Attached is from Andy Black of Congressman Barton's staff.  This is the bill
language and summary of changes to H.R. 1647, the Barton bill that will be
marked up on Thursday, that the chairman will offer by way of changes to the
original bill text.

---------------------- Forwarded by John Shelk/NA/Enron on 05/08/2001 06:58
PM ---------------------------

"Black, Andy" <Andy.Black@mail.house.gov> on 05/08/2001 06:49:35 PM
To: "Bud Albright (E-mail)" <bud_albright@reliantenergy.com>, "Annie Caputo
(E-mail)" <annie.caputo@exeloncorp.com>, "Roy Coffee (E-mail)"
<rcoffee@oconnorhannan.com>, "Carol Connors (E-mail)"
<carol.connors@ferc.fed.us>, "Randy Davis (E-mail)" <rdavis@sdsatty.com>,
"'Charlie DeWitt' (E-mail)" <nymex4@unidial.com>, "Ed Gillespie (E-mail)"
<edgillespie@quinngillespie.com>, "Rich Glick (E-mail)"
<Rich.Glick@PacifiCorp.com>, "Jimmy Glotfelty (E-mail)" <jimmyg@calpine.com>,
"Jim HAGAN (E-mail)" <jgh@nei.org>, "Charles Ingebretson (E-mail)"
<cingebretson@bracepatt.com>, "Joe Nipper (E-mail)" <jnipper@appanet.org>,
"Marty Kanner (E-mail)" <mkanner@kannerandassoc.com>, "Genevieve
Laffly-Murphy (E-mail)" <Laffly@api.org>, "Lori Laudien (E-mail)"
<Lori.Laudien@ElPaso.com>, "Les Starck (E-mail)" <les.starck@sce.com>, "David
Lynch (E-mail)" <dlynch1@txu.com>, "Jeff MacKinnon (E-mail)" <Jeff@rpum.com>,
"Yvonne Mcintyre (E-mail)" <yvonne.mcintyre@mirant.com>, "Mike McKenna
(E-mail)" <Lazgrp@aol.com>, "Jim McVaney (E-mail)"
<Jim_McVaney@americanchemistry.com>, "Philip Moeller (E-mail)"
<pmoeller@calpine.com>, "Nicole Morgado (E-mail)" <nkmorgado@bpa.gov>, "Cal
Odom (E-mail)" <codom@eei.org>, "Gene Peters (E-mail)" <gpeters@epsa.org>,
"Mike Riith (E-mail)" <mjriith@southernco.com>, "Linda Robertson (E-mail)"
<linda.robertson@enron.com>, "Cynthia Sandherr (E-mail)"
<Cynthia.Sandherr@NewPower.com>, "Stephen Sayle (E-mail)"
<ssayle@dutkogroup.com>, "Kerrill Scrivner (E-mail)" <kscrivner@txu.com>,
"Mike Scrivner (E-mail)" <mscrivner@lentdc.com>, "Scott Segal (E-mail)"
<ssegal@bracepatt.com>, "Rhod Shaw (E-mail)" <rshaw@alpinegroup.com>, "John
Shelk (E-mail)" <john.shelk@enron.com>, "Kathryn Steckelberg (E-mail)"
<KSteckelberg@eei.org>, "Linda Stuntz (E-mail)" <lstuntz@sdsatty.com>, "Joe
Vasapoli (E-mail)" <joe@rpum.com>, "Montee Wynn (E-mail)"
<montee.wynn@nreca.org>, "Marc Yacker (E-mail)" <myacker@elcon.org>
cc:

Subject: Barton substitute amendment

>  <<substitute text.PDF>>  <<substitute section by section.doc>>
> <<substitute changes.doc>>

 - substitute text.PDF
 - substitute section by section.doc
 - substitute changes.doc


Attached is the CSC TTC & ATC calculations and backup data performed by
Henrik Roycourt.

Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

Kenneth A. Donohoo, PE
Manager of System Planning, Technical Operations
ERCOT
2705 West Lake Dr.
Taylor, TX 76574-2136
(512)248-3003, FAX(512)248-3082

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. is the
corporation that administers the state's power grid. ERCOT
serves approximately 85 percent of the state's electric load
and oversees the operation of approximately 70,000 megawatts
of generation and over 37,000 circuit miles of transmission
lines.

?
 - ATC_TTC_year01_onpeak_ToBePosted.zip


pull out your settlement matrix and see if this SA agrees with that
document.  I don't necessarily think it does.  Didn't we basically agree to
disagree and/or deal with this issue outside the settlement process?  Are you
saying that Edison can reserve capacity in the same manner as Core and 50% of
noncore, but at the approx. 7.9 cent rate?

HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.... is this language saying that they can convert the
VALUE of their capacity rights to a capacity contract at the point?  For
example, if Edison has 200/d at 1 cent Wheeler access fee, they could conver
it to approx. 25/d at the full 7.9 cent rate?

Let's get clarification!!!

"Foss, Robert" <RFoss@coral-energy.com> on 04/13/2000 06:14:03 PM
To: "'Susan.Scott@enron.com'" <Susan.Scott@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: RE: more Edison/SDGE stuff

I agree 100% and I want them to state they may elect the capacity however,
it is at the current rate if you will.  This is an attempt to take us back
several weeks in my opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan.Scott@enron.com [mailto:Susan.Scott@enron.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 6:12 PM
To: rfoss@coral-energy.com
Subject: more Edison/SDGE stuff

Rob,
Look at the conforming languange in the Appendix "A" last page, last
paragraph.  You know that this language was negotiated by and between
SoCalGas and Edison.  My main concern is that its very, very open ended...
almost a contingent liability for all settlement parties.

Jeff


Wow, if Haug spent more time making money than created bull.... in the
company we would be a $100 stock.

On a different note, I was wondering if someone in your shop could map the
current A&A process from planning for on-campus recruitment to manager
promotion  for the typical associate including timeline.  This process
mapping should be very detailed to give us the greatest insight.

I think radical change is not the answer.  The answer lies in a combination
of a) slight changes in process; b) increasing participation/ownership at key
points in the process by certain business units and people; and c) a credible
key business spokesman or spokespersons co-opting the other units where
necessary and providing the commercial leadership and representation for the
program internally. Overall this is a commercial program that needs to meet
commercial objectives - the closer to the front the better.

The goals of any restructuring are:
 a) eliminate the perception that the program is not receptive to the
business units needs or any bu's perception that they lack ownership for the
program;
 b) increase the quality of the recruits that are brought in and retained;
 c) ensure we have the best people in the organization recruiting, selling
and interviewing;
 d) ensure that we have the best commercial training program that firmly
grounds the associate in the "Enron technology" which include skills in
market understanding, structuring, finance, logistics and risk;
 e) ensure the business units have the ability to identify the outstanding
talent early and give those people the responsibility necessary to move them
up the curve quickly (ie) quickly identify the Whalley/Lavorato's in the
program and, on the flip side, quickly deal with clear non-performance issues;
 f) review the effectiveness of the current PRC process as a development,
retention and performance tool;
 g) incorporate mid-year flexibility, internet recruiting techniques,
non-traditional sources of talent and
 h) increase cost effectiveness.

The solutions may include mandated participation by certain business units,
people and teams, business tracks, etc.

I think a thorough process mapping/tracking can identify (or help me see) the
key spots for change/modification/ownership that reach these goals with the
least amount of wholesale change for the sake of change.

I think we need to get back to Jeff not next week but the following week with
a strawman.

Let me know your thoughts.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 10/31/2000
05:06 PM ---------------------------

Charlene Jackson@ENRON
10/31/2000 11:36 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Results of Super Saturday

FYI.  I think this is inappropriate and will speak to Jeff.  Just thought you
should know.
Charlene
---------------------- Forwarded by Charlene Jackson/Corp/Enron on 11/01/2000
11:34 AM ---------------------------

Becky Bruce
10/30/2000 10:55 PM
To: Charlene Jackson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Results of Super Saturday

FYI.
Becky
---------------------- Forwarded by Becky Bruce/NA/Enron on 10/30/2000 10:48
PM ---------------------------

David Haug@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/30/2000 06:03 PM
To: Shawn Cumberland/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ben F
Glisan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hal Elrod/Corp/Enron@Enron, Emilio
Vicens/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Brian Kerrigan/HOU/ECT@ECT, V
Charles Weldon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kyle Kettler/HOU/ECT@ECT, Craig Childers@ECT,
Jeff Bartlett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul J Broderick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gwynn Gorsuch@ENRON,
John House/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stewart Seeligson@ECT, Ray
McPhail/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Becky Bruce@ENRON, Mary Alison Bailey/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Results of Super Saturday

Here is how the UT candidates fared at Super Saturday. 9 of 17 got offers (
others are coming to future Super Saturdays). This result is obviously
disappointing - - -  65% of  the 55 students from all schools got offers.   I
will be getting more info on why the other 8 were not well received.  If
anyone thinks a manifest injustice or mistake has occurred let me know.
Ditto if you think anyone's prior background makes them a candidate for a
direct hire - - -i.e., not in the associate program.
     On the "yeses", please let me know who you would like to follow up on
and encourage to accept.  We will try to do this by volunteers: more than one
per student is OK, and each of you should select one or two. When you talk to
them, get their feedback on Super Saturday and the whole process. If anyone
wants to call any of the "no's", to commisserate, that's OK too. - - -DLH
---------------------- Forwarded by David Haug/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
10/30/2000 06:12 PM ---------------------------
From: Mary Alison Bailey@ECT on 10/30/2000 02:58 PM
To: David Haug/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Linda Fuqua/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: PRTD - Results of Super Saturday


Kay -- Just some housekeeping questions:

Do you want hand-written or e-mail comments going forward?

Do you want more comments from Origination and Services now, or do you want
us to wait until you turn the doc?  As I said yesterday, I am in the process
of sorting out the "Costs" definition so that it works better with the other
parts of the doc.

MDEA is willing to extend the ILA two weeks if we want to.  Their next Board
meeting (after tonight's Board meeting) is June 12 , and they desperately
need to have our contract finished in time to get signing approval at that
meeting.  We probably need something to bridge us from the end of May until
their Board votes on the full agreement.  The other option is to get done
this week and have them call a special Board meeting.  They have done this in
the past, but we have not asked them if it's logistically possible to do this
by May 31.

Thanks -- David


COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
                        NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
                                NOVEMBER 26, 2001

Notice ID: 3294
5 - NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

Please be aware that the Navigator Nomination Program will be updated the
morning of Tuesday, November 27, 2001 to reflect the new December 1, 2001
Columbia Gas Transmission transportation retainage rates.  Nominations that
have already been input into Navigator for December will be revised to reflect
the new rates based on the existing delivered quantity.  After this change is
implemented, customers should verify that December nominations are correct.

If you have any questions, please contact your Customer Services
Representative.


Attached you will find the latest draft of the new Master Form.  Please
review and send me any comments today--we'd like to get this out to the
business team by 3:00 today.  I think all of the comments we received and
developed in the last 3 meetings have been incorporated, including the
bankruptcy matters.  Because there are so many changes, I don't think a
blackline would be helpful--however, let me know if you want one.   I have
bracketed questions and open issues and highlighted areas that I think need
either more work or extra attention from the business teams.  I'd like to see
us be able to pare this document down just a bit--I think a 5 page master and
a 1 to 1 1/2 page confirmation is reasonable.  Thanks.   MDS


This memorandum further analyzes the ability of Enron and EES to remove to
federal court a California state court proceeding to enforce a subpoena for
documents and testimony. It specifically addresses the arguments raised by
the briefs filed by the  Reliant, Mirant and the California Attorney General
in April and May, 2001 in litigation relating to a similar enforcement
proceeding in Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc., et al. v. Lockyer,
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC 248689.
In light of the Reliant case, if EES removes an enforcement proceeding to
federal court the AG will probably argue that the petition for removal is
not a "civil action" because a petition to enforce the subpoena is a
"special proceeding" and not an "action."  We also anticipate that the AG
will argue that there is no federal question because the Government Code
sections provide an exclusive statutory scheme which provides jurisdiction
only to the California superior court.
These arguments do not change our previous analysis, but highlight the our
conclusion:  assuming the existence of a federal question in the AG's
enforcement petition, EES can file a petition for removal, but its burden to
prevail on a motion for remand will be difficult to meet.
I.	SUMMARY OF RELIANT ET AL. V. LOCKYER
In early 2001 Lockyer served subpoenas for documents on Reliant and Mirant
under Government Code sections 11180, et seq.  Reliant and Mirant did not
dispute the AG's ability to seek this information, and voluntarily produced
non-confidential information.  However, Reliant and Mirant disputed the AG's
ability to disclose confidential information without a protective order.
Several days before the AG, as a petitioner, filed an enforcement action in
San Francisco Superior Court to compel Reliant and Mirant to produce
documents,  Reliant and Mirant affirmatively filed a complaint as plaintiffs
for declaratory relief and an injunction in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The AG filed a motion to dismiss the Reliant action primarily on the grounds
that the Government Code establishes the exclusive procedure for enforcement
of this subpoena (i.e., the AG's filing of a petition to enforce the
subpoena), the Government Code does not allow for the filing of injunctive
relief, and granting an injunction would violate the separation of powers
and circumvent the special proceedings of the Government Code.
On May 11, 2001 the Court denied the AG's demurrer. The AG then agreed to a
compromise interim protective order and Mirant and Reliant produced
requested documents while reserving  rights to continue the litigation.
II.	CASE OR CONTROVERSY UNDER ARTICLE III
As an initial matter, we considered whether an enforcement proceeding
constitutes a "case or controversy" under Article III of the United States
Constitution.  We conclude it probably does.
The power of federal courts is constitutionally limited to cases and
controversies.  See Flast v. Cohen (1968) 392 U.S. 83, 94.  This doctrine
limits the courts "to questions presented in an adversary context and in a
form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial
process."  Id. at 95.  Furthermore, Article III is intended to "define the
role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure
that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other
branches of government."  Id.  Applications of this doctrine include a
finding of no justiciable controversy "when the parties seek adjudication of
only political questions, when the parties are asking for only advisory
opinions, when the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by
subsequent developments, and where there is no standing to maintain the
action."  Id.
This  is not the issue here.  Upon the filing of a petition, the AG will
probably not dispute that there is a controversy.  The AG has conceded that
"as a matter of law, there is no actual controversy in an investigatory
proceeding until the Attorney General moves to enforce the subpoena."  AG
Reply at 9.  We found no cases where removal of a similar petition was
denied on the ground that it did not prevent a case or controversy under
Article III.
III.	REMOVAL OF PETITION
As discussed in our previous memorandum, removal jurisdiction is conferred
by federal statute.  See 28 U.S.C. ? 1441(a).  This statute provides in
relevant part that:
		Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,
any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
As we previously concluded, in order for EES to remove any enforcement
action filed by the AG, EES must show that (1) the petition is a "civil
action" under the removal statute and (2) the AG's investigation, which
underlies the subpoena enforcement action, is preempted by federal law, thus
making removal proper on the basis of federal question removal jurisdiction.

The AG likely will argue that (1) that the petition to enforce the subpoena
is not a "civil action" but rather is a special proceeding and (2) that the
petition does not present a federal question because it is undertaking an
enforcement procedure created by California statutory which grants exclusive
jurisdiction to California courts.  These arguments are analyzed below.
	A.  AG's Argument That Petition is Not an "Action"
First, EES must show that a petition by the AG to enforce a subpoena is a
"civil action."  Under federal law, the definition of "civil action" is
extremely broad and appears to cover everything except criminal proceedings.
In our previous memorandum, we concluded that EES has a good faith argument
that a petition is a "civil action" for the purposes of removal.  In
Reliant, et al. v. Lockyer, filed in the Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles, the AG argued that petitions under the Government Code are "special
proceedings" not "civil actions."  The AG's arguments do not change our
previous conclusions.
The AG's arguments are founded solely upon language in See People ex rel
Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 526.  In that
case, the court of appeals stated that:
				the hearing under section 11188 is a special
proceeding.  In practice the term 'special proceeding' is used in
contradistinction to 'action;' it refers only to proceedings which were not,
under the common law or equity practice, either an action at law or a suit
in equity.  They are proceedings which may be commenced independently of a
pending action, by petition or motion upon notice, in order to obtain
special relief.

Id. at 538.
Despite the AG's arguments, Franchise Tax Board has no weight in determining
whether the petition is a "civil action" under the federal removal statute.
Federal law determines whether there is an action is a "civil action."  See,
e.g., In re Exhumation of Meriwether Lewis (N.D. Tenn. 1998) 999 F.Supp.
1066.  Without a doubt, the term "civil action," has been "construed broadly
by the federal courts."  Wright & Miller, 14B Fed. Practice and Proc.,
Juris. 3d ? 3721 (West 1998).  According to Wright & Miller:
			The limitation to civil actions is not particularly
important, however, since the term 'civil action' has been construed broadly
by the federal courts.  For example, proceedings for garnishment or
condemnation and actions to compel arbitration or to confirm or vacate an
arbitration award are considered civil actions within the meaning of the
federal removal statute.  Moreover, special federal statutes permit the
removal of certain non-civil proceedings.  In effect therefore, the
limitation to civil actions in Section 1441 may mean no more than that state
court criminal, and perhaps penalty, actions are not removable except as
otherwise provided by a specific federal statute.
Applying a broad definition of "civil action," courts have held that
petitions to exhume a body, petition to enforce administrative subpoenas,
garnishment actions, actions to compel arbitration and contempt proceedings
are "civil actions" within the scope of Section 1441.  See, e.g., Agosto v.
Barcelo (D. P. R. 1984) 594 F. Supp. 1390, 1392 (enforcement of
administrative subpoena), overruled on other grounds, (1st Cir. 1984) 748
F.2d 1; Lewis v. Blackmon (S. D. Miss. 1994) 864 F. Supp. 1 (garnishment
action); Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Glenwal Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1970) 325 F. Supp.
86 (action to compel arbitration); Reynolds Metals Co. v. Crowther, (D. Mass
1982) 572 F. Supp 288, 289 (contempt proceeding); In re Exhumation of
Meriwether Lewis, 999 F. Supp 1066 (1998) (petition to exhume body).
Moreover, the cases relied upon by the AG support the notion that the
proceedings to enforce the subpoena are akin to an action.   See People ex
rel Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court(1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 526 (in
hearing on petition under the Government Code, court "may judicially test
whether the subpoena duces tecum conforms to the requisite legal and
constitutional standards"); Fielder v. Berkeley Properties Co. (1972) 23
Cal.App.3d 30 (hearing on petition to enforce a subpoena "provides an
opportunity for adjudication of all claimed constitutional and legal rights
before one is required to obey the subpoena").
The AG also relies on Triple A Machine Shop Inc. v. California (1989) 213
Cal.App.3d 131.  This case is inapplicable.  Triple A has nothing to do with
the application of the Government Code at issue or the enforcement of
subpoenas under the Government Code.  Rather, Triple A analyzed the
propriety of enjoining criminal investigations.  In that case, the San
Francisco District Attorney and the State Department of Health commenced a
criminal and civil investigation into violations of law governing the
storage and disposal of hazardous waste.  The district attorney obtained a
search warrant.  The district attorney also brought a suit to enjoin
defendants from dissipating any assets.  Defendant filed an action for
injunctive relief to enjoin the state from contacting high level managerial
employees in violation of attorney client privilege and in violation of
their ethical duties.  The injunction was issued.  The court of appeals
reversed, holding that there was no threat of misconduct by the district
attorney or violations of the attorney client privilege.  The court further
stated that:
				The most significant effect of the
injunction lies in its impact on the investigation and prosecution of the
criminal charges.  The separation of powers doctrine requires judicial
restraint in enjoining criminal investigations or prosecutions. . . .  The
discretionary authority vested in the district attorney to investigate and
prosecute criminal conduct is considered too vital to the interest of public
order to be subjected to prior restraint by the courts except under
extraordinary circumstances.

Id. at 145 (emphasis added).
EES is not asking the court to enjoin the AG's investigation.  EES is merely
invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court pursuant to the federal
removal statutes in order to litigate the legal and constitutional issues
related to the AG's subpoena.  Thus, Triple A is inapposite.
	B.	The Petition Must Present a Federal Question
Second, EES must also argue that a federal question appears on the face of
plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint or that plaintiff's artfully pleaded
complaint involves a federal question.  As in the currently pending civil
lawsuits, EES will argue that the AG's investigation (or some of it) is
completely preempted by the Federal Power Act which governs wholesale energy
prices and thus presents a federal question.  Without a doubt, this presents
the biggest obstacle to successful removal, especially since EES cannot
inject a federal question sufficient to justify removal by way of defense.
This burden may be somewhat easier for Enron or Enron Wholesale services to
meet, since neither company does business on the retail level in California,
as EES does. However, as discussed in our previous memorandum, both EES and
Enron  must contend with contrary Ninth Circuit precedent.  See Lewis v.
Younger (9th Cir. 1980) 653 F.2d 1258.  In addition, the AG will argue, that
the petition does not present a federal question but is merely seeking to
enforce a subpoena under the provisions of the Government Code, which
provides the exclusive means for adjudicating any dispute relating to an
investigatory subpoena.  We will better know whether we have a reasonable
chance to prevail on this issue when Judge Whaley rules on the currently
pending remand motions.

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Sandra F Brawner/HOU/ECT on 04/02/2001
08:23 AM ---------------------------

"Megan Russin" <MeganRussin@msn.com> on 04/01/2001 08:46:56 PM
To: <sandra.f.brawner@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: please take time to read

Sandra,
????
???? The email that you sent me last Thursday has bothered me the entire
weekend.? That is why I am emailing you from home.? I just want you to know
my true intention of the email I sent you that day.
???? First and foremost,?I invited you and Kenny out for drinks, or a dinner,
as friends.? I repeat,?"as friends" and nothing more.? I said in that email
that business does not have to be discussed and?I meant it.? As far as
the?Enron/Natsource?"deal" that you are talking about.....it had nothing to
do with the email I sent you.? As far as I know, that "deal" has been in the
works since September/October between Jack Cogan and Andy Zipper.? So I want
it to be clear to you that the "deal" had nothing to do with me sending you
that email.
???? As a matter of fact, the reason why I sent you that email and invited
you out was because of the last time we spoke.? Remember when I instant
messaged you?? The reason why I approached you that way was because I thought
we were close enough friends that I could.? As?I found out, I was wrong.?
However, when I spoke to you that day, on the phone, and asked if I could ask
you out in the future ( when?I come to Houston).....you said I could.? I have
planned to come down for weeks.? Even though you choose to not deal with
Natsource, I still considered you a?friend and thought it would be
appropriate to ask you out.....and so?I did.
???? As you know, I take things to heart.? I was really upset with
the?response I got from you.? I am emailing you from home because it bothered
me so much that I needed to make sure you understood my true intentions.? I
hope I have done that.
???? Finally, I just want to say that I will not bother you again.? I just
want you to know that?I have always tried to do the right thing.? I feel as
though you are questioning everything I say or do and that you believe there
are?ulterior motives behind my actions.....and it just isn't true!??With
that, I wish nothing but good things for you and your family.
?
???? good bye,
???????????????? Ray?


Some of you may have entered updates to your personal information in eHRonline from Friday, March 1 through Monday, March 4.  However, we experienced some problems with the HR system during this time, and it is likely that certain updates were lost.  If you made an update during this period, please return to eHRonline and review your information particularly for the following four categories:
Banking information for direct deposit
Tax W-4 information
Home address
Emergency contact

Note that the first three categories above are related to payroll.  We are processing payroll for March 15.  If updates are needed for your March 15 paycheck, please eMail your update and P # to "HR Service Connection" before 11 a.m. on Thursday, March 7 for immediate processing.  Put "eHRonline Update" in the subject line and send as urgent so we can expedite processing.

For any updates applicable for future paychecks or non-payroll related, please re-enter your information directly in eHRonline.

Thanks and we apologize for the inconvenience.


According to my calculations,  the term needs to go through Feb04.  The
physical fixed price would be 7.34.


---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 02/06/2001 06:17
PM ---------------------------

Richard Leibert@EES
02/06/2001 06:15 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Cost plus contract for Co Op City

Kay,

Have just received both of your e-mails.  Will get involved today!

L

Kay Mann@ENRON
02/06/2001 04:31 PM
To: Richard Leibert/HOU/EES@EES, Fred L
Kelly/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Peter Nassab/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Robert Sevitz/NA/Enron@Enron, John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jude
Rolfes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Mark Bernstein/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Cost plus contract for Co Op City

As a follow up to my previous e-mail, here is the second request, which was
in my opinion adequately addressed by John Schwartzenburg.
I am frustrated with beginning the process over again.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 02/06/2001 04:33
PM ---------------------------

Kay Mann
02/01/2001 12:06 PM
To: David Lund/ENRON@enronXgate, John
Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Peter Nassab/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Mark Bernstein/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jude
Rolfes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Cost plus contract for Co Op City

Gentlemen,

As Dave and John know, I'm working on a deal for ENA (and with Jude) which
has as one aspect a cost plus EPC contract for the construction of a power
plant.  We need to put together the T's and C's for a cost plus contract, and
since it is possible that NEPCO might be the contractor, I wanted to use
something that is acceptable to NEPCO.  I will then take the laboring oar in
order to get a working draft prepared for this project.

As always, I'm on a short time frame, so your response would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Kay


Attached is the updated chart providing basic information on all of
the "energy" cases pending in California. Please review the chart and
provide any corrections, additions or other changes to Debora Howe at the cc
above. Note we are NOT listing all defense counsel for the unlawful pricing
cases. DRT

 <<50130054_1.doc>>

 - 50130054_1.doc


I will take care of this on Wednesday.

Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  "Reuter, Marisa" <MReuter@KSLAW.com>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Reuter+2C+20Marisa+22+20+3CMReuter+40KSLAW+2Ecom+3E+40EN
RON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 10:09 AM
To: Carnahan, Kathleen
Cc: Mann, Kay; Keffer, John
Subject: ENA/Blue Dog: Incumbency Certificate

Kathleen:

Paul Hastings would like ENA to resign the Incumbency Certificate, since the
original Certificate did not affix the corporate seal.  Could you coordinate
this and make sure the seal is affixed to the new Certificate?  Thanks.

Call me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Marisa

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.

 - Reuter, Maria I. (Business E-Mail Address).vcf << File: Reuter, Maria I.
(Business E-Mail Address).vcf >>


BPA news:

FERC's June 19th Order makes non-public utilities, including federal power marketing agencies like BPA and WAPA, subject to price mitigation in the WSCC.  However, according to my counterpart over at BPA (BPA trading attorney Gerit Hull), BPA is disputing that it is subject to the price mitigation requirements of FERC's June 19th Order.  Apparently, BPA's argument is that it is not subject to the price caps because it is "non-jurisdictional."  (BPA will have to do better than this, because the "non-jurisdictional" argument simply begs the question, because it says "you don't have jurisdiction over us because, well, you don't have jurisdiction over us.")  BPA sees the FERC Order as a "political" move to take away BPA's independence, and is now sending additional reinforcements to the FERC settlement in Washington D.C.


Mark and Leslie:
Claudio wants to talk to someone about this weather/power online product that
he is working on.    Enclosed is info on it.  Who should he be talking to
about this?  He is anxious to meet and I told him that as soon as we figured
out who his legal contact would be we would meet with him.  Please let me
know your thoughts.
Carol
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 06/29/2000 02:51 PM -----

	Claudio Ribeiro@ENRON
	06/29/2000 02:16 PM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: PJM Power Demand

Carol,

I am helping the Weather Desk to develop a new product (PJM Power Demand). It
will initially be traded only internally.

I send you a presentation of the product and its description for EOL.

I think that we should schedule a time, so that we can discuss the product.

Thanks,

Claudio


Shipping it is fine.  Thanks for the deal

Jaime

J. Rocha
1800 El Paseo #711
Houston, Texas  77054
----- Original Message -----
From: <Phillip.M.Love@enron.com>
To: <jerocha@ev1.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: Enron Cube Auction on EBay

> would you prefer me mailing or delivering personally to you?  I was
> planning on shipping this afternoon.  Just let me know.  I will be out of
> the office tomorrow.  Let me know whatever you prefer.
> PL
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From:   "Jaime Rocha" <jerocha@ev1.net>@ENRON
>    Sent:   Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:05 AM
>    To:     Love, Phillip M.
>    Cc:     alove@houston.rr.com
>    Subject:  Re: Enron Cube Auction on EBay
>
>    Philip,
>    I made a Paypal payment this morning.  All the shipping information on
>    the
>    system is accurate.  I also work downtown if that would be more
>    convenient.
>
>    Jaime
>    ----- Original Message -----
>    From: "Love, Phillip M." <Phillip.M.Love@ENRON.com>
>    To: <rocjai@studmail.stcl.edu>
>    Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 8:55 AM
>    Subject: Enron Cube Auction on EBay
>
>
>    Congratulations on winning the auction on Ebay for the Enron values
>    cube.
>    Please let me know if you will be paying by
PayPal(alove@houston.rr.com)
>    or
>    money order/cashier's check.  The total is $19.21.  I will need your
>    mailing
>    address as well.  I will mail the balls priority mail as soon as I
>    receive
>    payment.  Thanks again and use this email address if you reply before
>    this
>    evening, alove@housotn.rr.com is my home email and I can not access it
>    from
>    work.  Thanks again and look forward to hearing from you soon.
>    PL
>
>
>
>    **********************************************************************
>    This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant
affiliate
>    and
>    may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the
>    intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
>    others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or
>    authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or
>    reply
>    to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete
>    all
>    copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
>    intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or
evidence
>    a
>    binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
>    affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not
>    be
>    relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or
otherwise.
>    Thank you.
>    **********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>


Steve:

I spoke with Sam Behrends, Adam Wenner (FERC attorneys) and Joanne Rutkowski
(SEC attorney) about your question on a third quarter close.   On the FERC
side, protests to the merger application are due on May 3.  We are expecting
protests, but until we see the extent of the opposition, its hard to estimate
the likelihood of a July order.  However, we all agree that based on the
facts of the merger and the types of protests we expect to see, a July order
is within the realm of possibility.  FERC just issued an order approving the
PECO/ComEd merger earlier this week.  The order was issued 142 days after the
merger application was filed.  If FERC does not find the opposition to the
PGE/Sierra merger overwhelming, it could issue an order before FERC goes on
August recess (this would also allow FERC to meet its 150 day target for
acting on merger petitions).

Even if a FERC order is issued by the end of July, we will still need SEC
approval.  (The SEC will not issue its order until FERC has approved the
merger.)  Joanne Rutkowski thinks that although a September order from the
SEC is possible, it is not likely, due mainly to the fact that several other
big merger proceedings (NSP, AEP, Energy East, ComEd) are in the queue ahead
of the PGE/Sierra merger awaiting SEC approval.

With regard to the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing with DOJ, DOJ approval is
normally not a problem, but attorneys with DOJ have expressed some concern
that the merged Sierra/PGE company could have potential market power in
transmission going into southern California.  DOJ has submitted a request for
information to Sierra and PGE, and we are working on the response to that
request now.  Our attorneys and Sierra's attorneys do not think at this point
that obtaining DOJ approval of the merger will be a problem, but until we
receive final DOJ sign-off on the merger, DOJ review will continue to be an
open issue.  We should have a better idea of whether DOJ is going to raise
any significant problems with the merger within the next couple of months.

I see that Paul sent you a separate email on the status of the state
proceedings.

I hope this is helpful.  Please call me if you have any questions.

Sarah

Steven J Kean@EES
04/12/2000 08:02 PM
To: Paul Kaufman@ECT, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
cc:

Subject: Granite Update

What are our chances of final approval at FERC at the JUly meeting.  Jeff
still thinks this is a third quarter close.  Do we have any chance of making
that happen?
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/HOU/EES on 04/12/2000 06:59
PM ---------------------------

Paul Kaufman@ECT
04/12/2000 09:02 AM
To: Mitchell Taylor/Corp/Enron@ENRON, awalia@ei.enron.com, Ann
Ballard/Corp/Enron@ENRON, kfullenweider@velaw.com, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES,
Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Granite Update

Attached is the April 12 update.  Also attached is an electronic copy of a
prior update faxed last week.


Rick

I would like to request an extension of the 45 million limit until Friday.
We like gas and we would like to maximize this move.


This is fake, there is a problem with a cross-desk transfer, and it is being
resolved by our mighty developers in Houston.

c


Attached is revised list.

	Anne C Koehler
	02/09/2001 10:23 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Project Offline

Attached hereto is a list of the agreements we reviewed in connection with
the due diligence review that was done for Project Offline.  The list is a
subset of the list you originally prepared with some additional comments
added by me.  Could you please add in the Wise Soft agreements that I gave
you earlier this week as well as the agreements relating to Robert Campbell.
If you do not have copies of the Robert Campbell agreements let me know.
Thanks for you help!!

Anne C. Koehler
Sr. Counsel, ENA
EB 3839
713-853-3448


Norma,

I would like to proceed on two fronts with Sevile (both H1 visa and
the Green Card. I shall rather work hard to keep my employees happy
here than try to attach them to the job through immigration arrangements.
They can see through such arrangements and it de-motivates them.

Vince


Given the current tremendous energy market volatility and as we stretch
resources to make our commercial goals for 2000, we think it would be
appropriate to postpone the ENA 2000 Offsite to early next year.  I trust
this meets with your approval and thanks for all the hard work.

Regards
Dave and John


Here is the wholesale presentation Silling gave to the Wall Street Analyst's.
Ben


Are the attached Deemed ISDA's ready to go in order to send confirms out?  If
so, should the confirms group use the attachments from Carol's email on the
17th or from her email on the 18th?

Thank you:

Derek
---------------------- Forwarded by Derek Bailey/Corp/Enron on 04/20/2001
01:17 PM ---------------------------

Mog Heu
04/20/2001 01:12 PM
To: Derek Bailey/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: AIG Confirms

---------------------- Forwarded by Mog Heu/NA/Enron on 04/20/2001 01:04 PM
---------------------------

Caroline Abramo
04/18/2001 12:59 PM
To: Mog Heu/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Confirms

---------------------- Forwarded by Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron on 04/18/2001
01:59 PM ---------------------------
   Carol St Clair @ ECT                04/17/2001 04:46 PM

To: Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Sara
Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Confirms

Enclosed are drafts of the 2 confirms.  Alos enclosed is a comparison of the
2 to show the differences.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron on 04/18/2001
01:59 PM ---------------------------
   Carol St Clair @ ECT                04/17/2001 04:54 PM

To: cggarrod@cdp.bm
cc: Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul
Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Cash Collateral

Christopher:
We have done a trade with a Bermuda hedge fund and have negotiated collateral
provisions that may require them to post csah to us.  The agreement will be
governed by either Texas or New York law.  We need your advice on how to
perfect our interest in any cash posted to us that we would hold in an
account in the United States.  Could you please call either me or Sara
Shackelton (713)853-5620 if possible tomorrow or you can send me an e-mail if
that is easier.  I'm hoping that our possession of the cash is enough.  Sorry
for the short fuse on this.  If you need any additional information, please
contact me or Sara.  I will be unavailable from 9-11 and 2-3 tomorrow Houston
time.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron on 04/18/2001
01:59 PM ---------------------------
   Carol St Clair @ ECT                04/18/2001 10:18 AM

To: "Chris Garrod" <CGGarrod@cdp.bm>@ENRON
cc: Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron, Paul Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Sara
Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cash Collateral

Chris:
Thanks for your prompt response.  I think that we do need to register the
charge document which in this case would be the confirmation that will be
executed. Can you provide me with an estimate of the total cost?

Does everyone at Enron agree?

Caroline,
I will redraft the Bermuda confirm to change from LC's to cash and send to
you.  Please make sure that the counterparty is aware that we plan to
register/file the confirm in Bermuda.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com

	"Chris Garrod" <CGGarrod@cdp.bm>
	04/18/2001 09:50 AM

		 To: <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com>
		 cc: <Brent.Hendry@enron.com>, <Caroline.Abramo@enron.com>,
<Paul.Radous@enron.com>, <Sara.Shackleton@enron.com>
		 Subject: Re: Cash Collateral

Dear Carol

Under Bermuda law, there is no real concept of "perfecting" security since it
is not necessary to ensure the enforceability in Bermuda that a charge be
registered in Bermuda.  However, although it is not necessary for a security
interest to be registered in order for it to be valid, the charge document
itself can be registered in Bermuda in the Register of Charges in accordance
with Section 55 of the Companies Act 1981 in order to ensure the priority in
Bermuda of the charge.  On registration, any charge evidenced in the charging
document will have priority over any unregistered competing charge or any
subsequently registered competing charge in respect of the assets which are
the subject of the charge (i.e. the cash).

If the agreement will be governed by either Texas or New York law, it will be
a matter of the laws of either Texas or New York as to the actual nature of
the security interest which is created by the charge.

If you would like us to effect the registration of the charge, we would need
an original (or a certified true copy) of the executed document which creates
the security interest.  There is no time limit on such registration.
However, please note that, in addition to our professional fees, there is a
filing fee of $446 which is payable in respect of the registration.

I trust that the above is of some assistance.  If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards.

Chris Garrod

Christopher Garrod
Conyers Dill & Pearman
Clarendon House, 2 Church Street
Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda
Direct dial  441 299 4923
Fax:  441 292 4720
email  cggarrod@cdp.bm

>>> <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com> 04/17/01 06:54PM >>>
Christopher:
We have done a trade with a Bermuda hedge fund and have negotiated
collateral provisions that may require them to post csah to us.  The
agreement will be governed by either Texas or New York law.  We need your
advice on how to perfect our interest in any cash posted to us that we
would hold in an account in the United States.  Could you please call
either me or Sara Shackelton (713)853-5620 if possible tomorrow or you can
send me an e-mail if that is easier.  I'm hoping that our possession of the
cash is enough.  Sorry for the short fuse on this.  If you need any
additional information, please contact me or Sara.  I will be unavailable
from 9-11 and 2-3 tomorrow Houston time.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com

---------------------- Forwarded by Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron on 04/18/2001
01:59 PM ---------------------------
   Carol St Clair @ ECT                04/18/2001 10:37 AM

To: Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Paul Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent
Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, "Chris Garrod" <CGGarrod@cdp.bm>

Subject: Revised Confirm

Enclosed are clean and marked versions of the Bermuda confirm.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT on 07/19/2000
11:08 AM ---------------------------

From:  Frank L Davis
   07/19/2000 11:01 AM

To: Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: restricted list for blanco product

Per your request.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Frank

Tori Kuykendall
07/19/2000 10:52 AM
To: Frank L Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: restricted list for blanco product

i have misplaced my list of blanco approved users - could you possibly email
that back to me if you still have it?  thanks alot.


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 12/21/2000
12:13 PM ---------------------------

Sharon Crawford
12/21/2000 12:15 PM
To: IT Calgary
cc: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Rob
Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT
Subject: Industry Canada - Competition Investigation

To Everyone in the Calgary and Toronto offices (from Peter Keohane):

As you know from the numerous press stories and my earlier e-mail messages,
the Competition Bureau conducted an investigation into the activities of
Enron Canada Corp. and British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation regarding
transactions in the Alberta Power Pool.  As you know, we were co-operating to
the fullest extent possible with the investigating authorities, and we were
confident that there was no substance to the allegations.  Accordingly, it is
with great pleasure that I inform all of you that the Competition Bureau has
announced in a press release, that the alleged offences under the Competition
Act were unsubstantiated and that the Competition Bureau has closed the
inquiry.  To quote the Competition Bureau, "The evidence suggests that the
companies were employing independent business strategies and were not
colluding on bids."  I want to thank everyone for their co-operation in
dealing with this disruptive matter.

Regards,
Peter


Anne,

Vasant sent this information to Norma. I shall fwd his message to you.

Vince
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 03:02 PM ---------------------------

Stinson Gibner
04/10/2001 02:57 PM
To:	Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Sevil Yamin

Vince,

Do you want me to do this, or Vasant?

--Stinson

---------------------- Forwarded by Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 02:57 PM ---------------------------
From:	Anne Labbe/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/06/2001 09:57 AM
To:	Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Sevil Yamin

Stinson,

I am the new HR generalist for the research group because Norma Villarreal is moving to Business Analysis and Reporting.  Earlier this week, Norma and I met with Vince, and he said that he was going to talk to you about writing up a list of Sevil's projects/ accomplishments for last year and this year, so that we can give her a project bonus since she did not receive a bonus during the normal PRC time.  At your earliest convenience, will you please email me this list so that I can get started putting together all of the paperwork so that she can receive a check on April 16th.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 5-7809. I look forward to meeting you, and the rest of the group next week at Vince's staff meeting.

Thanks,
Anne Labbe'


Have we captured these dollars in our P&L?   Let's make sure we are getting
credit, if appropriate.

---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Neal/HOU/ECT on 08/04/2000 10:36 AM
---------------------------

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


----- Forwarded by Carolyn Cooney/Corp/Enron on 04/17/2001 11:45 AM -----

	Rosalee Fleming
	04/16/2001 01:37 PM

		 To: Carolyn Cooney/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Presentation

Thanks a million, Carolyn!!
---------------------- Forwarded by Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron on 04/16/2001
12:28 PM ---------------------------

Lloyd Will@ECT
04/16/2001 11:46 AM
To: rosalee.fleming@enron.com
cc: Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON
Subject: Presentation

Attached is a general Eastern & Ercot outlook presentation, state of the gas
storage as well as a weekly coal report for Mr. Lay.

Please ensure that he receives this material for his meeting tomorrow.

Thanks.


Gloria,

I need to have a redline generated by Comparwrite, as I don't have it loaded
locally.  The original document is in my Fuel Cell/Equipment contract file,
and has the same name as the one below, only it is dated October11 (I believe
rev 2).  The new document is the one below.  Please save the redline verision
in the same directory, and email the redlined document to me, Heather Kroll,
Scott Healy, and Stephen Plauche ASAP.

Thanks,

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 10/27/2000 12:21
PM ---------------------------

	From:  Scott Healy @ ECT                           10/27/2000 12:03 PM

To: <hnock@fce.com>, <rlevine@fce.com>
cc: Stephen Plauche/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Fuel Cell Purchase Order

Per my voice mail, here is the latest draft of the purchase order (we are
preparing a redlined version which I will send you shortly).  We have not had
the opportunity to incorporate all the business terms which were discussed
and agreed to yesterday.  Also, we have not yet completed a full internal
review of the document.  However, so that we can hold our conference call
today, I am sending you the draft.  Please give me a call to arrange the
conference call.


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/01/2000 06:32 PM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	12/01/2000 05:31 PM

		 To: skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, mpalmer@enron.com, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Alan
Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mona
L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT,
Robert Badeer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES, Neil
Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Governor's Proposals Go Public

In case folks haven't seen them yet, attached are Davis' press release and
the letter he sent to Hoecker today.

Best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 12/01/2000 05:25 PM -----

	"Karen Edson" <kedson@ns.net>
	12/01/2000 03:10 PM

		 To: "Baker Carolyn (E-mail)" <cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Bill Carlson
(E-mail)" <william_carlson@wastemanagement.com>, "Bill Woods (E-mail)"
<billw@calpine.com>, "Curt Hatton (E-mail)" <curt.hatton@gen.pge.com>,
"Curtis Kebler (E-mail)" <curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "David Keane
(E-mail)" <dnke@dynegy.com>, "David Parquet (E-mail)"
<dparque@ect.enron.com>, "Duane Nelsen (E-mail)" <duanenelsen@msn.com>, "Ed
Tomeo (E-mail)" <ed.tomeo@uaecorp.com>, "Edward Maddox (E-mail)"
<emaddox@seawestwindpower.com>, "Eileen Kock (E-mail)" <eileenk@calpine.com>,
"Ellery Bob (E-mail)" <bellery@spi-ind.com>, "Escalante Bob (E-mail)"
<riobravogm@aol.com>, "Frank DeRosa (E-mail)"
<fderosa@sanfrancisco.usgen.com>, "Greg Blue (E-mail)" <gtbl@dynegy.com>,
"Hap Boyd (E-mail)" <rboyd@enron.com>, "Jack Pigott (E-mail)"
<jackp@calpine.com>, "Jan Smunty-Jones (E-mail)" <smutny@iepa.com>, "Jeff
Dasovich (E-mail)" <jdasovic@enron.com>, "Jim Willey (E-mail)"
<elliottsa@earthlink.net>, "Joe Greco (E-mail)" <joe.greco@uaecorp.com>, "Joe
Ronan (E-mail)" <joer@calpine.com>, "John Stout (E-mail)"
<john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>, "Jonathan Weisgall (E-mail)"
<jweisgall@aol.com>, "Julee Malinowski-Ball (E-mail)" <jmball@ns.net>, "Katie
Kaplan (E-mail)" <kaplan@iepa.com>, "Kent Fickett (E-mail)"
<kfickett@usgen.com>, "Lynn Lednicky (E-mail)" <lale@dynegy.com>, "Marty
McFadden (E-mail)" <marty_mcfadden@ogden-energy.com>, "Paula Soos (E-mail)"
<paula_soos@ogden-energy.com>, "Robert Lamkin (E-mail)"
<rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>, "Roger Pelote (E-mail)"
<rpelote@energy.twc.com>, "Steve Ponder (E-mail)" <steve_ponder@fpl.com>,
"Steven Kelly (E-mail)" <steven@iepa.com>, "Sue Mara (E-mail)"
<smara@enron.com>, "Tony Wetzel (E-mail)" <twetzel@thermoecotek.com>, "Trond
Aschehoug (E-mail)" <taschehoug@thermoecotek.com>, "William Hall (E-mail)"
<wfhall2@duke-energy.com>, "Baker Carolyn (E-mail)"
<cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Anne Kelly (E-mail)" <kelly@hnks.com>, "Bev
Hansen (E-mail)" <bhansen@lhom.com>, "Govenar Scott (E-mail)"
<sgovenar@govadv.com>, "Hedy Govenar (E-mail)" <hgovenar@govadv.com>, "Jamie
Parker (E-mail)" <jparker@HMOT.com>, "Jenn Paulsen (E-mail)"
<paulsen@HMOT.com>, "Kassandra Gough (E-mail)" <kgough@calpine.com>, "Marie
Moretti (E-mail)" <marie_moretti@msn.com>, "Maureen O'Haren (E-mail)"
<oharen@HMOT.com>, "Monagan Mike (E-mail)" <mrmonagan@aol.com>, "Paula Soos
(E-mail)" <paula_soos@ogden-energy.com>, "Phil Isenberg (E-mail)"
<isenberg@HMOT.com>, "Pigott Jack (E-mail)" <jackp@calpine.com>, "Richard
Hyde (E-mail)" <rwhyde@duke-energy.com>, "Rob Ross (E-mail)"
<robbiz@cwo.com>, "Roger Pelote (E-mail)" <rpelote@energy.twc.com>, "Ron Tom
(E-mail)" <rtom@govadv.com>, "Rudman Cary (E-mail)" <cjrudman@softcom.net>,
"Sandi McCubbin (E-mail)" <smccubbi@ees.enron.com>, "Stephanie Newell
(E-mail)" <stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>, "Susan McCabe (E-mail)"
<sfmccabe@mindspring.com>
		 cc: "Julee Malinowski-Ball (E-mail)" <jmball@ns.net>
		 Subject: Governor's Proposals Go Public

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 1, 2000
GOVERNOR DAVIS RESPONDS TO FERC WITH INITIATIVES ON ELECTRICITY PRICES,
SUPPLY
SACRAMENTO - Responding to a draft proposal by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), Governor Gray Davis today announced several initiatives
to ensure reliable and affordable electricity in California.

In a letter to the federal regulators, the Governor outlined a variety of
regulatory and legislative actions to keep the state,s electricity prices at
the lowest reasonable cost. They include innovative measures to encourage
the siting of power plants in compliance with the state,s environmental
laws, restructuring the state,s power-buying agencies to eliminate conflicts
of interests, and promoting energy conservation and voluntary cutbacks by
larger users during periods of high electricity demand.

"If you do your job of protecting consumers by rectifying the wholesale
markets, the steps I have to take can be transitional in nature and limited
in scope," wrote Gov. Davis, who also reiterated his call to FERC to order
retroactive refunds to San Diego and Orange County consumers, and to impose
price caps on the price of wholesale electricity. "I cannot in good
conscience, however, forego any measure that would serve to protect the
people of California until I am satisfied that the sellers in the wholesale
markets will not victimize Californians again."

Governor Davis, who inherited the problems of deregulation as a result of
legislation signed by Governor Pete Wilson in 1996, said that "The free
market applied to electricity can work, but only if market conditions allow
for real competition, and if all parties act responsibly." The Governor
added "Even though FERC had recently concluded that California,s market was
+dysfunctional,, its draft proposal fails to include measures to stop
out-of-state electrical generators from price gouging, and would lead to
higher prices next summer."

The Governor,s proposals include:

Introducing legislation to dramatically change the membership of the ISO and
PX, eliminating members of the board that have what he called "inherent
conflicts of interest" and replacing them with independent members;

Seeking legislation that will allow new approaches - such as emissions
credit trading - to aid in the siting of new power plants;

Calling on the state,s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to promote
distributed generation and co-generation;

Accelerating voluntary efforts by the private sector as well as state
agencies to reduce their energy use during peak periods;

Expanding "forward contracting" by utilities that would allow multi-year
contracts to reduce price volatility and ensure reliability;

Asking the PUC to expedite its investigation of the state,s electricity
demand reduction programs for commercial users, and adopt new programs to
allow voluntary interruptions that will allow the reduction of electricity
use during peak power periods;

Reviewing new measures to coordinate power-plant maintenance and operating
activities;

Requiring utilities to retain their existing generation facilities instead
of selling them off at least until the market becomes competitive; and

Calling on the PUC and California Energy Commission (CEC) to study providing
"real time price signals" (such as metering) to large energy users to reduce
energy use.

Governor Davis noted that in the decade prior to his administration, no
power plants were built in the state. But since April 1999, six power plants
representing 4,700 MW of new generation have been approved. Twenty more
applications are under review and 11 more are in the pipeline.

"This represents a significant change in policy and performance and responds
to the fact that we must increase supply as rapidly as possible without
abrogating our commitment to state and federal public health and
environmental protection," he said.

The Governor,s initiatives announced today reflects his commitment to FERC
Chairman James Hoecker at a hearing last month in San Diego to provide input
into FERC,s final order on the California electricity market. That decision
could come as early as December 13, 2000.

The Governor will continue to meet with legislative leaders, consumer
groups, and other interested parties to discuss additional options. He said
a more complete plan cannot be developed until FERC,s final order has been
announced and analyzed.


Great!!  DF

	From:  Paul Cherry                           02/13/2001 11:23 AM

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: PG & E Creditworthiness

 Drew,

 I received a call from my contact at PG &E and they have accepted our
changes. With your approval we will clean up the draft and get Rod to execute
and forward to PG & E for their execution.

 Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Cherry/GPGFIN/Enron on 02/13/2001
11:21 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Paul Cherry                           02/06/2001 02:39 PM

To: c1c4@pge.com
cc: Ted Chavez/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON

Subject: PG & E Creditworthiness

 Chris,

 I have attached our most recent revisions to the Letter Agreement.

 I will be out of town Wednesday and Thursday returning Friday.

 If you need assistance, please contact my associate, Ted Chavez at
713-853-7952.

 Regards.


We won one!

-----Original Message-----
From: Louis.Eber@ubsw.com [mailto:Louis.Eber@ubsw.com]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:40 PM
To: Forster, David
Subject: RE: Master Agreements

They can be sent from Houston, but I think you will need UBS AG,
Stamford Branch stationary.  Have you gotten a supply for this purpose?

Lou

-----Original Message-----
From: David.Forster
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:40 PM
To: Eber, Louis
Cc: David.Forster
Subject: Master Agreements

We are in the process of preparing Master Agreements to go to customers.

Can these draft contracts be sent directly from here?

Obviously, each pack is quite large - it would be nice to avoid having
to ship them to Connecticut just to have them forwarded from there.

Dave

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

Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.


Notice # 01-156
May 9, 2001

TO:
All NYMEX Members and Member Firms

FROM:
Neal L. Wolkoff, Executive Vice President

RE:
NYMEX Post-Close Trading Session Rules

DATE:
May 8, 2001
===========================================================

This Notice advises Members and Member Firms of changes to the two post-close
session rules applicable to the NYMEX Division.

! As a result of amendments to both rules, the post-close sessions generally
offered Monday-Thursday will be the same as the Friday sessions with two
exceptions.

! Monday-Thursday. These sessions will start at 3:25 p.m. and will be two
minutes long.

! Fridays. These sessions will start at 3:30 p.m. and will be five minutes
long.

End of Week Post-Close Trading Session (Rule 6.57A)

As a reminder and as a follow-up to a Notice distributed last week, please be
advised that beginning on Friday, May 11, 2001, a number of amendments to
NYMEX Rule 6.57A, the NYMEX End of Week post-close trading session rule, will
become effective. The new version of this rule is attached below.

For Friday post-close sessions (and for post-close sessions the day before a
mid-week Exchange holiday) the following changes will be in effect:

(1) Eligible contract months will be expanded from the first four to the
first 12 consecutive listed contract months.

(2) The sessions now will be 5 minutes in duration.

(3) The trading range for these sessions will be expanded by adding the
following ticks above (below) the
daily high (low) for the applicable contract month (provided that this
expanded trading range does not violate the maximum permissible price
fluctuation limits then in effect):

Crude Oil  20 ticks
Heating Oil   50 ticks
Unleaded Gas   50 ticks
Natural Gas  50 ticks

Monday-Thursday Post-Close Trading Sessions (Rule 6.57)

In addition, please be advised that beginning on Monday, May 14, 2001, a
number of amendments to NYMEX Rule 6.57, the Exchange,s post-close trading
session rule for days other than Fridays, will become effective.  The new
version of this rule is attached below.

(1) Eligible contract months will be expanded from the first four to the
first 12 consecutive listed contract months.

(2) The trading range for these sessions will be expanded by adding the
following ticks above (below) the
daily high (low) for the applicable contract month (provided that this
expanded trading range does not violate the maximum permissible price
fluctuation limits then in effect):

Crude Oil  20 ticks
Heating Oil   50 ticks
Unleaded Gas   50 ticks
Natural Gas  50 ticks

(3) Customer participation will be expanded to the same extent as is
permitted for the End of Week Post Close Session. Please note that any order
submitted during the RTH session, including but not limited to resting orders
such as stop orders, limit orders and good until cancelled (GTC) orders, will
be deemed to have expired as of the end of RTH for purposes of this Session.
Accordingly, in the event that a market participant with such an expired
order seeks to participate in the Session, a new order must be submitted.

(4) As a consequence of the expanded trading range and customer
participation, trades done during this period will be price reported on PRS.

Finally, please be advised that, as a matter of practice, the Exchange does
not currently offer post-close trading sessions for Propane futures contracts.

If you have any questions concerning these changes, please contact George
Henderson, Vice President, NYMEX Floor Department, at (212) 299-2071; Rob
Stasi, Manager of Trading Floor Systems, NYMEX Floor Department, at (212)
299-2067, or Brian Regan, Senior Associate General Counsel, at (212) 299-2207.

NEW VERSIONS OF  NYMEX RULE 6.57(&POST-CLOSE TRADING SESSION8) AND
NYMEX RULE 6.57A (&END OF WEEK TRADING SESSION8)

Rule 6.57.  (&POST-CLOSE TRADING SESSION8)

Fifteen (15) minutes after the close of trading in all futures contracts, or
five (5) minutes after the closing range is established for all applicable
contract months other than contract months in the Sour Crude Oil futures
contract, whichever is later, trading shall resume for a period of two (2)
minutes (the ``Session'') in all energy futures contracts, subject to the
following conditions:

(A) Trading during the Session shall be limited to the first twelve listed
delivery months;

(B) Trades occurring during the Session for a particular contract month of a
futures contract shall be executed openly and competitively at a price within
the daily trading range of the applicable contract month for that futures
contract and as further expanded above the daily high and below the daily low
only for the contracts listed below provided however that no such expanded
trading range may exceed the price fluctuation limits in effect for the
applicable contract as of the end of the RTH session:

Contract    Additional Ticks

Crude Oil    20 ticks
Natural Gas    50 ticks
Unleaded Gasoline   50 ticks
Heating Oil    50 ticks

(C) During the Session, Floor Members, Floor Brokers and their customers may
participate in the same manner as trading occurring during the regular RTH
session, except that any order submitted during the RTH session, including
but not limited to resting orders such as stop orders, limit orders and good
until cancelled (GTC) orders, will be deemed to have expired as of the end of
RTH for purposes of this Session.  Accordingly, in the event that a market
participant with such an expired order seeks to participate in the Session, a
new order must be submitted.

(D) Prices for trades executed during the Session shall be reported on public
ticker services as current market prices and trades executed during the
Session shall not be considered in determining any settlement price; and

(E) Floor Members executing trades during the Session shall mark a line
across their trading cards prior to the entry of a Session trade.

Rule 6.57A.  END OF WEEK TRADING SESSION

On the last trading day of the calendar week, and, in any week when an
Exchange holiday falls on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday on the trading day
preceding such midweek Exchange holiday, there shall be no post-close trading
session provided on the trading floor pursuant to Rule 6.57.  Instead, on
such dates, an end of week trading session (the &End of Week Session'') shall
commence on the trading floor pursuant to this rule and subsequent to the
close.  Except as otherwise provided by the President or the President,s
designee for a particular trade date, such End of Week Session shall commence
twenty (20) minutes after the close of trading in all futures contracts and
shall continue for a period of  five (5) minutes in all energy and metals
futures contracts, subject to the following conditions:

(A) Trading during the End of Week Session shall be limited to the first
twelve listed delivery months;

(B) Trades occurring during the End of Week Session for a particular contract
month of a futures contract shall be executed openly and competitively at a
price within the daily trading range of the applicable contract month for
that futures contract and as further expanded above the daily high and below
the daily low only for the contracts listed below provided however that no
such expanded trading range may exceed the price fluctuation limits in effect
for the applicable contract as of the end of the RTH session:

Contract    Additional Ticks

Crude Oil    20 ticks
Natural Gas    50 ticks
Unleaded Gasoline   50 ticks
Heating Oil    50 ticks

(C) During the End of Week Session, Floor Members, Floor Brokers and their
customers may participate in the same manner as trading occurring during the
regular RTH session, except that any order submitted during the RTH session,
including but not limited to resting orders such as stop orders, limit orders
and good until cancelled (GTC) orders, will be deemed to have expired as of
the end of RTH for purposes of this End of Week Session.  Accordingly, in the
event that a market participant with such an expired order seeks to
participate in the End of Week Session, a new order must be submitted.

(D) Prices for trades executed during the End of Week Session shall  be
reported on public ticker services;

(E) Current market prices and trades executed during the End of Week Session
shall not be considered in determining any settlement price; and

(F) Floor Members executing trades during the End of Week Session shall mark
a line across their trading cards prior to the entry of an End of Week
Session trade.

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=sara.shackleton@enron.com&
refdoc=(01-156)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


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

Michelle Cash
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3823
Houston, Texas  77002
(713) 853-6401
michelle.cash@enron.com

This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the
attorney-client and/or work product privileges.


Phil, Rod & Mike -- please find attached a set of slides which will look very
familiar to you.  They are the same format as the GTB slides we recently
discussed, but are for the Trailblazer bid.  I would like to talk to Stan
about this next Monday when we meet to brief him on GTB.  But, since I am out
of the office until Friday (2 PRCs and Omaha trip), time is tight.

Do you want to review them Friday in person, before Friday on the phone, put
off discussing with Stan, or discuss with Stan without us meeting?  I'm very
comfortable with this one, and would like to go ahead and put it on Stan's
table.

Mike - by the way, I meant to ask you at staff this morning -- can you
clarify the memo you and Colleen issued regarding the role of EAMR as only a
consultant?  I thought we discussed using EAMR as the contracting entity in
projects such as these.  In that case, EAMR would take more than consulting
risks.

Thanks,
Jerry


Ernie, this is what I think.  ENA sold CES gas delivered to the NIMO citygate.  I don't think we ever had supply behind the citygate like we did with Peoples and East Ohio.  Heidi probably did the imbalance trades because it was after the gas flow day and we were unable to do anything about it.

Comments, questions?

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 04/23/2001 05:48 PM ---------------------------

	  From:  Chris Germany                           04/23/2001 01:28 PM

To:	Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wade R Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darla Saucier/NA/Enron@Enron, esimien@columbiaenergygroup.com
cc:
Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

Ernie's on the team now.

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 04/23/2001 01:27 PM ---------------------------

	  From:  Chris Germany                           04/20/2001 04:19 PM

To:	Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron@ENRON, Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wade R Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darla Saucier/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

Hi team.  Laurie has been asking for quite some time about an imbalance trade behind NIMO.  As you can see, I did my usual ignore it and maybe it will go away but its not working.  So,  this is what I need to know;

 Did Enron purcase gas (pool or local production) behind NIMO in Jan and Apr 2000?
What CES activity do we have at NIMO for the months shown above?
	Do we have any out-of-balance items at NIMO for the months shown above?

Laurie Ellis@ENRON
04/19/2001 07:41 AM
To:	Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

Chris, have you gotten anywhere with this?  I really need to get this resolved.

Thank you
Laurie

	Enron North America Corp.  From:  Chris Germany @ ECT                           04/02/2001 12:51 PM

To:	Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

713-646-8453

Laurie Ellis@ENRON
04/02/2001 12:27 PM
To:	Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

It is a CES deal.  I have some support that Cindy faxed me.  What is your fax number and I'll send it to you.

Thanks for your help
Laurie

	Enron North America Corp.  From:  Chris Germany @ ECT                           04/02/2001 12:07 PM

To:	Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

I just left Cingy a message  - I said that I'm not aware of any imbalance trades that we intiated.  However, it could have been done by CES or EES.  I asked her to call me back.

Laurie Ellis@ENRON
04/02/2001 09:56 AM
To:	Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

Chris, I am still trying to get these imbalance trades resolved.  John Bieltz is no longer with Amereda Hess but Cindy Wernecke has been working this issue.  She can be reached at (703) 317-2293.  Can you please get back to me as soon as possible as they would like to resolve.

Thanks
Laurie
---------------------- Forwarded by Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron on 04/02/2001 09:53 AM ---------------------------

Laurie Ellis
11/22/2000 01:03 PM
To:	Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

No, I still haven't gotten anywhere on this.  My contact at Amereda Hess (formerly Statoil) is John Bieltz.  His number is 703-317-2318 and his email is jbieltz@hess.com.  Thanks for your help.

Laurie

Chris Germany@ECT
11/22/2000 12:48 PM
To:	Laurie Ellis/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	Re: Imbalance trades on CNG

I'm sorry I have not responded sooner.  Any new developement on this?  To my knowledge, ENA has not done any imbalance trades.  Do you have a contact at Statoil?  I can call and try to get more info.  It could be some CES thing we were not aware of.

Laurie Ellis@ENRON
11/01/2000 02:55 PM
To:	Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Imbalance trades on CNG

Chris, do you have any information on an imbalance trade with Statoil on CNG Niagara Mohawk for January and April 2000?  Statoil has been very patient awaiting payment on this, but I cannot seem to find anything.  Gloria Barkowsky suggested that I talk to you.  Thanks for your help.

Laurie Ellis

<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>
<Embedded StdOleLink>


Well, thank you for the clarification.  I was confused because I was hanging
out with him Friday at happy hour and he said he was busier than ever.  I
mentioned that I talked to you, and he had nothing but nice things to say
about you.  Hope all is well.

Mat


Attached is a newly revised Credit Watch listing.  If there are any personnel
in your group that were not included in this distribution, please insure that
they receive a copy of this report.

To add additional people to this distribution, or if this report has been
sent to you in error, please contact Russell Diamond at x5-7095.

For other questions, please contact Bill Bradford at x3-3831, Russell Diamond
at 5-7095, Brant Reves at x3-9897, or the Global Hotline at x3-1803.


You have received this email because you are listed as a data approver. Please click http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000082434&Page=Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000082434
Request Create Date : 2/6/02 2:17:51 PM
Requested For       : justin.fernandez@enron.com
Resource Name       : Sitara Houston Production Central Edit Logistics
Resource Type       : Applications


calendar
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 09/01/2000
07:44 AM ---------------------------

Celeste Roberts@ECT
08/29/2000 06:21 PM
To: Celeste Roberts/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  (bcc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron)

Subject:

URGENT

The Associate and Analyst Recruiting Department will be conducting a number
of two hour workshops to review our recruiting and interview process for the
fall on-campus recruiting effort.  Critical information regarding our
on-campus interview process, revised evaluation forms and program structure
will be reviewed during these two hours sessions.

It is mandatory that all team members attend these workshops.  All team
members must attend in order to articulate and demonstrate the Enron
recruiting process.  Knowing how busy schedules are, we have made
arrangements to present these workshops in two hours sessions for a total of
40 workshops that will run during the last week of August, through the month
of September and end at mid October.

Listed below are the dates, location and times for each session.  Please
select a date and time and e-mail this information to my assistant, Dolores
Muzzy.  We can accommodate 25 participants at a time.  Dolores will take
dates and times on a first come, first serve basis.  We have scheduled enough
sessions to accommodate every member of both the Associate and Analyst
recruiting teams.

In order to participate in the recruiting process, you must attend one of
these sessions.  We will be tracking participation.  CPE credits will also be
given for attending this workshop.


have you ever been to monterey, cali?  i get to go there in two weeks for a
pipeline meeting.  it looks gorgeous.  is grandma still staying in town with
you?


I am at work and I'm NOT bored.  But te quiero mucho, tambien.  It looks like
we might get out at a decent hour.  If I do I'll call you.

Bye,
Robin


Mark --

Thanks for the additions.  I will add to the Asset / Responsibility Matrix.

The definition I have been using is that Regulatory Risk is a subset of
Sovereign Risk (with the other element being Political Risk).  Regulatory
Risk is a "legal" action taken by a government or its agent which modifies
Enron's business environment, most often directly through modifications in
the energy and communications markets, but also in broad areas such as taxes
and export - import policies.  Political Risk is a "supra-legal" action that
has the same impact (e.g., expropriation).

Currently the Regulatory Risk Working Group (Fiona Grant is member) is trying
to put in place a "standard" process to review and analyze regualtory risk
around the globe - quite an undertaking.  When I use the term Regulatory Risk
Management, I am primarily talking about such a process.  The key elements of
any risk management function are (1) identification, (2) assessment, (3)
mitigation / transference, and (4) audit.  You would probably agree that the
most difficult problem is to try and assess the impact of any Regulatory Risk
event.  The other key goal is to have a Mitigation Plan in place with an
assigned person to "manage" our activities so that Enron does not face an
associated loss.

My goal is to try an have this process in place by mid-year.  That would
include having undertaken a structured review of our current Assets (the
reason for the original questions) and the ability to review pending deals.

When you come over to Houston next week I would really like to sit down and
go through my thoughts with you.

Thanks.

JDS

Mark Schroeder@ECT
02/09/2000 05:48 AM
To: James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Fiona
Grant/LON/ECT@ECT, Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Assignment of Regulatory Risk Responsibility for Current Assets

Jim - overnight I realised you need to add our project in Turkey (Fiona
Grant) and Poland (Philip Davies).  I have not given you any one person, as
the regulatory issues seem to be country/environment specific, and instead I
have given you the names of each person with country responsibility.  Indeed,
at year-end we completed a financial transaction (Project Margaux), in which
regulatory risk was reviewed.  A definition of Rugulatory Risk would be
helpful, e.g., in most of these markets, trading arrangements are being
re-written, or developed for the first time, this put existing PPAs under
pressure.  Would energy taxes, carbon taxes/trading, transmission pricing
(both for evacuation of power, and delivery of gas), changes in property
tax/fuel tax regimes, risk of price regulation, all be included?  Do you have
checklist?  We can identify these risks, what is meant by "manage"?  We work
on these types of issues on a daily basis, so I am unclear as to what else is
intended or implied.  thanks  mcs

James D Steffes@EES
08/02/2000 17:24
To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES

Subject: Assignment of Regulatory Risk Responsibility for Current Assets

Rick & Mark --

One of the first steps in building our Regulatory Risk process is to
establish responsibility for the current assets owned/managed by Enron.
Having a point person that I can contact will help me immensely.

Attached is a listing of the assets that I have been able to pull together --
there may be more that you know about.

Is it possible for us to agree upon the person(s) who will manage the
Regulatory Risk with each of these assets?  Please feel free to call me to
discuss.

I would like to have this assignment process complete within the month.

The same type of effort will be necessary as we review pending transactions.

Thanks.


Amy,

I am comfortable with the number for Vasant,
I recommend $95,000 for Paulo.

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Fitzpatrick, Amy
Sent:	Wednesday, December 05, 2001 2:12 PM
To:	Kaminski, Vince J
Subject:	CONFIDENTIAL

Vince -

Here is the information that I spoke with you about over the phone.

Vasan Shanbhogue	$250,000	For 2001, set by Corp, would use about the same number
Paul Issler		$37,500		Up to $95,000 based on this year's market data

Thanks for your help!

Amy


Tana,

Can you please send a NDA regarding a potential transaction where Deloitte &
Touch may act in a system integrator role between EnronOnline and EnronOnline
customer.

Please email the following Deloitte representatives the document and copy me:

Mr. Bob Maxant, Partner
Mr. George Travers
Deloitte & Touche
Two World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281

email addresses:

bmaxant@deloitte.com
gtravers@deloitte.com

Thank you,

Mike Bridges


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 11/06/2000 12:24 PM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	11/06/2000 12:08 PM

		 To: Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron,
Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, MDay@GMSSR.com
		 cc: Joseph Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Call In Number re: Wright Meeting

The call-in number for the 12:30 (PST)/2:30 (CST) phone call is:

dial in: 888.476.6127
code: 125995

Thanks,
Jeff


Thanks for the information on the GB 58. This boat far exceeds what I want.
After the show I concluded that  either a 42 or 46 foot classic is most
appropriate for my needs. Would like to also consider the 36 foot model.
Thanks for the info though and keep me in mind. I enjoyed talking to you at
the boat show and my wife was quite sold on the GB line (after looking at
most everything there in detail).

As I mentioned I am in no particular rush as I probably have a year before I
want to go forward on this but if something exciting came up, either new or
used, I may be interested. Again, I would need your help in obtaining
appropriate dockage( in someone's backyard!)

Thanks, Rick Buy


Celeste,

We need to make sure that the interns in Vince's group are coordinated and
incorporated with the rest of the summer associates.  They should be offered
the same starting dates, I believe they are May 22, 2000 June 5, 2000.  I am
not sure about the June date.  Would you check and let Vince know.  They
should also be offered the same starting salary package as the others.  They
will be included in training (a few days) and any other events we host.
Thanks


Joel, you can remove my name from the distribution list as I am no longer
working in the controls group.  I have moved over to gas trading and am
supporting one of the traders.  It's been great working with you and I'll be
sure to say hi when I visit London this fall.  Cheers.


No Burrito August 5, 12, and August 24.

 - BardbluesBURRITO.pdf


Thanks for your comments.  I think it would be a good idea to have Jon on as
well.  I will add Jon and Marcus to the list.  Please let them know as
appropriate.

Regards,

Mark Haedicke

	Mark Evans
	01/04/2001 01:45 PM

		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Staff Meetings

Mark,

thanks for the note.

From the European perspective, I think the LC grouping makes sense. I think
you definitely want Marcus on the call: Marcus will be heading all our non-UK
European gas and power trading operations and so will be key going forward.

Query whether you want Jon Chapman on the calls. Jon will not be doing any
trading work but will doing the European assets work, akin to Bruce's group.

        Mark

From: Mark E Haedicke on 04/01/2001 11:46 CST
Sent by: Janette Elbertson
To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Evans/Legal/LON/ECT@ECT, Barbara N
Gray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce
Lundstrom/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Travis McCullough/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Julia Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lance Schuler-Legal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randy Young/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Staff Meetings

I propose that we continue to alternate the Office of General Counsel ("OGC")
and Legal Committee ("LC") meetings of Enron Wholesale Services on Monday
mornings at 8:30 am, Houston time.  The OGC and the LC would have the
following members:

  OGC     LC
 Alan Aronowitz     OGC
 Mark Evans     Justin Boyd
 Barbara Gray     Michelle Cash
 Jeff Hodge     Steven Douglas
 Bruce Lundstrom    Peter Keohane
 Travis McCullough    John Novak
 Julia Murray     [Marcus Von Bock und Polach?]
 Elizabeth Sager     Dan Rogers
 Richard Sanders    Paul Simons
 Lance Schuler
 Mark Taylor
 Sheila Tweed
 Randy Young

Please give me your comments.  It is anticipated that we will continue to
adjust the membership of both groups as the businesses continue to change.  I
plan to address the policy committee in February.


Mary:
Enclosed is the Counterparty form that we have come up with for Multi-Product
Guarantys.  Depending upon the products that need to be covered, each
Guaranty will need to be modified to make sure that it describes the proper
entities and products.  I will send along the Enron form of this shortly but
please pass this along to the appropriate people in the credit group.

Jeff, Stacy and Harry,
Are you going to change the Physical product form of Guaranty to look more
like this?  Power has changed their form and it may help for us to all be
consistent especially when we are asked to amend an existing Guaranty to
include more products.  If you do decide to amend your form, please send the
new form to credit.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Carol


Now you're committed!
m

Shanna Funkhouser@ENRON
01/16/2001 09:22 PM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: voicemail

You will both be glad to know that I finally figured out how to change the
header to my voicemail to say "EGM HR".  Sorry for the delay.

Shanna


Please call me if you have any questions (35242).


Megan, James, and I met regarding the payment due Tenaska IV.  I am OK with
paying what is in the system right now.  However, I would like for all of us
to meet today regarding some accounting issues,  What is everyone's
availability for this afternoon?

Please let me know ASAP.

Daren J Farmer@ECT
12/12/2000 04:48 PM
To: Greg Whiting/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Troy Klussmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, James
Armstrong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Megan Parker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jim
Pond/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Tenaska IV 10/00

In most cases, ENA will be a net buyer from Tenaska IV for activity related
to the Cleburne plant.  However, for October 2000, the plant was down the
majority of the month and ENA sold off the supply, resulting in ENA owing
money to Tenaska IV.

I have created deal 529856 with a demand of $1,798,389.73, which is the
calculated amount of income on the Cleburne desk. (Please see the attached
schedule.)   We need to pass this income on to Tenaska IV.  Do we need to pay
this amount (wire from ENA to Tenaska IV) or is there another way to do
this?  This is the case for October 2000 and could possibly happen again in
the future.

Greg, Troy, Jim - Please let me know what you think about settling this.

Megan - Don't pay the amount until we here from the Greg, Troy and Jim.
Also, make sure that we have received dollars from the spot sales before we
reimburse Tenaska IV.

D
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000
04:37 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Megan Parker @ ENRON                           12/07/2000 09:18 AM

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Tenaska IV 10/00

We have actuals.  The larger of the two volumes is 1,395,000, which is
45,000/day, so the demand rate in deal 514353 is fine.  I am having a
problem, though, with the way it is coming to settlements.  It is showing up
with a Jan 2003 delivery date.  I think the demand fee needs to be on 10/1
only.  Right now, it is on a line with a date of 10/1/00 to 12/31/36.   I
think this is confusing the system some how.  Also, we still need the
purchase deal for Tenaska IV.  It should be for a demand fee of $2,571,135.73
booked to the Cleburne desk.  We actually owe $1,798,389.73, but I need to
net the Tenaska IV sales with the purchase to clear those receivables.  James
is calling me every day asking for an update.  Do you know when we will be
able to get this in the system?  I have attached my spreadsheet so you can
see the numbers.

Megan