Year!

eSource is ready to help you capture the information you need to maximize
your competitive advantage.  Our team of specialized researchers utilizes a
variety of sources including dozens of proprietary databases.  Just visit our
web site http://esource.enron.com  where you can find great links to many
topics and industries, order books and documents, sign up for database
training, and submit requests to our responsive staff of researchers.

Discover a wealth of information at your desktop and let us help you start
the New Year right!


Good Morning All!

Samantha is running an errand this morning, and will be in at 9:15.  If you should need immediate assistance, please feel free to contact me at 5-3317.  Thanks,

Keegan


fyi
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Duenner, Anthony
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 8:00 PM
To:	Kean, Steven J.
Subject:	RE: Maurice Nunas

Steve:  Thanks for the quick and candid feedback.  Global markets still had a presence here and in Tokyo -- I am working that angle as well.  Thanks again.  ACD
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kean, Steven J.
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 9:12 PM
To:	Duenner, Anthony
Subject:	RE: Maurice Nunas

thanks Anthony.  It's difficult to see so many smart, hard working people in the kinds of circumstances you describe.  Unfortunately, I'm going through some of the same things (on a smaller scale).  We are having to let people go in my organization.  I simply don't have room, even for a qualified person like Maurice.
Does Global markets still have a presence in Singapore?  If so, perhaps there is an opportunity there.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Duenner, Anthony
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:19 AM
To:	Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard
Subject:	Maurice Nunas

Steve and Rick:  You may have heard that EBS is winding down its business in the Asia Pacific region.  This is, of course, greatly disappointing for everyone involved but is the right thing to do given the status of the industry here.  We have a great team in the region and I am trying to help members of the team find new homes in Enron.  Along those lines, I wanted to bring Maurice Nunas to your attention.  Maurice joined EBS this past June and is Director of Government Affairs for the region.  We were fortunate to land Maurice from Motorola in Singapore.  Maurice is a recognized expert  on telecommunications regulations in Asia, and has excellent working relationships with a number of governmental bodies and NGOs across the region.  In a short period of time Maurice has made significant progress on a number of governmental and regulatory issues that were facing us in the region.  He has proven adept at picking up the fundamentals of the Enron business model and has skills that would transfer across a number of commodities.  Maurice is interested in staying with Enron and working in Houston, elsewhere in North America or in the Asia Pacific region -- since he is new to Enron and does not have extensive relationships around the organization I thought I would forward his cv to you as you are in a superior position to know what the various business units' needs may be.  Thanks for your consideration -- please feel free to forward Maurice's resume or to let me know what I can do to further his placement in Enron.

I hope all is well with both of you.  Regards.

Anthony C. Duenner
Enron Broadband Services Asia Pacific
Office: (65) 838-9036
Fax:  (65) 734-2868
Mobile:  (65) 9628-6320

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nunas, Maurice
Sent:	Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:14 PM
To:	Duenner, Anthony; Goh, Chor Lim
Subject:	My CV

Anthony and Chor-Lim,

Thank you for agreeing to help me market myself within Enron.  Since I am so new to the company, your help will be invaluable.

Here is my updated CV and a companion paper providing more detail.  Please distribute them as you deem appropriate.

 << File: MN CV 2001.doc >>  << File: MN CV 2001 sup Info.doc >>

Thanks,
Maurice


More on the CFOs conference.

Vince
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001
08:24 AM ---------------------------

David Ikenberry <daveike@rice.edu> on 03/30/2001 07:21:11 PM
To: DAVEIKE@rice.edu
cc: Sheridan Titman <titman@mail.utexas.edu>, "parrino@mail.utexas.edu"
<parrino@mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: Registration materials for NFCF

To:

Andres Almazan
Don Chew
John Freeman
Geoge Gau
Vince Kaminski
Bob Marchesi
John Martin
Vojislav Maksimovic
Laura Starks
Art Warga
Michael Weisbach

Dear Friends

Attached is some registration and logistical information relating to the
upcoming corporate finance conference on May 4-5 in Houston.  If you have
any questions, please don't hesitate to contact Sheridan, Bob or myself.

The program is shaping up nicely, however one of us may draft to serve in
some small, but helpful capacity.

Sheridan Titman, 512.232.2787, titman@mail.utexas.edu ,
Bob Parrino at parrino@mail.utexas.edu
Dave Ikenberry, 713.348.5385 , daveike@rice.edu

As of today, the list of firms sending a representative include:
Pfizer
Pacificare
Cooper Industries
RadioShack
Pepsi
Delphi Automotive
Microsoft
Whirlpool
Enron
Johnson Controls
Airgas
Sara Lee
Dell
Conoco

 - particpate registation details.doc

***********************************
Prof. David Ikenberry
Jones Graduate School of Management
Rice University
713-348-5385


See attached
Devon GISB

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

http://edms.livelink.enron.com/ena/livelink.exe/1473898/96014668_17-Mar-1998.p
df?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=1473898


The request has been completed with all resources requested either completed
or rejected. You can view the details of the  request by clicking
http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000007641&Page=
MyReq.