?

Rushing Game Matchups???  Here's how I see  the matchups this week.? Please
note, see the cheatsheet online http://www.cheatsheets.net/week15sheet.htm?
for exactly where I rank players and to  determine who to start.? Just
because one matchup may be more favorable than another, that doesn't
necessarily  mean I'd start the player with the best matchup.? The matchup
info is meant to be just one  more tool in your box when it comes to deciding
between players.??

Locks:? These games heavily  favor the Offense

Stephen Davis  (Was) vs Cowboy Defense??  New Coach Terry  Robiskie,s been
saying he,ll run Davis into the ground.? Against a run defense as soft as
the  Cowboy,s, no telling how many yards he,ll gain.? The arm seems ok and I
look for a huge  game here.? RBs roll up 200 yards on  Dallas like it,s an
average day(

Darnell Autry /  Chris Warren (Phi) vs Brown Defense??? It remains to be seen
what  effect (if any) newly signed Chris Warren will have this week.? It
wouldn,t surprise me a bit if Andy  Reid isn,t able to come up with at least
a small package of plays that feature  Warren.? He,s a thousand times  better
than Darnell Autry.? If he  can,t go this week, I,d look for him to be a
factor next week for sure.?? The Browns defense ranks # 30 in  rushing yards
allowed per game over the last four weeks so the matchup is  enticing.

Fred Taylor (Jac)  vs Cardinal Defense?? Every once in a while, those &too
good to be true8 matchups don,t pan out.?  This is certainly one of those
&too good to be true8 situations but I,d  be shocked if Taylor doesn,t just
roll over the Cards.? They can,t stop the run even when they  know what,s
coming at them.? Arizona  ranks # 29 in rushing yards allowed per game over
the last month.? That number won,t go down any after this  week.

Mike Anderson  (Den) vs Seahawk Defense?? Starting any player facing the
Seahawks is not a bad rule of thumb.?  They,ve been pretty bad and this week
they don,t stand a chance against  the dominating OL of Denver.?  Anderson
practiced fully Thursday so he looks good to go.? Keep an eye on the weather
as they,re  expecting snow in Denver but I,m not too worried about how it,ll
effect  Anderson.

Ron Dayne (NYG) vs  Steeler Defense?? This was the type of game they  drafted
Dayne for.? A ground war vs  Pittsburgh in December.? It,s not  likely the
Steelers will jump to a big lead and force the Giants to catchup mode  which
means pretty much no Dayne.?  This is shaping up to be a classic battle with
Bettis on one side and  Warren on the other.

?

Prime Matchups:? These games favor the  Offense?

Sammy Morris  / Shawn Bryson (Buf) vs Colts Defense??  Keep an eye on who can
go for the Bills this week but whoever starts will  likely have some good
rushing numbers on the carpet in Indiana.? There were some semi encouraging
signs  that Morris might be back. The Colts rank just # 25 over the last 4
weeks  in rushing yards allowed  per game.? They,re  soft on the run and
someone could make a big splash on Monday  Night.?

Charlie  Garner (SF) vs Saints Defense?? Just as they are with their pass
defense, the Saints rush defense is overrated.? Over the last four weeks,
they rank # 23  in rushing yards allowed  per game.? And  Garner is liable to
explode at any time.?  He,s too good in both the rushing and passing game to
consider sitting  down unless you,re just loaded.?

Warrick Dunn  (TB) vs Miami Defense?? It was surprising to me to see the
Dolphins slide this far on rush defense.?  Over the last four weeks, they
rank # 23 in rushing yards allowed per  game.? Doesn,t seem  right but that,s
what the numbers say.?  Either way, Dunn,s a must start given what he,s done
lately.?

Robert Smith  (Min) vs Ram Defense?? Like the passing defense, the Rams  rush
defense has improved over the year.?  It doesn,t matter though.?  You,ve got
to start Robert Smith.?  End of story.? He may be the  best RB in the league
if truth be told.???

Emmitt Smith  (Dal) vs Redskin Defense?? I think I may be the only one who
sees it this way, but I believe the Chris Warren booting was a real
statement  for Smith.? Sure, he still may not  get the 3rd down carries as
they get a look at Michael Wiley but  Emmitt is pretty much working without a
net here.? He proved his mettle once again last  week hammering against a
tough Tampa team.?  The Cowboys also showed how little faith they have in
their passing game  as they continued to feed Smith the ball even when
trailing badly. Washington  ranks # 21 over the last four weeks in rushing
yards allowed per  game so they,re very beatable.?

Tony  Richardson (KC) vs Panther Defense??  Another week, another RB shakeup
in KC as this time it,s Kimble Anders  who,s out of the mix.? I honestly
have a hard time trusting coach Gunther Cunningham with any of them but it
looks  like Richardson will get the bulk of the work right now.? The Panthers
can be run on.? Keep an eye on the weather in this one  as the passing game
could be limited.

James Allen  (Chi) vs Patriot Defense?? What a mess Chicago finds itself
in.? The messiah QB is now healthy  but still on the bench while the &guru8
offensive coordinator has left (been run  out of?) town for Utah and both
starting WRs are gone for the year with  injuries.? James Allen may be the
bright spot as he,s run hard and effectively.? The New England defense can
be  vulnerable to the run and this may be another week where they rely on
Allen to  carry a heavy load.

?

Even Matchups:? These games  feature no real advantage either way?

Edgerrin James (Ind) vs Bills  Defense??  Edgerrin may be  having one of the
best &poor8 seasons in NFL history.? He,s posting great numbers overall but
you,ll have a hard time finding a James owner who,s real happy with him.? If
he,s your guy, you have very little  choice but to start him in the Monday
Night game.? The Colts are tougher at home and  hopefully they won,t find
themselves playing catchup again.? Although with his receiving ability,  he,s
still active in that situation but it,s not the ideal scenario for any RB
when his team is playing from behind.?  The Bills rank # 18 over the last
four weeks in rushing yards allowed per  game so it,s a pretty average
rushing  defense.?

Tyrone Wheatley (Oak) vs Jets  Defense?? I,ll keep an eye on this one for
you but I,m hearing while the ankles may be better, a broken finger may be
giving him trouble.? Some are  speculating this is the cause of his 2 fumbles
last week.? The Jets play pretty solid rush defense  so it,s truly a matchup
that could go either way.? I,ll try to see what I can find out on  this one.?

Michael Pittman (Ari) vs Jaguar  Defense?? The Pittman injury watch
continues  as he,s still battling turf toe.? He  sat out of practice Thursday
and may not know his status until Friday or  Saturday.? If he can,t go, it
looks  like Clarence Williams could get the start.? If you,re scrambling for
RBs, he,s  likely available in your league.?  Even assuming Pittman can go,
it,s not a great matchup as the Jags have  picked up the level of their play
lately.?

Lamar Smith (Mia) vs Buccaneer Defense??  Don,t let the Buc defense scare
you.? They,re a very good unit but as Emmitt  Smith proved last week, a
determined rusher can fare ok there.? Lamar Smith surely falls under that
&determined8 class.? If he,s your  guy, I,d still go with him.? Tampa  ranks
# 16 over the last four week in rushing yards allowed per game.? They,re
allowing an average of 108 yards  per game over that time so it,s not like
they,re Baltimore (48 yards per game  over their last 3)

?

Curtis Martin (NYJ) vs Raider Defense??  Like Tampa, the Raiders rush defense
has a bark that,s a little worse  than their bite.? They,re solid but  not a
defense that sends RBs running for cover.? They rank # 17 in rushing yards
allowed  per game over the last four weeks.?  Martin looked great last week
and looks to be guy they,re counting on to  carry the offense.?

?

Eddie George (Ten) vs Bengal  Defense?? Most people have this image in  their
heads of the Bengal defense laying down against the run.? Not so.? Over the
last four weeks, only 8 teams  are tougher in allowing rushing yards per
game.? Maybe that,s because teams choose to  pass the ball where Cincinnati
is weak but the bottom line is teams don,t run a  tremendous amount on them.?
However,  if QB Steve McNair is limited with a bad ankle and knee,? you,ll
see a team that runs the ball as  their 1st, 2nd and 3rd option.? (pretty
much their style with a healthy  McNair too()?? George is a must  start even
though it,s no slam dunk on the matchup.

?

James Stewart (Det) vs Packer Defense??  Depending on the weather and Charlie
Batch,s ribs, Stewart could be asked  to carry the load this week.? Green
Bay is hurting on Defense with DT Steve Warren the latest injured Packer on
defense.? On the flip side, they,re  playing pretty stingy rush defense
averaging 104 rushing yards allowed per game  over their last 4 which ranks
them # 14.?

??

?

Downside Matchups:? These games favor the  Defense

Brad Hoover (Car)  vs Chief Defense??  With Tshimanga  Biakabutuka reverting
back to his normal &can,t stay healthy8 form he,s  displayed for most of his
career, Hoover gets another shot this week.? The Chiefs are tough at home and
the  weather could be a factor (possibly in his favor) but Hoover will take
his power  rushing style into Arrowhead and see how he fares.? Kansas City
ranks # 8 over the last four  weeks in rushing yards allowed per game so they,
re pretty  solid.

Travis Prentice /  Jamel White (Cle) vs Eagle Defense?? Neither of these guys
is doing a  great job and they,ll both likely struggle against an Eagle team
that,s serious  about defense.? If it were me, I,d  look elsewhere if these
were my guys.

Marshall Faulk  (Stl) vs Viking Defense?? While they,re under appreciated,
the Viking rush defense is pretty good.?  Over the last four weeks, they rank
# 11 in rushing yards allowed per  game.? They,ll have all they want  with
Marshall Faulk but the defense is one of the tougher one,s Faulk will  face.?
He,s still a no brainer to  start regardless of the opponent.?  He,s
reportedly feeling ok with the knees although he admits to being  worried
about them both.? Coach Mike  Martz has talked about using him on special
teams to help turn that unit  around.

J.R. Redmond /  Patrick Pass / Kevin Faulk (NE) vs Bears Defense??  With
Redmond still ailing, the Patriot RB situation is a mess.? And Bill Belichick
certainly isn,t  shedding much light on anything.?  Unless Redmond shows he
can be 100%, I,d probably shy away from all 3 of  them as it,s too much of a
shot in the dark trying to predict Belichick.? The Bears are playing pretty
tough rush  defense with rookie sensation Brian  Urlacher.

Ahman Green (GB)  vs Lion Defense?? One bright spot for the Packers  this
year has been the outstanding play of Ahman Green.? Coach Mike Holmgren in
Seattle could  have likely saved a # 1 pick on Alexander if Green was still
in Seattle.? Green,s always had the physical skills  but he lagged behind in
other areas.?  Now, he seems to have brought the mental part of the game up
significantly and the results are showing on the field.? It,s a tough matchup
as the Lions rank #  7 over the last four weeks in rushing yards allowed per
game but I think he,s up  for it.

??

Defensive Slam Dunks:? These games heavily favor the  Defense

Ricky  Watters (Sea) vs Bronco Defense?? Denver evidently didn,t take  kindly
to Corey Dillon hanging a Hall of Fame type day on them several weeks ago  as
they,ve been tough against the run since then.? Over the last four weeks,
they rank # 2  in rushing yards allowed  per game allowing just 57 yards per
game.? Watters is a solid player and not unlike  an Emmitt Smith, he,s a guy
that,s made a living performing against the tough  teams in tough games.? So
it,s not  like I,m terrified of this matchup.?  Just be aware, it,s a tough
one.?  One thing you might want to consider is that coach Mike Holmgren has
said  at some point, he wants to see more of rookie Shaun Alexander,
especially in the  passing game.? How much he,d like to  see isn,t known
right now.?

Terrell  Fletcher (SD) vs Baltimore Defense??  Let,s not go there.?
Baltimore is allowing an average of 48 yards rushing per game over their
last 3 games.? I don,t see Fletcher  as the guy who breaks that trend.?

Jerald Moore  / Chad Morton / Terry Allen (NO)? vs  49er Defense??? Early
this week, both Moore  and Morton were injured and feared to possibly miss
Sunday,s game.? They appear to be healing ahead of  schedule and now it looks
like both may play.? Allen spent time running with the first  unit in
practice so it,s really murky right now.? I,d tend to shy away from all these
guys  as I think they,ll let QB Aaron Brooks throw the ball like he did last
week.? Besides, the 49ers are  deceptively stingy against the rush ranking #
3 over the last four weeks  in rushing yards allowed  per game.???

Corey Dillon  (Cin) vs Titan Defense?? Yes, this is a tough matchup.? But so
was Denver and the jersey Dillon  wore in that particular tough matchup is
now hanging in Canton, Ohio.? I learned (and I hope you did too) to go  with
the young man pretty much regardless of the opponent.? Tennessee is very good
in defending the  rush but I see very little way you could bench Dillon
unless you,re just  loaded.?

Jamal Lewis  (Bal) vs Charger Defense?? Lewis is clearly the class of the
rookie crop offensively.? I hear  some say they think his early season elbow
injury was actually a blessing as it  let him stay fresh.? I don,t know
about that but I do know he,s running very hard and effectively.? He does
draw a tough matchup this week  against a Charger defense that,s only
allowing 81 rushing yards per game over  the last 4 games which earns them a
ranking of # 5.? Still though, you pretty much have to  ride Lewis if he,s
your guy.?

Jerome  Bettis (Pit) vs Giant Defense?? This could be a classic battle
between two big backs in Ron Dayne and Jerome Bettis.? Bettis lives for these
kind of games and  he,ll get to lay it on the line Sunday.?  He,s a likely
starter in your league but the Giants are tough against the  rush.? Over the
last four weeks,  they rank # 6 in rushing  yards allowed per game.?  I,d
still feel good about starting Bettis if he were on my roster but you  need
to be aware it,ll likely be tough going.

?

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cheatsheets-unsubscribe@egroups.com


Start Date: 1/3/02; HourAhead hour: 21;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  Variances detected.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002010321.txt

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 21 / Preferred:  17.51 / Final:  17.48)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE4
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 1/3/02
  SC_ID: ENRJ


I will have property taxes for Gleason tomorrow and I will be talking with
Jody Pierce regarding the Fixed Operating #'s and cost numbers as well.  When
I talked with Kevin Presto he thought that trying to use the 99 actual
numbers and then escalting them was NOT a good idea, due to the fact that
these are not "normal" operating assumptions.  Please give me a call if you
have any questions.
Ben


yes we are going


for deal 694859 -- it should be 4.48

  for deal 697646 -- for the 30-31 it should be 4.50


Nothing with or pertaining to  CGI Information Systems & Management
Consultants, Inc to the best of my knowledge.

Kay

Kay C. Young
Legal Specialist
Enron North America Corp.
713-853-6794 Phone
713-646-3393 Fax
kay.young@enron.com

	Mark Greenberg@ENRON
	03/21/2001 01:03 PM

		 To: Kay Young/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: CGI Information Systems & Management Consultants, Inc

Kay -

Do we have a confidentiality agreement with the subject company?

Thanks.

Mark
Senior Counsel, ENA
Phone:     713-345-8897
Facsimile: 713-646-3940
E-Mail:      Mark.Greenberg@enron.com


Ed and Wendy:
How do you want to proceed on this?  This deal is for 16,800 MWh's total for
the month of June.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 05/22/2001 01:00 PM -----

	David Portz
	05/22/2001 12:48 PM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Genia FitzGerald/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Carolina Power & Light

[I'll see you at approx. 1  p.m. today right?]

Re the below, contact the credit group to see if they can speedily resolve
the credit issues so as to bring the EEI to bear on the transansaction,
clearly the best result.  Credit will also indicate whether the size of the
trade is such that they want to insist the trade is done under a completed
EEI Master, rather than being documented the 'old way' and then brought under
the EEI Master upon its completion.  If the trade will be completed under the
Tariff, you'll want to look at the Tariff to see what underlying terms you're
dealing with (e.g., 1 year limit on term of trade completed under the Tariff,
availability of LDs for a trade involving LD energy, etc.)

If not already known to you, Genia or Elizabeth may have input on where
things stood in Janice's negotiations with CP&L.

	Carol St Clair
	05/22/2001 12:13 PM

		 To: David Portz/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Genia FitzGerald/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Carolina Power & Light

David:
CP&L has marked up a confirm that we sent to them for a deal that was done
5/8/2001 to make it subject to their 5/18/98 Tariff agreement.  We are in the
process of negotiating an EEI Master with them but have some outstanding
credit issues.  How should I respond to their mark-up?  This was one of
Janice's files.

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


Toni:  I've been gone the last few days, so could you give me an update as to
where we are on Cynthia's offer and/or her response?  Thanks.


Any comments?.....

---------------------- Forwarded by V Charles Weldon/HOU/ECT on 12/18/2000
12:00 PM ---------------------------

Kristin Gandy@ENRON
12/18/2000 11:36 AM
To: Niraj.parikh@bus.utexas.edu, Monique.salazar@bus.utexas.edu,
todd.preheim@bus.utexas.edu, Jonathan.mueller@bus.utexas.edu,
Roman.stephens@bus.utexas.edu, Nadeem.abullah@bus.utexas.edu,
scott.conner@bus.utexas.edu, tom.dalton@bus.utexas.edu,
jacee.burnes@bus.utexas.edu
cc:  (bcc: V Charles Weldon/HOU/ECT)
Subject: Offer Letter Revisions

Hello UT Candidates,

As most of you have already heard unfortunately Becky Bruce is no longer with
Enron.  My name is Kristin Gandy and I will be taken over recruiting for UT.
I wanted to send you a quick email to let you know about some changes we are
making.

Attached please find a document with information containing Enron's offer
letter revisions.  Have a wonderful holiday season and I hope to hear from
you soon.

Please contact me at 713-345-3214 if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Kristin Gandy
Associate Recruiter


Please advise if you have the Financial Derivatives - Canada binder.

Thank you,
Taffy


You got it.

	Nancy Sellers <Nancy.Sellers@RobertMondavi.com>
	05/08/2001 09:53 AM

		 To: "'Jeff Dasovich'" <Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Trade

I will trade you a white platter for a music book.

Nancy
(707) 251-4870 (phone)
(707) 265-5446 (fax)
"Plus je bois, mieux je chante"


not too bad...i was late to work, though.  Fortunately...the day is over for me.  I'm leaving for the airport shortly. AND, i'm in a good mood because some the girl that him my car called and confessed!  She said she thought she hit a garbage can, but when she heard from the girl having the party that someone hit my car...she realized it was her.  Anyway, she called her insurance and it's all good now.

Well, I should get going now...

See you soon.

Mat

PS.  Sorry if i woke you last night.

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurel Hazzard [mailto:lhazzard@firstam.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:15 AM
To: Smith, Matt
Subject:

How are you feeling this morning?


Please put this on my calendar and remind me.

thanks,  fletch
---------------------- Forwarded by Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT on 10/09/2000
07:12 AM ---------------------------

	From:  David W Delainey                           10/06/2000 12:32 PM

Sent by: Kay Chapman
To: John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin M
Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fletcher J
Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffery Ader/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ozzie Pagan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rogers
Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect, Bruce Sukaly/Corp/Enron@Enron, Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Doug
Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Berney C Aucoin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mitch
Robinson/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Kimberly Hillis/HOU/ECT@ect, Christy Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Felicia
Doan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT@ECT, Claudette Harvey/HOU/ECT@ect,
Shelby Malkemes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chaun Roberts/NA/Enron@Enron, Kay
Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Strategy Meeting

Dave would like to have a strategy meeting next Tuesday  Ocotober 10, 2000
from 2:30-4:30 in room 30C1. No preparation is necessary and it's important
that each of you plan to attend. If you cannot attend, please contact Dave
directly.

Thanks!


Thanks!

	David Minns@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	02/13/2001 03:17 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: RUSH APPROVAL: Torch Energy Marketing Inc.

No problems

From: Tana Jones@ECT on 13/02/2001 01:26 PM CDT
To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shari
Stack/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Minns/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Marie Heard/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Robbi Rossi/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, John Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jane McBride/AP/Enron@Enron,
Andrea Calo/SA/Enron@Enron, Peter Keohane/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: RUSH APPROVAL:  Torch Energy Marketing Inc.

Need to hear ASAP whether you have any problems with this counterparty.


FYI

"Seabron Adamson" <seabron.adamson@frontier-economics.com> on 05/09/2001
04:00:13 PM
To: <James.D.Steffes@enron.com>
cc: <Richard.Shapiro@enron.com>, "Sabine Schnittger"
<sabine.schnittger@frontier-economics.com>

Subject: RE: Policy paper

OK on the call.

Re: Centralized unit commitment and your concerns.

A few things to think about. Here are a few options:

1) Have the ISO do it (you can also have "bid-zero" bilaterals if you want
but the basic mechanism is the same). This effectively gives you PJM, New
York, etc.

2) You can have the traded flowgates approach, with the flowgate rights
needed to schedule. That way you get the right plants on in the right
places, in theory at least. This might be interesting as a future
development, but as we have previously agreed it is way too untested for use
now.

3) You can have the transmission rights (e.g flow rights a la Alliance) be
purely financial hedges (similar in some ways to FTRs), but you don't need
the flow right to schedule a transaction. This is the way that a bunch of
the RTOs seem to be going (e.g. Alliance). But this still leaves you needing
a way to create that feasible schedule. You can get feasibility by RT
through the LMP but my sense is that the RTO needs to make sure there is
enough capacity ready so that reliability can be protected. The problem of
the financial-only flowgate method in my book is that it doesn't meet one of
the key characteristics of a workable market - e.g. it doesn't really solve
the problem of congestion while there is time to do anything about it (e.g.
bring more plants online other than a few CTs, hydros, etc.). The RTO will
need some way to handle this problem, or else handle large volumes of MWh by
OOM calls at its discretion. I don't think we like that.

I was talking with some people about Alliance on Monday and they seem to
have sort of lost track of the ball, at least in my book. They are now
talking about an alternative method for dealing with day-ahead congestion.
This would effectively take the form of the re-dispatch type process used in
California. My view is that this sounds pretty clumsy, adds a lot of
complication, and will be great fun for the big generators in Alliance.
Under this system I want to be AEP - the 600 pound gorilla of the region.
And it is still effectvely centralized - the ISO takes in inc/dec bids and
broadcasts out prices, calculated by the OPF model. It has all of the
elements of LMP, just done more than once. If I am a big intergrated
generator/load utility with market power I can repeat the old games of
creating congestion by my scheduling in a constrained area and then getting
paid to unwind it.

So I think we have some basic questions to address next week on the call. I
just want to make sure we get an RTO model that can be made to work without
too much duct tape and bailing wire. If we want to jump off the centralized
unit commitment train we may need to go back and consider all of the
economic angles quite carefully. I am generally sympathetic to the
decentralized commitment idea but I also want to make sure we don't end up
with a muddle.

Cheers

Seab

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

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

www.frontier-economics.com

-----Original Message-----
From: James.D.Steffes@enron.com [mailto:James.D.Steffes@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:49 AM
To: Seabron Adamson
Cc: Linda.J.Noske@enron.com; Richard.Shapiro@enron.com
Subject: Re: Policy paper

Yes. ;I'd like a call early next week with some internal staff to discuss.
Some key issues on language and some real reservations on "centralized"
unit committment. ;I'll have Linda Noske (my assistant) set up the call.

Jim

To: ; ; ; ;<Richard.Shapiro@enron.com>, <James.D.Steffes@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: ; ; ; ;Policy paper

Rick/Jim:

Please find attached a new draft, incorporating your comments from last
Thursday. As I remember the next stage was to circulate this around
internally for feedback?

Seabron

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

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


In support of (as per Gord/Jaime's CA Action Plan)
? Reducing the exposure of EES to the market opening in 2001 (see ISSUES 1
and 2, below)
? Influencing the market structure of California to support sustainable EES
profit-making opportunities (see ISSUE 3).

The following matrix is structured so as to show a link between these goals
and the recommended regulatory action:

Note:  I think our focus on the current valuation processes is
over-emphasized.  I think it doubtful that the contentious valuation process
that is already underway in the regulatory arena will be circumvented or
brought forward in time because of current cash-flow problems.  The
valuations will likely continue along their current regulatory paths.  I
would recommend developing other alternatives to the IOU,s cash-flow
problem.  These should be developed in conjunction with a +transition to
deregulation, plan that we can lobby witih.  (See the attached Word document
for a fuller description).

ISSUES	TIME-FRAME	RISK	LIKELIHOOD	RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Transition to De-Reg ends in 2001
D pay market prices	2001	VERY HIGH.	LOW	? Ensure snail-pace valuation continues.
2. Frozen rate levels do not cover incremental costs
D Rate Increase in 2001	2001	HIGH.	HIGH	? Develop alternatives that minimize impact
to EES.
				? Make sure that rate increase alternatives support path to sustainable
de-reg (ISSUE #3)
3. Public and Legislature do not like current situation.
D CPUC makes rash decision in short-term	On-going	AFFECTS FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES	HIGH	? Show stakeholders
that return to regulation is impossible to achieve in today,s marketplace.
				? Bring transition plan to de-reg to stakeholders.
				? Ensure that benefit-sharing mechanisms are defined and implemented as part
of transition.


Scott, etal --

My final concern.

Is anyone at EES concerned with this outcome --
(1) Accept EES' tiering but use 60% of current usage as baseline,
(2) all above 60% is DJ Index, and
(3) demand below 60% is paid at $500/Mwh (or the ISO price)?

This is an adaption of our proposal.  Would this be painful?

My big fear is that somehow the CPUC uses our filing against us.  We need to
make sure that these discussions don't get away from us to allow that outcome.

Jim

Scott Stoness@EES
04/13/2001 12:00 PM
To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, jbennett@gmssr.com@ENRON, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES,
Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Leslie
Lawner/HOU/EES@EES, Leslie Lawner/HOU/EES@EES
cc:

Subject: Meeting 8AM Central Monday

We have agreed on a strategy, subject to Whaley/Delaney approval, to:
Scott Stoness submit testimony today advocating 2 part real time pricing in CA
Read other parties testimony this weekend from the perspective "Has somebody
filed testimony close enough to Stoness testimony, that we can cross examine
and brief to a favorable outcome?"
Meet on Monday at 8AM to decide whether to rescind Stoness's testimony.

The following dial in number and code corresponds to the Monday 8AM Central
Time meeting.
1 800 713 8600
68266 is PIN
Scott Stoness is host

Action Items:
All on To list above read and have opinion on 2 and 3 above
All on To list above meet on Monday at 8AM.  Meet in Stoness office if
possible.
Harry and Jeane polish Stoness testimony and wait to the last minute before
submitting it
Jeane ensure all on this To list get a copy of testimony, emailed as soon as
she gets it.

Scott Stoness


Here is what Trunkline sent us as what was over scheduled (it's from Lotus Notes so I had to copy and paste):

"Trunkline just called me to tell me that we received 16,595 mmbtu too much
from LNG in the month of March.   There is another ship due to come in on
April 16th.   Trunkline has suggested that we take 16,595 less then what we
are expecting, in order to make up for the March imbalance."

Thanks,
Dan


Here is the list of questions Yvan sent to Chris Smith and his responses.
Ben
---------------------- Forwarded by Benjamin Rogers/HOU/ECT on 04/13/2000
02:15 PM ---------------------------

YVAN CHAXEL@ENRON
03/21/2000 11:01 AM
To: Christopher Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Benjamin Rogers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Berney C Aucoin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carl
Livermore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donald M- ECT Origination Black/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: TECO-Answer to Chris Smith questions

Chris,

Hopefully the following points should answer your questions. Feel free to
call me (34292) if you still have any question.

Yvan

1_  We will value Teco as a series of hourly Spread options.
Legitimate points of concern:
a) Are we valuing an index deal or a physical deal?
  b) If it is a physical deal can the plant realistically react on an hourly
basis?

Answer: The deal Enron enters into is based on an spread between PJM index
and the appropriate OIL curve (New York Harbor + basis). However, the trigger
for the default of the contract (which is really what we are concerned with)
is a function of the plant cash flows compared to the debt level. The plant
cash flows depend on the physical operations of the plant and its capacity to
dispatch during the most expensive hours of the year. Therefore the question
of whether the plant can or cannot ramp up quickly enough to dispatch
economically is very pertinent to our valuation.
I would argue that the plant will always (or almost always) be able to
dispatch economically for the following 2 reasons. In the first place, its
operational ramp up time is only 10 minutes. Secondly, the scalar curve we
use is fairly well behaved and doesn,t swing around a mean position (see
graph below), hence allowing sufficient preparation for the dispatchers. The
chances of dispatchers being caught by surprise when prices spike up or down
should therefore be relatively small, and the plant should be able to follow
the real time prices pretty well.

2_ The power curve we use is PJM west. Even though the plant is located in
the south east end of PJM (i.e. the del Marva peninsula), we prefer not to
use the east curve which is too thinly traded to be meaningful.

4_ So far we have only used monthly vol for power. Should we start using
daily vol as well, then the blending formula would be:
'fvol = Sqr((dblMvol * dblMvol * (jDate - jToday) + dblDvol * dblDvol * 15) /
(jDate - jToday + 15))

with  jDate the first of the considered month of dispatch
 dblMvol the monthly vol
 dblDvol the daily vol

6_ We are assuming 50% flat correlation for 20 years (a much more
conservative assumption than 15%). However we run sensitivities where the
correlation goes from 30% to 70%.

7_ Yes, we are deducting all operative expenses from the valuation.
Origination is currently trying to reconcile the differences in operations
expenses between their numbers and those used by credits.

8_ The valuation model (coded by Alex Huang, Research) is based on a
bidimensional tree, and therefore doesn,t use the SPRDOPT function. However,
we checked that the SPRDOPT function from the structuring model and the tree
based model yielded the same values for the spread option.

9_ The strike for the spread option is the sum of the OIL price + the VOM.

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
*********************888

Please send me an excel spreadsheet which depicts the value that you see
associated with the heat rate spread option.  I want to make sure that I
understand exactly how you propose valuing the transaction and how this value
would be booked.  As such, please provide the following detail:

Will we be valuing/booking a series of monthly call options or a series of
daily call options?
What power curve are we valuing the deal against - PJM East or West Hub?
Please send me the current fuel curve that you are converting to $/MWh to
value the deal?
What volatilities are you using to value the options - monthly volatilities
or intra-day volatilities or a blend of the two (if blending please show me
what formula you using to blend the two vols)?
What expiration date are you using, i.e.: for monthly call options the 15th
of the relevant month, and for daily options?
What correlation are you assuming, 15% flat for twenty years?
Are you deducting all operating expenses from the value of the option?
Are you using the "SPRDOPT" Exotic Options function to value the option?
Are you using the $/MWh VOM dollar amount as your strike?
Has Don provided the fixed payment stream?  This stream should be covering
both P&I and not just principal.

Yvan, and Ben, please provide answers to these question via written
correspondence so that their is limited probability of misunderstanding.
Thank you both very much for your time and help thus far.  Furthermore, I
would like to reiterate that RAC's goal, prior to quoting any credit reserve,
is to be 100% confident that: (i) the methodology that is being employed is
consistent among the internal groups; and (ii) the inherent value of the
price risk management contracts matches.  This enables RAC to manage the
associated risk during the life of the transaction both effectively and
appropriately.

Regards,

Christopher


Just to clarify Britt's comments.  Harry is using NNG's numbers for total imbalance.  To split the
	imbalance among the third party shippers, we will continue to use Oneok's allocation of actual
	volumes.  The variance between Oneok and NNG will go to the Oneok imbalance to tie to NNG's
	ultra sonic measurement.   Thanks. Lynn

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Davis, Britt
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 10:05 AM
To:	'gharvey@gibbs-bruns.com'; Dornan, Dari; Fossum, Drew; Porter, Gregory J.; Ringblom, Kathy; Zikes, Becky
Cc:	Anderson, Gary E.; Benningfield, Robert; Blair, Lynn; Buchanan, John; Cessac, Kenneth; Corman, Shelley; Darveaux, Mary; Dietz, Rick; Gaines, David; Graham, Charlie; Hawkins, Don; January, Steve; Kile, Rick; Kowalke, Terry; Linhart, Joe; Lowry, Phil; Mendez, Angela; Miller, Mary Kay; Neubauer, Dave; Peschka, Mike; Rice, Randy; Sturn, John; Thompson, Charlie; Vaughan, Cara; Winter, Casey; Woodson, Harry; Zadow, Raetta
Subject:	Northern v. ONEOK
Importance:	High

	Harry today received the original of the November 1 letter to him from Sherry Rogers, which, again, takes the position that we agreed to the use of Plant PTR for September because of our lack of a reply to date to their response letters to our notices of the two September measurement incidents, even though Northern clearly stated its position in Northern's notice letters.  However, the attachment to the original letter now includes the September 2001 imbalance statement, using plant PTR instead of Northern's meters.

	I will have this circulated to everyone by fax or hand-delivery.

	Britt


I have modified the letter slightly to try and shift the burden of being notified as to internal policy matters back to the counterparty.  Let me know if you think this approach works or if you have suggested improvements in the language.
Thanks
Brent


Hey girl!  Thanks for the book and the CD.  I lazed around the house enjoying
both yesterday morning.  After we played tennis, Bill took me to Berryhill
for fish tacos (al fresco) and later that evening we went to yet another
Christmas party, where I drank champagne (but luckily not too much).  So it
was a good birthday.
Have a good day!

Karin Shelton <kss@overlandpartners.com> on 12/20/99 09:05:21 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: b-day

Hi Susan! I meant to call you yesterday but somehow I never did. Hope you
will accept a late Happy Birthday from me! I am assuming that mum passed
along our gift to you whilst we were in Houston last. I hope so! Anyway, I
hope that you had a good day and that Bill took you out for a nice dinner.

Except for maybe a lipstick for the mem's,(was totally confused by the
selection at the HEB - need help) this elf is finished with Christmas
shopping. Good to have it done. Picked up some sox at Tar-zhay for her to
wear w/ the clogs.

More later!

Karin


Julia:  Could I please have a copy of the executed swap confirm?   Thanks
(especially for all of your help).  Sara


Paul,

Put me down for a 21" and a 19" if there's availability.

diana

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kane, Paul
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 8:32 AM
To:	DL-Portland World Trade Center
Subject:	Monitor Sale

All,

We will be offering monitors for sale again in the Portland Office.  We have a variety of monitors for you to choose from.

Older 17' units - $10
Newer Compaq 17' units - $20
Older 21' units - $25
Newer Compaq 19' units - $35

Please respond to this email with the type of monitor you would like to purchase.  Will have a lottery type drawing on Friday Morning. By Friday afternoon, you will be notified that you can come by and pick out your monitor. We need to have all monitors picked up and removed my Friday the 2nd. After that, all remaining monitors will be donated to charity.

Regards,
Paul Kane
Portland IT


For those of you keeping track, Carrizo makes 475 master swap agreements.
Conferring with Team Swap, we have at least 20 masters out or going out for
sigature this week (including the 9 Merit Energy Partner masters).  Unlike
the media in the Presidential Election, I hesitate to call this one an early
win (especially after seeing the Board in Marie's office!), but I must say,
Team Swap is looking strong.
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 12/05/2000 03:44 PM -----

	Stephanie Panus@ENRON
	12/05/2000 08:39 AM

		 To: Bob Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laurel Adams/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea R
Guillen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jarrod Cyprow/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Gordon Heaney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janie Aguayo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Derek
Bailey/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Diane Anderson/NA/Enron@Enron, Kevin
Meredith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Tackett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Celeste
Cisneros/NA/Enron@Enron, William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debbie R
Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tanya Rohauer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brant Reves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rod
Nelson/LON/ECT@ECT, Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, John Suttle/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russell
Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lesli Campbell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wendi
LeBrocq/Corp/Enron@Enron, Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@Enron, James L
Copeland/HOU/ECT@ECT, Veronica Espinoza/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Veronica
Gonzalez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jane Wilhite/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
Radous/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Solmonson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marilyn
Colbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diane Ellstrom/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lynn E Shivers/LON/ECT@ECT,
Bill D Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Dianne Seib/CAL/ECT@ECT, Samuel Schott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Anthony
Campos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bernice Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary G
Gosnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dale Neuner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Frank L Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carrie Southard/LON/ECT@ECT, Amber
Ebow/HOU/ECT@ECT, Adnan Patel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Melissa Ann
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacey Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bridgette
Anderson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Lisa Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Camille
Gerard/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Georgi Landau/NA/Enron@ENRON, Brent
Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan Bailey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Samantha Boyd/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert Bruce/NA/Enron@Enron, Tana
Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Taffy Milligan/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

We have received an executed financial Master Agreement:

Type of Contract:  ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency-Cross Border)

Effective Date:   November 30, 2000

Enron Entity:   Enron North America Corp.

Counterparty:   Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

Transactions Covered:  Approved for all products with the exception of:
Pulp, Lumber & Paper,
          Foreign Exchange

Confirming Entity:  Enron North America Corp.

Governing Law:   Texas

Copies will be distributed.

Stephanie Panus
Enron North America Corp.


---------------------- Forwarded by Ami Chokshi/Corp/Enron on 05/25/2000
03:08 PM ---------------------------

"Steve Holmes" <Steve.Holmes@dvn.com> on 05/25/2000 03:05:01 PM
To: <Ami.Chokshi@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Revised volumes

Ami,
The attached reflects revised volumes and PVR factors for June.  I am still
waiting on final volumes on a couple of non-operated wells and pvr factors
from Tennessee.  I'll send you the co-owner volumes this afternoon as well.

Steve

 - EnronAvails0600revised.xls


http://www.thomsonfn.com/stockquote/private/fcgi-bin/tipsheet_ts?group=ts&stq_
tmpl_name=stock_quote.html&ticker=mksi


Hi Rusty,

Just checking to make sure you got this email.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/01/2000 10:38
AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Kay Mann                           08/30/2000 02:59 PM

To: "Way, Karen S. - CHI" <karen.way@piperrudnick.com>
cc: Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rusty Stevens/Corp/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re:

Glad you wrote, since I need to send you this option agreement for your
review:

I will chase down the fax and give it a look.

Thanks,

Kay


happy bday to you, happy bday to you,i hope you have your job tomorrow,because i like to work with you

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nelson, Michelle
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:12 AM
To:	Maggi, Mike
Subject:	RE:

i am figurin gout how you really are!  i'm smart that way.  i don't like you today!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Maggi, Mike
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:10 AM
To:	Nelson, Michelle
Subject:	RE:

what does that mean

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nelson, Michelle
Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:10 AM
To:	Maggi, Mike
Subject:

i am starting to figure you out.


Kay-
  Attached please find a copy of my resume.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Regards
Ed


can you follow up on this? i have more info...will discuss in person.

-----Original Message-----
From: Celeste Fontenot [mailto:celeste@prejeancompany.com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:48 PM
To: Quick, Joan
Subject: RE: Juniper's EI 28 Crude for Feb 02

On a different subject.  Don wanted me to ask you about the status of
the Swap contracts.  We have receiving invoices but no payments.  Thanks
for your help.

-----Original Message-----
From: Quick, Joan [mailto:Joan.Quick@ENRON.com]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:26 PM
To: Sleeper, Mark
Cc: Celeste Fontenot
Subject: Juniper's EI 28 Crude for Feb 02

Hi Mark,

Could you please email Celeste the back up for the EI 28 crude payment.
Normally they receive the back up in the mail, but they so far have not
received it.

thanks
joan

**********************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************


I think the implementation plan for the Res and Small Commercial makes good
sense.  This is good intelligence for preparing our curves and pricing
models; however, these customers are not our commercial focus and only tend
to show up as a few sites in a portfolio of sites.  SDG&E's plan was our
preferred plan to the extent that the Legislature or Commission had
implemented a mandatory rate cap for all size customers.

With respect to the larger opt-in customers, I expect that this is only
available to Standard Offer customers.  SDG&E should prevent cost shifting to
other customers who do not benefit from the cap, i.e. SO customers who do not
opt-in and DA customers who do not have the option.  Even customers who
opt-in will vary by differing degrees in terms of the size of the customer
and timeframe.  It seems to me, the only equitable implementation plan for
the opt-in customers is a customer-specific balancing account, similar to
that which is implemented for the balanced payment plan; otherwise too much
gaming will ensue which would result in the need for administratively
burdensome tracking.  To the extent that SDG&E makes all customers, including
DA customers, pay for the undercollections, we can switch our customers to
Standard Offer without any negative ramifications.  (Note: It would be
difficult to exercise such a "regulatory switching option" if only those
customers who benefit incur a surcharge into the future, because our
customers would balk at us exercising the option during our contract term and
imposing a future liability on our customer beyond the contract term.)  In
fact, it might be better if all customers were expected to pay for the
undercollections so that we can exercise the regulatory switching option.
What do others think?  I think we can work with either implementation
method.  If it is a customer-specific balancing account, we will make
customers know that the lower rates is the equivalent to a loan they will
need to eventually pay off.  If it is all customers who are expected to pay,
we will exercise the regulatory switching option.  We need to be careful not
to share too much of this strategy and insights with the utility, because
they will counter by imposing new rules and charges for switching customers
between DA and SO.

I don't believe that SDG&E's shareholders should be held accountable for a
percentage of the shortfalls.  This would provide a subsidy to SO service.  I
believe it is more important that customers realize that the utility's SO
service is not the right solution versus trying to drive the utility away
from SO service.  Either outcome works for us.

The last issue I will address is the timing of recovery of the
undercollections.  Will recovery begin during the period of the cap such that
the cap will effectively be implemented as a freeze?  Or will the recovery
begin after the cap expires, resulting in otherwise higher future rates.
Defering cost recovery will always work to our advantage from a book
perspective.  The key for me is to know asap the details, so that we can
properly model our curves for pricing new deals and reflect the changes in
our book.  However, since these questions largely pertain to the smaller
customers in SDG&E's service territory, I do not anticipate a large impact on
our book and our marketing efforts.  In fact, I think the burdens of the
modeling changes would outweigh much of the benefits of this legislation for
us.

Thanks for the intelligence.

Roger

Mona L Petrochko
09/06/2000 06:26 PM
To: Douglas Condon/SFO/EES@EES, James M Wood/HOU/EES@EES, Martin
Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES, Greg Cordell, Chris Hendrix/HOU/EES@EES, Edward
Hamb/HOU/EES@EES, Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES,
Roger Yang, Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES, Gary Mirich/HOU/EES@EES
cc: West GA, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Gov. Davis Press Release

Governor has NOT signed AB 1156, $150 million from the general fund.  He HAS
signed AB 265 (SDG&E rate cap bill) and AB 970 (expedited siting for
non-permanent peaking).

I had a conversation today with Wayne Sakarias from SDG&E about
implementation.   It appears, based on the press release, that the Commission
will act tomorrow to adopt an order that will begin the implementation
process, although the order is not available for review yet.

I asked Wayne how they intended to implement the bill.  He believes that the
opt-in provision for large C&I customers, and any associated undercollections
associated with the customers that opt-in, would be handled separately from
the general application of the rate cap for residential and small commercial
customers.  I asked how they would collect any shortfalls.   It didn't sound
like they had a plan yet.  I suggested balancing account treatment for the
customers that benefit from the opt-in with any shortfalls recovered as
quickly as possible but no later than 1 year.

Relative to Res/Small Commercial:

He said that SDG&E will propose, in response to ARM comments, that the cap
(for res and small commercial) customers would not disadvantage DA
customers.  In other words, they are concerned about the appearances that
SDG&E's rates would be lower than market prices because of the cap and would
make available to DA customers a comparable pricing mechanism, that in
effect, would eliminate any pricing advantage by staying w/ SDG&E.

For example:  If prevailing market prices were 7.5 cents/kWh, SDG&E's res and
small commercial customers would only be charged upto 6.5 cents, and DA
customers would receive a 1 cent/kWh credit against their T&D charges so that
in effect, there is no economic advantage to staying w/ SDG&E.  However, when
it comes time to pay the piper for undercollections, DA and bundled customers
would again be treated comparably.

Their BIG concern is that the Commission will hang them out to dry on
reasonableness.

We agreed to keep the dialogue open.  Things will likely happen quickly.  If
folks have any recommendations or see problems with the above, let me know
asap.  Thanks.

Mona

---------------------- Forwarded by Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES on 09/06/2000
04:03 PM ---------------------------

Sandra McCubbin
09/06/2000 03:25 PM
To: mpetroch@enron.com, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES,
Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, David Parquet/SF/ECT@ECT, Samuel Wehn/HOU/ECT@ECT,
James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro
cc:
Subject: Gov. Davis Press Release

It doesn't look like he is going to sign the bill that takes 150 million out
of the general fund for San Diego rate payers
---------------------- Forwarded by Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES on 09/06/2000
03:22 PM ---------------------------

	Joseph Alamo
	09/06/2000 03:15 PM

To: Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Gov. Davis Press Release

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

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

L00:091
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 6, 2000

GOVERNOR DAVIS SIGNS ELECTRICITY CONSUMER RELIEF LEGISLATION
SACRAMENTO ) Governor Gray Davis continued his commitment to easing the
burden of San Diego ratepayers by signing two major pieces of legislation
designed to stabilize the cost of electricity and streamline the siting
process for new power plants.

"One of the major achievements of this year's legislative session is our
aggressive response to California's energy challenge," Governor Davis said.
"My Administration did not create this problem, but we are 100-percent
committed to solving it. And, now, after a long, hot summer of unconscionably
high energy prices, relief is finally on the way."

AB 265 by Assemblywoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) and Senator Deirdre Alpert
(D-Coronado) will stabilize the price of electricity for consumers and small
business (including schools and hospitals) in San Diego at 6.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour. These rates will be retroactive from June 1, 2000 and extend
to December 31, 2003.

"In the short term, this will ease the uncertainty of San Diego energy
prices," Governor Davis said. "When it comes to predicting their electric
bills, San Diego consumers have been in the dark long enough. This is an
urgency measure. I am signing this bill today so that the PUC can take
immediate action at its meeting tomorrow."

As a result of this legislation, the average monthly bill for residential
customers in San Diego will be reduced to $68. Small businesses (all schools
and acute-care hospitals are included) will pay an average monthly bill of
$220. Medium businesses (consuming up to 72,000 kilowatt-hours a month) would
also have a price cap of 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. For large businesses,
AB 265 would allow for a negotiated payment plan with SDG&E over a longer
period of time.

AB 970 by Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Jim
Battin (R-La Quinta) will help California overcome the inadequate supply of
energy, one of the biggest obstacles to lower energy prices, by expediting
the siting process for new power plants and streamlining permitting for
upgrades of old facilities.

"Restrictions and red tape have presented a powerful disincentive to those
who would build more power generators in California," Governor Davis said.
"This bill will benefit consumers by increasing supply to meet growing
demand. It will also establish new programs to reduce demand."

Over the last three months, Governor Gray Davis' leadership has been
demonstrated in his response to the San Diego electricity crisis:

On June 14, he called for emergency reduction of electricity use by all state
facilities in the San Francisco Bay area in response to electricity emergency
and rolling blackouts.
On June 15, he called on chairpersons of the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to analyze the conditions that led to electricity shortages in the San
Francisco Bay area the previous day, including a statewide perspective on the
price and delivery of electricity. Report was completed, submitted to the
governor and released on August 2.
On July 27, 2000, Governor Davis called on federal and state regulators to
take swift action to extend the caps on wholesale electric rates in
California and provide San Diego ratepayers with million of dollars in
refunds.
In letters written by the governor to two state regulatory agencies and two
California-based panels charged with overseeing California's power market, he
called for a coordinated state effort to urge federal regulators to take
strong measures to reduce power rates in both the short- and long-term.
On August 2, 2000, Governor Davis issued three Executive Orders designed to
reduce energy consumption by state government and speed up the time it takes
new power generating facilities to win approval from state agencies. Please
go to http://www.governor.ca.gov/briefing/execorder/index.shtm to view copies
of Governor Davis' Executive Orders.
On August 9, 2000, Governor Davis called on the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to establish a two-year plan that would cut electricity rates by nearly
half for residential and business customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.
The governor also reached an agreement with the California Grocers
Association that will save enough electricity to provide power to between
50,000 and 60,000 homes during periods of peak demand, as grocers agreed to
reduce power consumption by 10 percent during Stage One emergencies.
On August 10, 2000, Governor Davis wrote a letter to President Clinton urging
him to expedite the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's investigation to
determine whether current electric rates in San Diego were unjust.
On August 22, 2000, Governor Davis called on President Clinton to release
emergency funds from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
to the state to help low-income Californians pay their rapidly-rising
electricity bills.
On August 23, 2000, President Clinton responded to Governor Davis' request by
releasing $2.6 million in emergency funds to help low-income Southern
Californians cope with the surge in their electricity bills. The president
also asked federal regulators to speed up their investigation into the
operation of U.S. power markets and urged the Small Business Administration
to use its credit programs to help small firms hurt by the price increases.
On August 23, 2000, Governor Davis reached agreement with legislators on
legislation to provide relief to San Diego ratepayers. Today's bill signing
is the culmination of that agreement.
# # #

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS   ?   SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814    ?     (916) 445-2841


I'm available as well.  Sara
---------------------- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 01/27/2000
04:53 PM ---------------------------

Tracy Ngo
01/27/2000 02:28 PM
To: Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Thermo Ecotek Meeting

Wednesday, 2/9 is open for me.

Tracy
---------------------- Forwarded by Tracy Ngo/HOU/ECT on 01/27/2000 02:27 PM
---------------------------
From: Chris H Foster on 01/27/2000 01:25 PM
To: Tracy Ngo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Thermo Ecotek Meeting

Are you available on 2/9 for a meeting in Houston at the Enron building with
Thermo Ecotek to discuss the swap contract?  We want to schedule such a
meeting and they might be able to make it that day.

Chris


The TNRCC Sunset legislation,  including the grandfather provisions, has been
sent to the Governor and will likely be signed. I am providing a quick
summary of this bill since you may be discussing it next week in Houston. I
will be attending a TXOGA pipeline committee meeting on June 5 where it will
be discussed in detail, and will provide more information after that meeting.

The Bill divides the state into two regions. East Texas is all counties east
of I-35 (north of San Antonio) and north of I-37 (south of San Antonio) that
transverse these highways. This region includes Nueces County. West Texas is
the rest of the state.

In East Texas, you must apply for a permit for grandfathered emission sources
by September 1, 2003 and comply with the permit by March 1, 2007. In West
Texas you must apply by September 1, 2004 and comply with the permit by March
1, 2008. The control requirements in the permit, except for pipeline
reciprocating engines, will be based on 10-year old BACT.

There are specific provisions for pipeline reciprocating engines. In East
Texas, 50% reductions of NOx and VOC will be required. In West Texas, 0% to
20% reductions of NOx and VOC will be required. You will have the flexibility
to attain these reductions on a per engine basis or can average over multiple
engines. A $16.2 million fund has been established by Reliant to partially
finance the cost of compliance with the pipeline engine requirements in East
Texas.

As you are aware, the cost impact of this legislation can be greatly reduced
by "authorizing" as many grandfathered emission sources as possible under old
standard exemptions as per the October 3, 2000 letter from TNRCC. Most
grandfathered engines, tanks, dehys etc. can be authorized via old
exemptions. Previously TNRCC indicated verbally that this method of
authorizing grandfathered sources would be available until September 1, 2001,
but TNRCC can change this date (move it up or move it back).


F.Y.I. Japanese Electricity is the newest item added to the Daily Position
Report.  A new deal was entered and is reflected on the 1/30/01 Final DPR.
It is listed in the Enron Europe sub-heading, under the Enron Wholesale
Services title.

Kenneth Thibodeaux


Agree.  I think she's already gotten a helluvalot better--a marked and very
positive change.  Reflection and realization are powerful things.

I'll bring all the paperwork over tonite.  We can go over it then.  It
actually adds up, as far as I can tell.  It was fun as hell, but it sure
weren't cheap.

Best,
Jeff

	"Scott Laughlin" <scottwl@hotmail.com>
	04/17/2001 07:20 PM

		 To: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Squaw Bill

You're right on, what you said yesterday about Cameron's taking
responsibility for herself, instead of passing off the blame. But, that's
exactly why this whole thing has been good for Cameron. She sees this part
of her that isn't fair or compassionate, and really wants to change it.
Pinning it on her father only makes her see clearly that it isn't healthy.
Half the battle is realizing that these are patterns instilled from sources
outside, things she needs to correct, and then move away from. We all go
through that very difficult process. "Blame" needs to arise before one can
move beyond into a better place. I think we'll all see her try to be better
than she's been.

As for the bill, don't you think that's high? One night, the dinner,
Cameron's rental, and lift tickets should come to about $500, no? How much
was your half? Did they provide you with a break-down of the charges? I
don't mean to be a pain, but I don't really trust their methods after this
debacle.

Cheers,

Scott

>From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
>To: scottwl@hotmail.com
>Subject: Squaw Bill
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:45:10 -0500
>
>Here's the original note that I sent about the bill (yours and ms
>cameron's) that ended up on my bill.
>************************************************************************
>Hi.  I've got all the paperwork.  The bill (on my bill) for you guys is
>$740.  I'll get you the paperwork tonite.  Sorry for the mix-up  (should I
>ask Squaw for a discount due to all the mess!?!?).
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


later today, someone will be dropping off the calpine docs (and other PGT
transport)

Steph


I'm not sure whether we want Hoecker to make the fourth point.  What do
others think?

To: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Maureen
McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Draft Talking points about California Gas market

We thought it would be good to basically give Chair Hoecker talking points
with any numbers that Enron provides.  We will visit on these later today
when the numbers are ready (before 3:00).  Comments?
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000
10:38 AM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 12/12/2000 11:56 AM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ruth Concannon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie
Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jane M
Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Talking points about California Gas market

Here is my stab at the talking points  to be sent in to FERC along with the
gas pricing info they requested for the California markets.  Let me or
Christi know if you have any disagreements, additions, whatever.  I am
supposed to be out of here at 2:15 today, so if you have stuff to add after
that, get it to Christi.  Thanks.


I offered you my 1 and 3 for your 1 and 4.  I can throw in my 5 for your 6.

Let me know.

Eric


FYI
----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 10/29/2000 09:01 AM -----

	"WENDY EDWARDSON" <wendy.edwardson@blakes.com>
	10/27/2000 10:00 AM

		 To: <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com>
		 cc: "DALTON MCGRATH" <dalton.mcgrath@blakes.com>, "DAN FOURNIER"
<dan.fournier@blakes.com>, "GLENN LESLIE" <glenn.leslie@blakes.com>, "MARK
MORRISON" <mark.morrison@blakes.com>, "WEB MACDONALD"
<web.macdonald@blakes.com>
		 Subject: 83829/44 Enron Canada re Special matter - Project Stanley

Status Report re: tape transcripts

At this time, this summary has been sent to you only.

Counsel for Powerex has indicated that he now has instructions to share with
us the information that has been seized from their offices by the Bureau in
exchange for our providing similar information to them.

He has also indicated to us that between the 19th and the 25th of October,
the Bureau came to Vancouver and listened to the Powerex tapes using Powerex
equipment in that they had been unable to listen to them with their own
equipment.

As you are aware, the tapes seized from the Enron offices in Calgary cover
the period of September of 1999 to the end of October.

The tapes which we have listened to, but which they have not seized, cover
the period commencing in late May of 1999 to September, 1999.

With respect to the tapes that they have seized, initially we exerted a claim
of privilege to all of the tapes.  The Bureau has now come back to us and has
asked us to clarify how we would propose resolving the privilege question.
We have volunteered to have this discussion with them, but to this point in
time, they have not responded to us.

If, as and when the conversation occurs, our position will be that we intend
to claim privilege with respect to conversations with lawyers only.  How this
particular aspect of the matter would be resolved is not as yet clear.

Our view is that with respect to the conversations they have, they are not
particularly damaging but the conversations do not particularly add to the
flavour of the matter to our benefit.

On Wednesday of next week, we will be meeting with counsel for Powerex to see
exactly which conversations they have delivered to the Bureau.  We will
advise him of the conversations that have been taken by the Bureau from our
offices and at the conclusion of this matter, we should be able to see
exactly what it is that the Bureau has in terms of conversations between
Powerex and Enron.

We look forward to discussing this matter with you at your convenience.

Yt
Web Macdonald


Please contact Kristin Walsh (x39510) or Robert Johnston (x39934) for additional information.

Summary
Gov. Davis is expected to announce a plan today, however, there have been no breakthrough deals in negotiations that would support a plan.
Sources report that at least 7 or 8 Democrats have indicated to consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield that they would join Republicans in blocking any proposed bailout by Governor Davis.  This coalition would be enough to kill any transmission purchase proposal.
The emergency legislative session is closed, after which all current legislation would need to be introduced in a new session.

1. Bankruptcy Outlook
An advisor to MBIA* is attempting to pull other creditors into an informal pre-petition committee.  However, the creditors are finding that their interests are not always the same, and inter-creditor politics are becoming very active at this point.  For instance:

	- BC Hydro is not inclined to take aggressive action, even though they are one of the biggest creditors.  As their power is hydro, they are operating with a huge margin - i.e., they do not owe any other companies for gas used to produce their power.

	- Reliant, using the "squeaky wheel" theory, took a hard line with the governor and succeeded in extracting a partial payment from DWR in exchange for a 30-day agreement to supply power.  Other creditors have seen this and are thinking along similar lines.

	- The generators and QFs as a whole are not very organized yet.  The QFs are negotiating with the state on reducing the amount they are prepared to get paid for the power they supply, but the negotiations reportedly are not going well, and there is no deal in sight.  Reportedly the state has offered to pay the QFs $.07/kwh, but the QFs want $.09/kwh.

*MBIA is a credit insurer.  In other words, if a company issues revenue bonds, MBIA, for a fee, will reimburse the bondholders for their losses up to a certain level (e.g. the first 10 -15%).  I believe it at one time stood for Municipal Bond Insurers' Association.  They have a AAA rating.

2. Legislative Activity
Once the extraordinary session is closed by the Governor it ends and all bills in that session are dead. They would have to be reintroduced with new bill numbers and run through the process again. If the bills have already been heard once in committee it is probable these bills will be taken up for a vote.  The legislator is having so many hearings on bills this week to try and get as many through before the extraordinary session ends.


Do you want to sit in on this CERA call at 12:00 noon onThursday, January
18th.  If so, let me know and I will enroll us.

Lorna
---------------------- Forwarded by Lorna Brennan/ET&S/Enron on 01/08/2001
04:00 PM ---------------------------

"Webmaster@cera.com" <webmaster on 01/04/2001 10:25:34 PM
To:
cc:

Subject: Western Gas and Power Markets - A CERA Multi-Media Conference Cal l
- January 4, 2001

Western Energy Multi-Media Conference Call and Web Presentation
A Cambridge Energy Research Associates Conference Call & Web Presentation

TOPIC
Western Gas and Power Markets: Life After Regulatory Backlash
* Power Markets: Crawling from the Wreckage
* Natural Gas Markets: Western Crisis Number Two
* Letting the Markets Work: Regulators Lose Patience

FORMAT
At the time listed below, our speakers will address this topic for
approximately 30 minutes, with accompanying graphics presented on the
internet, followed by an open question and answer period.

SPEAKERS
Mike Zenker, CERA Director, Western Energy
Jennifer Snyder, CERA Associate Director, North American Natural Gas
Peter Moritzburke, CERA Associate, Western Energy
Sharon Reishus, CERA Associate Director, North American Electric Power

TIME
1:00 P.M. Eastern, Thursday, January 18, 2001

ELIGIBILITY
Clients eligible to participate in this conference call are those who
subscribe to the Western Energy Retainer Advisory Service.

TO ENROLL
To enroll, please contact Ms. Donna Masulla via fax at (617) 576-8763, or
enroll via e-mail at dmasulla@cera.com before 4:00 P.M., Wednesday, January
17, 2001.

AUDIO & INTERNET
For the AUDIO portion of the call, please call in on one of the following
numbers approximately 10-15 minutes before the call:

Within the United States:? 1-800-946-0712
Outside the United States:? (719) 457-2641
Confirmation Code: 770386
Title of the call:? Western Energy

For the INTERNET portion of the call (audio is by telephone), log on to the
internet approximately 15-30 minutes before the presentation to ensure
technological compatibility.

1. Point your browser to http://vcast.premconf.com. (Do not include WWW in
the URL)

2. At the VisionCast Home Page, click on "Attend a Private Conference."

3. Follow all directions given regarding additional technology required (if
any).

4. You will be prompted for an Event Name, your name, and your company name.
Event Name: vc770386

5. Fill in all fields and click "Continue."

System Requirements and Suggestions:
* Internet connection not reliant on the phone line you will use for the
call.
* A Java-enabled browser, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.02 or higher;
Netscape Navigator 3.02 or higher; or Sun Hot JAVA(tm)

* Close all desktop applications and disable your screen saver

Technical Assistance:
U.S. callers:? If you are experiencing difficulties during the call, you may
signal for technical assistance by pressing *0 (star, zero) on your telephone
keypad after you have connected to the audio portion of the conference.

International callers:? Please re-dial and ask? the operator for assistance
before giving the confirmation code.

For more information, please contact Donna Masulla via e-mail at
dmasulla@cera.com or via telephone at (617) 441-6896.
___________________________________________________________

A recording of this call (audio only) will be available until February 17,
2001.? To access this recording, please call 1-888-203-1112 (within the U.S.)
or (719) 457-0820 (outside the U.S.).? Please use confirmation number 770386
to access the call.

**end**

*********************************************************
Come Shoot the Rapids with us at CERAWeek2001, "Shooting the Rapids:
Strategies and Risks for the Energy Future" in Houston, February 12-16,
2001!? For more information and to register, please visit
http://www20.cera.com/ceraweek/

*********************************************************

E-mail Category: Watch
CERA Knowledge Area(s): North American Electric Power

**********************************************************************
To make changes to your cera.com account go to:
http://www20.cera.com/client/updateaccount

Forgot your username and password? Go to:
http://www20.cera.com/client/forgot

This electronic message and attachments, if any, contain information from
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA) which is confidential and
may be privileged. Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this message or any attachments, in whole or in part, is
strictly prohibited.

Terms of Use: http://www20.cera.com/tos

Questions/Comments: webmaster@cera.com
Copyright 2001. Cambridge Energy Research Associates


Please find attached a slightly revised version of the Bridge, marked up
against the version distributed with the e-mail attached below.

The amendments are intended to clarify the Automatic Early Termination point
(discussed below).

As stated in the previous e-mail, the deadline for final comments is the
close of business, London time, on Friday, 6th July.  After that time, the
proposed Bridge will be distributed to the Strategic Documentation Review
Task Force.  Please send comments to me at jberry@isda-eur.org
<mailto:jberry@isda-eur.org>  and to Peter Werner at pwerner@isda-eur.org
<mailto:pwerner@isda-eur.org> .

Regards,
John.

 <<Cross-Agreement bridge7.doc>>

John Berry
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
One New Change, London, EC4M 9QQ
Tel: +44 20 7330 3550
Fax: +44 20 7330 3555
e-mail: jberry@isda-eur.org
http://www.isda.org

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	John Berry
		Sent:	26 June, 2001 08:41
		To:	John Berry; Cynthia Richards; Angela Papesch
(Asia-Pacific Office); 'beat.gabathuler@zkb.ch';
'joseph.carrico@ib.bankgesellschaft.de'; 'charles.ross-stewart@ubsw.com';
David Benton; 'David Wysoki'; 'ernst.decker@bhf-bank.com'; 'fcaputo@bci.it';
'gabriel.benincasa@msdw.com'; 'harvey@sbcm.com'; Kimberly Summe;
'lewis_david@jpmorgan.com'; 'Mark Taylor'; Richard Tredgett; Robert Pickel;
'svenokur@lehman.com'; Peter Werner
		Subject:	RE: Master Agreement Structural Issues
Working Group Meeting, June 18

		The Master Agreement Structural Issues Working Group met as
planned on 18th June.  As you know, the purpose of the meeting was to try to
finalise the terms of the Cross-Agreement Bridge.

		A few substantive comments were made in the meeting, so I am
distributing a slightly revised draft (marked up copy and clean copy)
together with a request for final comments by the close of business, London
time, on Friday, 6th July.  Please send comments to me at
jberry@isda-eur.org <mailto:jberry@isda-eur.org>  and to Peter Werner at
pwerner@isda-eur.org <mailto:pwerner@isda-eur.org> .

		The amendments to the draft reflect the view expressed in
the meeting that, where parties have specified Automatic Early Termination
to apply in their Master Agreement, parties should have the ability to
provide that a Bridging Event will occur immediately upon the deemed
designation of an Early Termination Date pursuant to the Automatic Early
Termination provisions.  In other words, if parties choose this option, and
an Early Termination Date is deemed to occur automatically under the ISDA
Master Agreement, there would be no opportunity to "disapply" the bridging
provisions.  The bridging provisions would also apply automatically.

		It is likely that the Strategic Documentation Review Task
Force will meet soon to discuss the work products of the different groups of
the Strategic Documentation Review that have been looking at ISDA's Master
Agreement.  At that point, the efforts of this group will come under further
scrutiny, so please do take this opportunity to review the attached final
draft!

		 << File: Cross-Agreement bridge5.doc >>  << File:
Cross-Agreement bridge6.doc >>

		Kind regards,
		John.

		John Berry
		International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
		One New Change, London, EC4M 9QQ
		Tel: +44 20 7330 3550
		Fax: +44 20 7330 3555
		e-mail: jberry@isda-eur.org
		http://www.isda.org

				-----Original Message-----
				From:	John Berry
				Sent:	05 June, 2001 17:35
				To:	John Berry; Cynthia Richards; Angela
Papesch (Asia-Pacific Office); 'beat.gabathuler@zkb.ch';
'joseph.carrico@ib.bankgesellschaft.de'; 'charles.ross-stewart@ubsw.com';
David Benton; 'David Wysoki'; 'ernst.decker@bhf-bank.com'; 'fcaputo@bci.it';
'gabriel.benincasa@msdw.com'; 'harvey@sbcm.com'; Kimberly Summe;
'lewis_david@jpmorgan.com'; 'Mark Taylor'; Richard Tredgett; Robert Pickel;
'svenokur@lehman.com'; Peter Werner
				Cc:	Anna Elia
				Subject:	Master Agreement Structural
Issues Working Group Meeting, June 18

				Please note that the next meeting of the
Master Agreement Structural Issues Working Group will take place at ISDA's
European office in London on Monday, 18th June at 4.00 p.m., London time (11
a.m., New York time).  Telephone conference facilities will be provided for
those who cannot attend the meeting (details to be circulated in due course)
but, as always, attendance in person is encouraged.

				The purpose of the meeting will be to try to
finalise the terms of the Bridge that takes an "agreement" (rather than a
"transaction") approach.

				I attach both a clean and a marked-up
version of the latest draft of the Bridge, together with some slides I used
at a recent meeting of ISDA's European Energy and Developing Products
Committee, and the minutes for that meeting.

				Please let my secretary, Anna Elia
(aelia@isda-eur.org <mailto:aelia@isda-eur.org> ), know if you plan to
attend the meeting.

				Kind regards,
				John.

				 << File: Cross-Agreement bridge4.doc >>  <<
File: Cross-Agreement bridge3.doc >>  << File: ISDA Bridge Presentation.ppt
>>  << File: Cross-Agreement Bridge memo.doc >>

				John Berry
				International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc.
				One New Change, London, EC4M 9QQ
				Tel: +44 20 7330 3550
				Fax: +44 20 7330 3555
				e-mail: jberry@isda-eur.org
				http://www.isda.org

 - Cross-Agreement bridge7.doc


People: November 23, 1999 ?

	Meet And Greet The Chiefs

?????"People are very confused out there in America today about their
choices," said Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard
before presenting the staffs of the agency's nascent bureaus Friday. "It's
important to reconnect with the consumers and get a feedback loop." And in an
attempt to clear up this confusion and streamline the agency's function over
the next five years, Kennard has enlisted a top-notch staff for the Consumer
Information and Enforcement Bureaus.
?????Coming from the Federal Trade Commission where she was the director of
the Office of Congressional Relations, Lorraine C. Miller was named the
Consumer Information Bureau's chief.
?????"I had to almost wrestle Bob Pitofsky for her out at the FTC," Kennard
said. "She has a Rolodex second to none in the area."
?????Joining Miller as deputy chiefs are Karen Peltz Strauss and Pam
Hairston. On the enforcement side, David Solomon, who was formerly the FCC's
deputy general counsel, will head the bureau.
?????"He is one of the most disciplined people I know," Kennard said,
reflecting on the days he worked with Solomon in the general counsel's
office. "I remember every day at 6:30 he would water his plants."
?????Jane Mago and Brad Berry will assist Solomon as deputy chiefs of the
enforcement bureau.

?????Sen. Chuck Robb, D-VA, stole the show Friday at a technology forum
hosted by CapNet. As the guest speaker, Robb led the discussion on such
topics as R&D tax credits, workforce shortages (Robb worked with CapNet on
his H-1T visa proposal) and the ways technology can stimulate the economy.
?????The forum was held at the offices of Reed, Smith, Hazel and Thomas in
Falls Church, VA, and those attending the event included Susan Defife,
president and CEO of womenCONNECT.com, Scott Silverthorne and Covad lobbyist
Tim Powderly. Representatives from America Online and Dittus Communications
were also in attendance.
?????Also on CapNet's plate is an educational tour of Northern Virginia
companies with Congressional Black Caucus members. The tour has been in the
making for a few months, as organizers on both sides hoped to meet before the
new millennium. But that was not in the cards, as technology executives and
CBC members have had difficulty coordinating their busy schedules, resulting
in a post-New Year's tour date. CBC Chairman Rep. James Clyburn, D-SC,
continues to work on making the tech tour a reality as soon as possible.
?????"He has identified the need to engage the corporate community in a
better working relationship with the Caucus," said CBC Policy Director Andrea
Martin. "He will often ask do we want headlines or headway. He's a behind the
scenes kind of guy and a take charge kind of guy."

?????Who keeps whom waiting? Rep. Tom Davis, R-VA, was seen pacing outside a
hotel ballroom last Tuesday before a Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce
technology breakfast. He said he came to the 7:30 a.m. event so he could
catch Federal Communications Commission chief William Kennard before the
chairman addressed the Virginia high-tech business community. Davis wouldn't
specify what he needed to discuss with Kennard beyond saying that a number of
his Northern Virginia constituents have business pending before the FCC.
Kennard showed up late and Davis had to wait out the entire breakfast until
after the speech to get a word in with the communications chief.

?????Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, fresh from a sweeping GOP victory in the Old
Dominion's November elections, was elected vice-chair of the Republican
Governors Association on Friday. Gilmore, the chair of the Advisory
Commission on Electronic Commerce and an outspoken anti-Internet tax
advocate, recently led the GOP's takeover of the state Legislature for the
first time since Reconstruction. In his new role of vice-chairman, Gilmore
will help campaign nationwide in support of Republican gubernatorial
candidates and increase his fundraising efforts, RGA spokesmen said. North
Dakota Governor Ed Schafer was elected as chairman, a role Gilmore will
overtake after his yearlong stint in the second-man spot.

?????Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, has decided what's good for the East
Coast is good for the West Coast. Dipping into her current pool of employees,
Lofgren promoted special counsel John Flannery to Washington chief of staff
and hired Sandra Soto as her District chief of staff in San Jose. "John has
been an invaluable asset over the past year as Special Counsel, particularly
on technology issues so important to Silicon Valley as well as during the
impeachment proceedings," Lofgren said in a statement. "My office has truly
benefited form his extensive legal and legislative experience(on everything
from encryption to Y2K." Flannery joined Lofgren's staff last fall after
several years of serving as special counsel to the House Education and Work
Force Committee, House Judiciary Committee, former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum,
D-OH, and the Senate Labor Committee over a 16 year period. As for Soto,
Lofgren expects her to be "a key figure in bridging the gap between
neighborhoods in need and Silicon Valley."

?????Technology Network Texas corralled a group of high-tech cowboys for
another one of its recruitment breakfasts Friday Nov. 12. The event, hosted
by Texas Instruments CEO Tom Engibous, drew Sabre General Counsel Andy
Steinberg, venture capitalist Steve Papermaster, iSong CEO Guy Hoffman,
Austin Ventures principal Brian Goffman, iStation.com CEO George Grayson and
about 30 others to discuss the condition of education in the Lone Star state.

?????The final chapter in the Justice Department's antitrust case against
Microsoft won't necessarily be Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's final ruling.
Publisher McGraw-Hill is prepared to release the premiere book on the case
the moment the trial is complete, Publishers Weekly reported. In
collaboration with The New York Times' book development unit, McGraw-Hill has
commissioned the Times' two chief Microsuit correspondents to pen the
account. As the trial has unfolded Steve Lohr and Joel Brinkley have been
working on the project. But for now the publishers and authors will have to
exercise patience and see how the story is going to end before the books are
bound.

?????It's official. Commerce Secretary William Daley has sworn in Greg Rohde
as assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and
administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. "Greg Rohde's vast experience in the legislative arena,
particularly his significant experience in dealing with telecommunications
and technology issues, will decidedly be an asset to me and to the Commerce
Department as we work towards the administration's goals of bringing the
benefits of Information Technology to all Americans," Daley said in a
statement. Formerly the chief policy advisor to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND,
Rohde will be responsible for designing policies to stimulate the growth of
telecommunications and information industries.

?????Clarence Crawford is agency hopping from the Office of Management and
Budget to the Patent and Trademark Office. Formerly the OMB's associate
director of administration, Crawford has been pegged associate commissioner
and chief financial officer at the PTO. Newly-appointed PTO Commissioner and
Assistant Secretary of Commerce Q. Todd Dickinson noted that Crawford's
"superlative record of government service" will be of great use to the agency
as it faces future challenges. While at the OMB, Crawford was the key advisor
to OMB Director Jacob Lew on internal management issues and working on such
programs as the budget and information technology. Crawford's road to the PTO
has been an interesting one holding a multitude of positions with the General
Accounting Office, the Internal Revenue Service and where he began his career
as an officer of the law: the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department.


---------------------- Forwarded by Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT on 12/15/99 08:52
AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Rebecca W Cantrell                           12/14/99 05:07 PM

To: Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Meyer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ruth
Concannon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Theresa
Branney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul T Lucci/DEN/ECT@Enron, Jane M Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven P South/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank
Ermis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan W Pereira/HOU/ECT@ECT, George Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Colleen
Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cary M
Carrabine/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ray Hamman/HOU/EES@EES, Katherine L Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura Luce/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Morse/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cary M Carrabine/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward
Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Shiring/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tori
Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Solmonson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barend
VanderHorst/HOU/EES@EES, Brenda H Fletcher/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff
Coates/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: A Reminder -- 2000 GRI Surcharges

Effective 1/1/00............

---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT on 12/14/99
05:03 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Rebecca W Cantrell                           11/10/99 05:39 PM

To: Julie A Gomez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Meyer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ruth
Concannon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Theresa
Branney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul T Lucci/DEN/ECT@Enron, Jane M Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven P South/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank
Ermis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan W Pereira/HOU/ECT@ECT, George Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Colleen
Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cary M
Carrabine/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ray Hamman/HOU/EES@EES, Michael H Garred/HOU/EES@EES,
Katherine L Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Superty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura
Luce/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Morse/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cary M
Carrabine/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Robert Shiring/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tori Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary
Solmonson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri Walker/OTS/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: 2000 GRI Surcharges

Just a reminder that the GRI surcharges will go down for all member pipelines
a bit effective 1/1/99, per the Settlement approved by FERC in April, 1998.
Here are the rates through 2004:

Rates (cents per Dth)
	1999
		2000
			2001
				2001
					2003
						2004
Commodity	0.75	0.72	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.0
High Demand*	23.0	20.0	9.0	6.0	5.0	0.0
Low Demand*	14.2	12.3	5.5	3.7	3.1	0.0
Small Customer	1.8	1.6	1.1	0.8	0.6	0.0

*refers to high load factor or low load factor customers.


Mary:
I need to check with David Kistler on point #3, second sentence.  We will do
our best to get you something tomorrow.
Carol


Here is an update of some recent Enron developments.

Enron Europe Closes Certain Operations

Following Enron's credit rating downgrade yesterday and the impact that had on Enron Europe's ability to trade, Enron Europe has asked a court to appoint an Administrator.  What this means is that PricewaterhouseCoopers has been appointed the Administrator to handle the liquidation of the company's major physical assets and trading positions.  This action does not include Enron Credit, Enron Direct, Enron Metals, Teesside Power Station or the utilities and service businesses at the Wilton chemical complex.  It also does not include Wessex Water or power plants in Turkey, Italy and Poland.

Efforts are being made to preserve as much of the business as possible.  There is already interest by outside parties to buy Enron Europe's metals business, and negotiations are expected to lead to a successful deal in the near term.

This action will impact a significant number of Enron Europe's employees.  Every effort is being made to retain as many employees as possible who are part of businesses that may be preserved.

Enron Appoints New Board Member

Yesterday, Enron announced the election of Raymond S. Troubh to the Board of Directors.  Mr. Troubh will chair a newly-formed Special Litigation Committee of the Board to evaluate claims in shareholder and other derivative lawsuits.  He will also serve on the Special Committee set up to investigate all of the SEC-related matters.  Mr. Troubh is a financial consultant in New York City and has been a non-executive director of more than 25 public companies.  Board member William C. Powers, Jr. will also serve on the Special Litigation Committee.

Enron Evaluates Dividends

Today Enron announced that it is evaluating whether previously declared dividends will be paid on Enron common stock and other Enron equities.

New Enron Employee Q&A

A new Q&A has been posted to <http://home.enron.com/updates/> based on recent developments and employee concerns.


I have attached a final copy of the Media General Confirmation.


I'll let them know. It's very possible that one or both will be unable to
attend due to the office activity but they both want to be available.  Thanks
again.  Sara

"LOPEZ AUFRANC, Patricia" <PLA@marval.com.ar> on 02/25/2000 01:05:03 PM
To: "'Sara Shackleton'" <Sara.Shackleton@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: Meetings at Marval on March 1

OK, with pleasure.  Do you convene them or shall I call them?

Regards

Patricia

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Sara Shackleton [SMTP:Sara.Shackleton@enron.com]
> Enviado el: Viernes, 25 de Febrero de 2000 01:52 p.m.
> Para: pla@marval.com.ar
> CC: Lynn Aven; Andrea Calo; Brent Hendry
> Asunto: Meetings at Marval on March 1
>
>
>
> Patricia:  Thanks for putting the meetings together.  In addition to Lynn
> Aven
> and me, both Andrea Calo and Brent Hendry would like to attend.  I'm
> looking
> forward to visiting with you next week.  Regards.  Sara
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje es confidencial. Puede contener informacion amparada
por el secreto profesional. Si usted ha recibido este e-mail por error,
por favor comuniquenoslo inmediatamente via e-mail y tenga la
amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema; no debera copiar el mensaje
ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona. Muchas gracias.

This message is confidential. It may also contain information that is
privileged or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have
received it by mistake please let us know by e-mail immediately and
delete it from your system; should also not copy the message nor
disclose its contents to anyone. Many thanks.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------


Further footnotes on the Democrat and Republican Plan B's.  The key questions
now are:

1. When will the Democrats announce the Keeley plan?  Will Davis support it?

Best estimate- Davis will support it quietly, but Keeley will take the lead,
probably announcing an abandonment of the transmission line deal and the new
plan by the end of the week.

2. How will the generators react to the 70 percent "haircut" proposed by both
parties?

Best estimate- we will have reports from the generators tomorrow.  An
argument could be made that the appeal of a quick solution is strong.

3. Will the financial pressure on SoCal force them into b.k. before a deal
can be put together?

Best estimate- big risk here.  More and more small creditors (QFs, City of
Long Beach) are going after SoCal assets.  Also, SoCal also warned that if
the original MOU was altered by the legislature, that they would have to go
b.k.

We will continue to monitor and update as information comes in.  Until these
questions are answered, our outlook continues to be for a SoCal b.k. filing.


Attaches are the marks for New Power as of COB 9/25/01.  We continue to send a margin call on a daily basis however payment has not been received.  Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you
Monica


Jeff:
FYI.  Let me know if you have any thoughts on this.  Mark and I hope to talk
with Pablo sometime tomorrow.
Carol

----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 07/11/2000 09:52 AM -----

	"Pablo Perezalonso" <pperezalonso@rhm.com.mx>
	07/07/2000 08:52 PM

		 To: carol.St.Clair@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: questionnaire on Internet trading on commodities.DOC

  Attached please find an initial draft of the questionaire. We are still
working on it and we will send a revised draft next week.

Regards

Pablo Perezalonso Egu?a
Ritch, Heather y Mueller, S.C.
pperezalonso@rhm.com.mx
tel: (52) 5-2076533

 - questionnaire on Internet trading on commodities.DOC


You De Man.  Could you change the spelling from Druckett to Dracut?

I owe you a Chic Fil A  lunch.

	From:  Keith Fraley                           06/19/2000 03:49 PM

To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Map


I would like to know where and how this is going to affect us and all the parameters.  Kim I know Mansoor is working on the project and I
will get with him.  I would like to be included in the discussions from the beginning on new I/C ideas and locations.

DS

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Watson, Kimberly
Sent:	Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:08 PM
To:	Matthews, Ron; Abdmoulaie, Mansoor; Lokey, Teb; Kilmer III, Robert; Roensch, David; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Rapp, Bill; Guthrie, Robert
Subject:	Interconnect Agreement - Questar Southern Trails

All,

Please review the attached interconnect agreement between Transwestern and Questar.  It is fully reimbursable by Questar.  This interconnect will be a delivery point to Questar in the Blanco Hub.  FYI, the section of pipe that we are connecting the interconnect to is owned by Transwestern and is not part of the jointly owned facilities of the Blanco Hub.  If you have any questions, please feel free to call me to discuss.

Please reply back to me with any comments you may have.  I would like to send a draft to Questar on Tuesday morning, January 22, when we return from our holiday.

Bill and Robert - please see the red-lined language addressing the tax reimbursement.

Thanks for your time,

Kim.   X33098

 << File: Questar So Trails Hub Interconnect 01-15-02.doc >>