We need to finish up with the site specific agreement for the equipment, then
they can have the whole enchilada.  I would think it could be ready in a
week.  I'll get A & K to dust it off.

Kay

From: Stuart Zisman@ECT on 02/06/2001 11:04 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Austin - LM6000 Scope of supply

Kay,

What do you think?  Are we prohibited from doing this?

Stuart----- Forwarded by Stuart Zisman/HOU/ECT on 02/06/2001 11:04 AM -----

	Eric Booth@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	02/02/2001 10:19 AM

		 To: Stuart Zisman@ECT, Billy Lemmons@ENRON, James I Ducote@ECT
		 cc: Jeffrey M Keenan@ECT
		 Subject: Austin - LM6000 Scope of supply

This past Wednesday during our weekly site visit, I explained to Austin
Energy that I could not give them the whole LM6000 contract for
confidentiality reasons, especially with respect to the commercial
sections.   They were okay with that, but did make one last (and polite)
request for a list of the scope items that they would be getting.  What I
would propose to send is Exhibit B and B-1 from the contract (see attached).
Exhibit B is a simple bulleted scope of supply list.  Exhibit B-1 is a simple
spec that we wrote for the turbine which is itself a glorified scope document.

Let me know if this is something that I can forward to Austin Energy.  If the
attached document still gives someone heartburn, I'll end it here and
politely decline with Austin Energy.

Thanks,
Eric


maybe you need to be a little clearer in how you can help him because of your
close personal contacts.  Jeff

	Alhamd Alkhayat@ENRON
	02/15/2001 09:12 AM

		 To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Egypt LNG

fyi--this is what i got from eric!

Alhamd Alkhayat
ENRON CORP.
+1(713)853-0315

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
----- Forwarded by Alhamd Alkhayat/NA/Enron on 02/15/2001 09:12 AM -----

	Eric Gonzales@ECT
	02/15/2001 05:50 AM

		 To: Alhamd Alkhayat/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Rick Bergsieker/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Clay
Harris/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 Subject: Re: Egypt LNG

Alhamd,

Thank you for your information and interest in this area.  Rick Bergsieker
and Clay Harris are already in discussion with the Egyptian Energy Ministry
for possible participation by Enron in a liquifaction project.  Please feel
free to exchange ideas and thoughts with Rick and Clay directly.

However, in order to avoid creating any confusion with our Egyptian counter
parts I strongly prefer to only have our current commercial team involved
these discussions at this time.

Regards,
Eric Gonzales

14/02/2001 18:59
Alhamd Alkhayat@ENRON
Alhamd Alkhayat@ENRON
Alhamd Alkhayat@ENRON
14/02/2001 18:59
14/02/2001 18:59
To: Eric Gonzales/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Egypt LNG

Eric,

Hoping all is well,

Wanted to have a quick chat with you, when you are next in Houston, about the
Egypt LNG opportunity.  I had a meeting with the minister and the deputy
minister for technical affairs and both were intereseted in increased
participation in the LNG field in Egypt.  They are interested in diverse
off-takers, and are interested in investing in new facilities (EGPC would
like to own 60% of such a new facility and local/Arab investors can be found
for the remaining equity).  They know they don't know how to project finance
such deals, and they know they need a strong international name as an (at
least partial) off-take.  They alluded that the situation with Finosa,
although progressing, is not as it appears in the press.

At any case, I believe we have enough elements to warrant a
conversations--and I have good contacts in Egypt that could help push such a
project forward.

Cheers'

Hamd

Alhamd Alkhayat
ENRON CORP.
+1(713)853-0315

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.


Name  Supervisor   Title  Start date

Michael Mousteiko  (Lisa Peterson)   Spec  7/31
Julie Boehl   (Kathy Kelly)    Spec  7/31
Susan Elledge   (Linda Bryan)    Spec  7/31
Natalie Baker   (Carrie Hollomon)   SrSpec  8/1
 Lia Hernandez   (EdTerry)   SrSpec  8/2
Kevin Brady   (George Smith)    Staff  8/3


Thanks, but I'm throwing away junk all weekend.  Neil will be gone....

From: Kathleen Carnahan/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/31/2001 09:28 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: RE: important stuff

Lake Woodlands, do you want to come?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Carnahan, Kathleen
Subject: important stuff

So where are you kayaking this weekend?

ckm


Alan and Sara,
Last Wednesday we met to discuss the change of organization structure for the
two Proprietary Debt Trading Books, Credit and Convertible, from ECT
Investments, Inc. to Enron North America.

As a follow-up to our discussion, the attached document details the accounts
maintained at prime brokers and OTC Swaps currently in place for these two
books.

My initial discussions with the three prime brokers have indicated to change
the account name, from ECTI to ENA, and the related tax ID will require an
Assignment and Assumption Letter.

Please let me know if anything else is required.
Thanks. Sheila


Vince:

I plan to be in Houston on July 5-7.  I would like very much to get together
with you and perhaps your investment guy on Friday morning on the 7th if you
and/or he have the time or perhaps on the 5th in the afternoon.  I would
like to continue the discussions about your using MarketPoint and about your
investment guy considering MarketPoint if he is interested.  When you see
the progress we have made, I think you will agree that it merits
consideration as a part of enrononline.com as well as a profitable
investment in its own right.  It is still in the situation where it can be
provided exclusively to whomever I choose; I have been very, very careful
how I have promoted it so that I do not get committed to a second-rate
partner.

I also have what I think is a fundamentally new, general Markovian forward
optionality evaluator.  I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation at Stanford in the
1970s (defended with honors) in semi-Markovian decision processes during the
heyday of that research, and I have seen direct applications in optionality
evaluation.  I think you will be fascinated to see and review it. It is
presently implemented in prototype form and it could be made available to
the first large retainer client on an exclusive basis who is sufficiently
interested.  If you want to be that retainer client, that would be of
interest to me.

Give me a shout via return email or by my cell phone at 650.218.3069
regarding schedule.  I am out of town this week but available via email or
phone at the above addresses.

I really hope we can get together that week if we possibly can.  Thanks very
much for considering my request, and thanks very much for being the go
between with your investment guy.  I deeply appreciate it.  I hope to see
you on the 5th or 7th.

Dale Nesbitt


As part of Enron Industrial Market's (EIM) move into the Pulp, Paper and
Steel markets, our European effort is well underway. Our markets are global
in nature and we believe we need a strong presence in Europe to penetrate
that market effectively. Accordingly, we are pleased to announce that Bruce
Garner has been appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of Enron
Industrial Markets - Europe. In this role, Bruce will be responsible for all
activities for EIM in the European market.

Please join us in congratulating Bruce in his new position.


================================================================
As requested, your News Alert for BRCM
follows from EquityAlert.com.
To edit/discontinue your alerts please refer to end of message.
PLEASE REVIEW THE NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER BELOW
================================================================

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-= Paid Advertisement -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

FREE life insurance quotes.  Compare quotes from top-rated
companies INSTANTLY! Less than 30 seconds could SAVE you
hundreds of dollars a year:

http://205.210.134.51/a1.asp?ID=1528aa

AOL USERS: copy & paste the link above into your browser.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Broadcom Reports First Quarter 2001 Results

IRVINE, Calif., Apr 18, 2001 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq:
BRCM), the leading provider of integrated circuits enabling broadband
communications, today reported financial results for the first fiscal quarter,
ended March 31, 2001.

Gross revenue for the first quarter was $318.1 million, an increase of 66%
over
the $191.6 million reported in the first quarter of 2000 and a decrease of 16%
from the $378.8 million reported in the fourth quarter of 2000. Net revenue
for
the first quarter was $310.5 million, an increase of 62% over the $191.6
million
reported in the first quarter of 2000 and a decrease of 9% from the $340.2
million reported in the fourth quarter of 2000. Net revenue includes the
non-cash revenue deduction of the fair value of assumed performance-based
warrants earned by certain customers.

Pro forma net income was $24.2 million, or $.09 per share (diluted). This
compares with pro forma net income of $44.9 million, or $.18 per share
(diluted), for the same quarter in 2000, and pro forma net income of $88.8
million, or $.32 per share (diluted), in the fourth quarter of 2000. Diluted
earnings per share for the quarter were based on 281.0 million weighted
average
shares outstanding, compared to 252.6 million weighted average shares
outstanding in the first quarter of 2000 and to 274.1 million weighted average
shares outstanding in the fourth quarter of 2000.

Broadcom reports net income and diluted earnings per share on a pro forma
basis,
which excludes the effects of the non-cash revenue deduction related to
performance-based warrants, acquisition-related expenses, certain
non-recurring
settlement charges, and payroll taxes on certain stock option exercises.
Including these charges, substantially all of which were non-cash, net loss
for
the first quarter was $356.9 million, or $1.43 per share, compared with net
income of $38.6 million, or $.15 per share (diluted), in the same quarter of
2000, and with a net loss of $768.3 million, or $3.28 per share, in the fourth
quarter of 2000.

During the quarter, Broadcom announced and closed its acquisition of
ServerWorks
Corporation, a leading supplier of high performance SystemI/O(TM) solutions
for
server and storage platforms, network appliances and workstations. Broadcom
also
completed the acquisition of Visiontech Ltd., a leading supplier of digital
video/audio MPEG-2 compression and decompression chips enabling Personal Video
Recording (PVR) and IP video streaming for the consumer electronics market.
These acquisitions were accounted for under the purchase method of accounting.

"Our first quarter results met the revised expectations that we communicated
on
March 6th. Looking ahead, as a result of the continued weakness in the
communications sector, we have not yet seen improvement in order visibility
from
customers," said Dr. Henry T. Nicholas III, Broadcom's President and CEO.
"Despite the current weakness that exists in the business, we continue to be
confident that our product roadmaps in both the core and emerging markets will
position us well as the economy recovers."

During the first quarter, Broadcom introduced several significant new
products.
The company announced the world's first 0.13 micron CMOS Gigabit Copper
Transceiver, a four channel device on a single monolithic chip. This product
enables cost-effective, high port count Gigabit Ethernet switches and routers
by
doubling port density and reducing size and power requirements by 50%. This
industry leading product marks the fourth generation of Gigabit transceiver
products from Broadcom.

Broadcom's new products for optical communications applications included the
world's first system-on-a-chip OC-48 line card, the world's first single-chip
OC-192 CMOS transceiver, a low power and low cost OC-192 framer and the
world's
lowest power 10-Gigabit CMOS limiting amplifier. These product introductions
position Broadcom very well in the market for broadband optical
communications.

Broadcom's newly acquired ServerWorks business made two noteworthy
announcements
during the first quarter. First, ServerWorks unveiled its new Grand
Champion(TM)
architecture for future Intel(R) Xeon(TM) based servers. This product is the
first to support PCI-X, the new high performance input/output standard for
server and workstation platforms and the first to deliver memory bandwidth of
6.4 Gbytes/second or four times the company's previous solutions. In addition,
ServerWorks announced new SystemI/O logic that is optimized for dense Internet
network servers produced by OEM customers such as Compaq, Dell, IBM, NEC and
Siemens.

During the quarter, the Home Networking Business Unit extended its industry
leading position by surpassing the two million unit milestone for total number
of units shipped. HomePNA(TM), which utilizes the phone lines already in a
home,
continues to be the most widely produced home networking technology.

Broadcom also announced, sampled, gained design wins and has begun shipping
the
world's first single-chip IP phone solution incorporating Ethernet switch
technology, dual Ethernet transceivers, DSP and RISC processor cores and
analog
CODECs for handset and speakerphone support. This highly integrated Ethernet
IP
phone chip enables toll-quality IP phones with the lowest power consumption.

Broadcom also introduced the first all-CMOS Bluetooth(TM) radio to achieve
Bluetooth qualification. This radio is designed specifically for use in mobile
phone handsets and further extends Broadcom's Blutonium(TM) line of Bluetooth
solutions.

Broadcom's tuner chip was the first to receive CableLabs(TM) certification and
EuroDOCSIS certification. This will continue to allow manufacturers to
utilize a
highly integrated CMOS tuner chip to replace the 200-plus discrete components
housed in a tuner can to achieve greater reliability while meeting industry
standards.

Broadcom will conduct a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss
its first quarter 2001 financial results and current financial prospects today
at 4:45 p.m. Eastern Time (1:45 p.m. Pacific Time). The company will broadcast
the conference over the Internet. To listen to the call, please visit the
Investor Information section of the Broadcom Website at
www.broadcom.com/investor or go to www.streetfusion.com. The Webcast will be
recorded and available for replay until 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on April 27,
2001.

About Broadcom

Broadcom Corporation is the leading provider of highly integrated silicon
solutions that enable broadband communications and networking of voice, video
and data services. Using proprietary technologies and advanced design
methodologies, Broadcom designs, develops and supplies complete
system-on-a-chip
solutions and related applications for digital cable set-top boxes and cable
modems, high-speed local, metropolitan and wide area and optical networks,
home
networking, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), carrier access, residential
broadband gateways, direct broadcast satellite and terrestrial digital
broadcast, digital subscriber lines (xDSL), wireless communications,
SystemI/O(TM) server solutions and network processing. Broadcom is
headquartered
in Irvine, Calif., and may be contacted at 949-450-8700 or at
www.broadcom.com.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995:

This release may contain forward-looking statements based on our current
expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management's
beliefs, and certain assumptions made by us. Words such as "anticipates,"
"expects," "intends," "plans," "believes," "seeks," "estimates," "may," "will"
and variations of these words or similar expressions are intended to identify
forward-looking statements. In addition, any statements that refer to
expectations, projections or other characterizations of future events or
circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking
statements. These statements speak only as of the date hereof, and are based
upon the information available to us now. Such information is subject to
change,
and we will not necessarily inform you of such changes. These statements are
not
guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks,
uncertainties
and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, our actual results
could differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any
forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.

Important factors that may cause such a difference for Broadcom include, but
are
not limited to, general economic conditions and specific conditions in the
markets we address, including the recent significant economic slowdown in the
technology sector and semiconductor industry; the timing, rescheduling or
cancellation of significant customer orders; the loss of a key customer; our
ability to specify, develop or acquire, complete, introduce, market and
transition to volume production new products and technologies in a timely
manner; the timing of customer-industry qualification and certification of our
products and the risks of non-qualification or non-certification; the rate at
which our present and future customers and end-users adopt Broadcom's
technologies and products in our target markets; delays in the adoption and
acceptance of industry standards in those markets; our ability to renegotiate
or
terminate on acceptable terms the product purchase and development agreements
and performance-based warrants assumed in certain acquisitions; results of
changes in our accounting for the performance-based warrants; the volume of
our
product sales and pricing concessions on volume sales; the qualification,
availability and pricing of competing products and technologies and the
resulting effects on sales and pricing of our products; the effectiveness of
our
expense and product cost control and reduction efforts; intellectual property
disputes and customer indemnification claims; the availability and pricing of
foundry and assembly capacity and raw materials; the risks inherent in our
acquisitions of technologies and businesses, including the successful
completion
of technology and product development through volume production, integration
issues and costs, and contractual, intellectual property and other issues;
fluctuations in the manufacturing yields of our third party semiconductor
foundries and other problems or delays in the fabrication, assembly, testing
or
delivery of our products; the risks of producing products with new suppliers
and
at new fabrication and assembly facilities; problems or delays that we may
face
in shifting our products to smaller geometry process technologies and in
achieving higher levels of design integration; the effects of new and emerging
technologies; the risks and uncertainties associated with our international
operations; our ability to retain and hire key executives, technical personnel
and other employees in the numbers, with the capabilities, and at the
compensation levels needed to implement our business and product plans;
changes
in our product or customer mix; the quality of our products and any
remediation
costs; the effects of natural disasters and other events beyond our control;
the
level of orders received that can be shipped in a fiscal quarter; and other
factors.

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, forthcoming Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q,
recent Current Reports on Forms 8-K and 8-K/A, and other SEC filings discuss
some of the important risk factors that may affect our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We undertake no obligation to revise or
update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason.

Broadcom(R), SystemI/O(TM), Grand Champion(TM), Blutonium(TM) and the pulse
logo
are trademarks of Broadcom Corporation and/or its affiliates in the United
States and certain other countries. All other trademarks mentioned are the
property of their respective owners.

BROADCOM CORPORATION
Unaudited Pro Forma Consolidated Statements of Operations
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Three Months Ended
March 31,
2001           2000

Gross revenue                             $   318,118    $   191,591
Cost of revenue                               147,343         78,838
Gross profit                                  170,775        112,753
Operating expense:
Research and development                  108,734         42,566
Selling, general and administrative        38,821         17,505
Income from operations                         23,220         52,682
Interest and other income, net                  7,023          3,425
Income before income taxes                     30,243         56,107
Provision for income taxes                      6,048         11,222
Pro forma net income                      $    24,195    $    44,885
Pro forma basic earnings per share        $       .10    $       .21
Pro forma diluted earnings per share      $       .09    $       .18
Weighted average shares (basic)               249,689        211,217
Weighted average shares (diluted)             280,950        252,577

Pro Forma Only

The above pro forma statements are based upon our unaudited
consolidated statements of operations for the periods shown, with
certain adjustments. The pro forma statement for the three months
ended March 31, 2001 has been adjusted to eliminate a non-cash revenue
deduction of $7.6 million constituting the fair value of
performance-based warrants earned by certain customers; $109.7 million
of in-process research and development expense; $1.5 million of
payroll tax expense on certain stock option exercises; $119.7 million
of stock-based compensation expense related to mergers and
acquisitions ("M&A"); $218.3 million of amortization of goodwill and
purchased intangible assets related to M&A; and $3.0 million of
litigation settlement costs; and reflects a pro forma effective tax
rate of approximately 20%.
The pro forma statement for the three months ended March 31, 2000
has been adjusted to eliminate $3.7 million of payroll tax expense on
certain stock option exercises; $1.3 million of stock-based
compensation expense related to M&A; and $2.9 million of
merger-related costs; and reflects a pro forma effective tax rate of
approximately 20%.

All historical financial information has been restated to give
retroactive effect to acquisitions accounted for using the
pooling-of-interests method.

BROADCOM CORPORATION
Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

Three Months Ended
March 31,
2001               2000

Gross revenue                          $   318,118        $   191,591
Less: fair value of warrants
earned by customers (1)                   (7,617)                --
Net revenue                                310,501            191,591
Cost of revenue (2)                        162,952             79,077
Gross profit                               147,549            112,514
Operating expense:
Research and development (3) (4)       109,532             44,772
Selling, general and
administrative (3) (4)                39,404             18,751
Stock-based compensation (5)           115,753              1,228
Amortization of goodwill (5)           200,657                 --
Amortization of purchased intangible
assets (5)                             6,097                 --
In-process research and
development (5)                      109,710                 --
Merger-related costs                        --              2,901
Litigation settlement costs              3,000                 --
Income (loss) from operations             (436,604)            44,862
Interest and other income, net               7,023              3,425
Income (loss) before income taxes         (429,581)            48,287
Provision (benefit) for income taxes       (72,729)             9,658
Net income (loss)                      $  (356,852)       $    38,629
Basic earnings (loss) per share        $     (1.43)       $       .18
Diluted earnings (loss) per share      $     (1.43)       $       .15
Weighted average shares (basic)            249,689            211,217
Weighted average shares (diluted)          249,689            252,577

Notes:
All historical financial information has been restated to give
retroactive effect to acquisitions accounted for using the
pooling-of-interests method.

(1) In connection with certain acquisitions, the Company assumed a
number of purchase and development agreements whereby
performance-based warrants were granted to certain customers. In
each period in which the warrants are earned, a non-cash revenue
deduction for the fair value of the warrants is recorded.

(2) Cost of revenue includes the following:
Stock-based compensation           $     3,897        $        37
Amortization of purchased intangible
assets                                11,578                 --
Payroll tax expense on certain
stock option exercises                   134                202
$    15,609        $       239

(3) Excludes stock-based compensation expense as follows:
Research and development           $    77,480        $       841
Selling, general and administrative     38,273                387
$   115,753        $     1,228
Excludes amortization of purchased intangible assets as follows:
Research and development           $     5,886        $        --
Selling, general and administrative        211                 --
$     6,097        $        --

(4) Includes employer payroll tax expense on certain
stock option exercises as follows:
Research and development           $       798        $     2,206
Selling, general and administrative        583              1,246
$     1,381        $     3,452

(5) Represents non-cash acquisition-related expenses charged to
operations.

BROADCOM CORPORATION
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(In thousands)

March 31,    December 31,
2001           2000
(Unaudited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents            $   564,790     $   523,904
Short-term investments                    46,129          77,682
Accounts receivable, net                 146,703         172,314
Inventory                                 75,503          52,137
Deferred taxes                            38,511          10,397
Other current assets                      45,980          39,220
Total current assets                917,616         875,654
Property and equipment, net                  154,947         132,870
Long-term investments                        101,446           1,984
Deferred taxes                               255,381         351,937
Goodwill and purchased intangible
assets, net                               3,954,906       3,260,464
Other assets                                  48,612          54,913
Total assets                    $ 5,432,908     $ 4,677,822

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Trade accounts payable               $   116,948     $    78,163
Wages and related benefits                38,496          34,720
Accrued liabilities                      169,929          66,030
Current portion of long-term debt         88,255          23,649
Total current liabilities           413,628         202,562
Long-term debt, less current portion          63,595              --
Shareholders' equity                       4,955,685       4,475,260
Total liabilities and
shareholders' equity            $ 5,432,908     $ 4,677,822

CONTACT:          Broadcom Corp., Irvine
Bill Blanning or Eileen Algaze (media)
949/585-5555 or 949/585-5971
blanning@broadcom.com or ealgaze@broadcom.com
or
Nick Kormeluk (investor relations), 949/585-6932
nickk@broadcom.com
www.broadcom.com

URL:              http://www.businesswire.com
Today's News On The Net - Business Wire's full file on the Internet
with Hyperlinks to your home page.

Copyright (C) 2001 Business Wire.  All rights reserved.

-0-

KEYWORD:          CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMPUTERS/ELECTRONICS
HARDWARE
NETWORKING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EARNINGS

****************** TO EDIT YOUR EQUITY ALERTS ********************
To unsubscribe or edit your alerts, visit
http://www.equityalert.com/alerts.asp?uid=alewis34&xid=40352
******************************************************************

***IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER REGARDING THIS COURTESY EMAIL**
At your request, as a subscriber to our service, this email alert
is being sent to you as a courtesy and is for information purposes
only.  We are a financial news re-distributor.  We are not an
investment advisory and do not purport to tell or suggest which
companies you should monitor or which securities you should
purchase or sell.
In addition to the information regarding the company you are
monitoring (the &Monitored Company8), this email contains an
advertisement describing a product, service or company for which we
received a fee, at our normal advertising rates of $55 per 1,000 e-
mails (subject to volume and other discounts), from the advertising
company.  In addition, not withstanding our policy of prohibiting
employees from buying or selling securities of an advertising
company for a period of 20 days following dissemination of the
advertisement, we may not be able to effectively monitor our
employees to ensure compliance with the same. Consequently, there
may be sales and/or purchases of such securities by our employees
prior to, during and immediately following the dissemination of the
advertisement.
Please note that (1) this email may not contain the full text of
the press release issued by, or the research or other reports
regarding, the Monitored Company; and (2) the text of the
advertisement, the press release and/or reports were obtained from
third party sources and were not written, generated or edited by
us; accordingly, we make no representations or give any assurance
as to the accuracy or completeness, nor have we conducted any
independent investigations of, the disclosures regarding the
subject matter of such releases and reports.
Please note that links to the advertising company and/or Monitored
Company are provided for your convenience.  We assume no obligation
for the content of such sites.
All information contained herein should be independently verified
by you with the advertising company or with Monitored Company or
any other sources you prefer.
[THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY OF, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO, THE &EQUITYALERT SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT AND
DISCLAIMER.8 PLEASE VISIT
http://www.equityalert.com/home/disclaim.asp
FOR ACCESS TO OUR COMPLETE DISCLAIMER]
******************************************************************


Sorry that i didn't respond I was in interviews for the past several hours.
I am super busy right now but i will give you a call when I get back and we
can hang out.  Have a great weekend!  Don't get in to much trouble


Shijie,

Thanks. This is my itinerary.

The flight arrives relatively early. Can we schedule
an early dinner (let's say 5:30 or 6:00 p.m)?

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Shijie Deng <deng@isye.gatech.edu>@ENRON
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 AM
To:	Kaminski, Vince J
Cc:	deng@isye.isye.gatech.edu; vkaminski@aol.com
Subject:	RE: Georgia Tech visiting schedule

Vince,

Thanks for the title and outline of your seminar.  I understand that
you must be pretty tied up at this time.  As for your visit, I will
pick you up at the Atlanta airport.  I will meet you at the exit of
the escalator.  Please remind me of you airline and flight number.  I'll
have my cellphone with me (678-637-8303).  One of my colleagues and I will
take you to dinner in the evening.  Your schedule on Thurs. is as follows.

I'll pick you up at the hotel around 9:30.  We will have an informal
meeting with one of my students from 9:50 to 10:50.  She will present
to you some ideas that we have been looking at on bandwidth trading.  We
are expecting to get some comments and feedbacks from you.  Your seminar
will be from 11am to 12noon.  Dr. Bob Kertz (our QCF program
director) will take you to lunch after the talk.  After the lunch, I
arrange you to meet with our students from 2pm to 3pm.  The time slot 3pm
to 4pm is open.  We will arrange a cab to get you at around 4pm.

I look forward to your visit.

Shijie

Shi-Jie Deng
Assistant Professor
School of ISyE
Georgia Institute of Technology

Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:

> Shijie,
>
> My apologies for the delay. As you know we have hit some turbulence here at
> Enron
> and I was quite busy.
>
> The title of the talk:
>
>
> Measurement of  Volatility in the Energy Markets:
>
> 1. Importance  of volatility in financial engineering
>      a. option pricing
>      b. risk management
>      c. legacy software systems
>
> 2. Is volatility the right tool for energy markets?
>
> 3. The dynamics of energy prices in the US markets in recent years: a few
> stylized facts
>
> 4. Alternative theoretical tools to represent price dynamics: the
> importance
>    of dialogue between academics and practitioners
>
>
> Also, can you give me some indication of the timing
> of different meetings?
>
> Vince
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From:   Shijie Deng <deng@isye.gatech.edu>@ENRON
>    Sent:   Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:44 PM
>    To:     Kaminski, Vince J
>    Cc:     Crenshaw, Shirley; Shijie Deng
>    Subject:  RE: presentation title and abstract
>
>
>    Vince,
>
>    As your upcoming visit to our school is on next Thursday, could you
>    please
>    send me the title and abstract of your talk as soon as possible so
>    that I could make the seminar announcement to our faculty and students
>    soon.  Thanks.
>
>    Shijie
>
>    Shi-Jie Deng
>    Assistant Professor
>    School of ISyE
>    Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>    Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
>    E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
>    Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng
>
>    On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:
>
>    > Shijie,
>    >
>    > I talked top my recruiting people, but their schedule is full and they
>    > cannot accommodate a trip
>    > to another school this fall. I shall be glad to make a presentation
>    about
>    > the Analyst/Associate
>    > program and encourage your students to apply.
>    >
>    > Vince
>    >
>    >
>    >     -----Original Message-----
>    >    From:   Shijie Deng <deng@isye.gatech.edu>@ENRON
>    >
>    [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Shijie+20Deng+20+3Cdeng+40isye+2Egatech+2Eedu+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
>    >
>    >
>    >    Sent:   Friday, September 21, 2001 8:53 AM
>    >    To:     Kaminski, Vince J
>    >    Cc:     Shijie Deng
>    >    Subject:  RE: visit Georgia Tech and QCF info
>    >
>    >
>    >    Vince,
>    >
>    >    Have you had the chance to check if your recruiting people could
>    come
>    >    with you to meet with our first graduating class of the QCF
>    program?  We
>    >    currently have you scheduled to speak in the morning of Nov. 1.
>    For
>    >    the matte of accommodating your recruiting folks' schedule, we have
>    the
>    >    folloing dates open for their visiting as well:
>    >    Oct. 16, 18, 23 and 25.
>    >
>    >    Here is the URL of our QCF program info. again:
>    >    http://www.qcf.gatech.edu/
>    >    Please let me know if you hear anything.  Thanks.
>    >
>    >    Best,
>    >
>    >    Shijie
>    >
>    >    Shi-Jie Deng
>    >    Assistant Professor
>    >    School of ISyE
>    >    Georgia Institute of Technology
>    >
>    >    Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
>    >    E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
>    >    Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng
>    >
>    >    On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:
>    >
>    >    >
>    >    > Shijie,
>    >    >
>    >    > November 1 works for me.
>    >    >
>    >    > I would come on Wednesday evening  and leave Thursday evening.
>    >    > I cannot stay away from the office for more than one day. Does it
>    work
>    >    for
>    >    > you?
>    >    >
>    >    > Vince
>    >    >
>    >    >     -----Original Message-----
>    >    >    From:   Shijie Deng <deng@isye.gatech.edu>@ENRON
>    >    >
>    >
>    [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Shijie+20Deng+20+3Cdeng+40isye+2Egatech+2Eedu+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
>    >    >
>    >    >
>    >    >    Sent:   Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:35 PM
>    >    >    To:     Kaminski, Vince J
>    >    >    Cc:     deng@isye.isye.gatech.edu
>    >    >    Subject:  RE: visit Georgia Tech and QCF info
>    >    >
>    >    >
>    >    >    Vince - I forwarded you the following set of possible dates
>    for
>    >    your
>    >    >    visit
>    >    >    to our school.  Have you had the chance to pick one?  Thanks.
>    >    >
>    >    >    Shijie
>    >    >
>    >    >    On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Shijie Deng wrote:
>    >    >
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > Vince,
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > How about Oct. 8, Oct. 9, or Nov. 1, or maybe sometime in
>    the
>    >    last
>    >    >    week of
>    >    >    > September?  Thanks.
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > Shijie
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > Shi-Jie Deng
>    >    >    > Assistant Professor
>    >    >    > School of ISyE
>    >    >    > Georgia Institute of Technology
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
>    >    >    > E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
>    >    >    > Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com wrote:
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    > > Shijie,
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > > Thanks for your message. I  checked my schedule and all
>    the
>    >    dates
>    >    >    you have
>    >    >    > > proposed don't
>    >    >    > > work for me.
>    >    >    > > Any other suggestions?
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > > Vince
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >     -----Original Message-----
>    >    >    > >    From:   Shijie Deng <deng@isye.gatech.edu>@ENRON
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >
>    >
>    [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Shijie+20Deng+20+3Cdeng+40isye+2Egatech+2Eedu+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    Sent:   Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:01 PM
>    >    >    > >    To:     Kaminski, Vince J
>    >    >    > >    Cc:     Shijie Deng
>    >    >    > >    Subject:  Re: visit Georgia Tech and QCF info
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    Vince,
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    How is everything going?  I'd like to check with you to
>    see
>    >    if
>    >    >    you have
>    >    >    > >    decided on which day you'd like to come and give the
>    seminar
>    >    in
>    >    >    > >    our school.  Thanks.
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    Shijie
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    Shi-Jie Deng
>    >    >    > >    Assistant Professor
>    >    >    > >    School of ISyE
>    >    >    > >    Georgia Institute of Technology
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
>    >    >    > >    E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
>    >    >    > >    Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Shijie Deng wrote:
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > Vince,
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > As a follow-up to our phone conversation, I am
>    attaching
>    >    below
>    >    >    the URL
>    >    >    > >    for
>    >    >    > >    > our QCF program here at Georgia Tech for your
>    corporate
>    >    >    recruiting
>    >    >    > >    folks.
>    >    >    > >    > http://www.qcf.gatech.edu/
>    >    >    > >    > It will be great if we could have your recruiting
>    people
>    >    meet
>    >    >    with our
>    >    >    > >    > first graduating class of the QCF program.
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > Regarding your visit, we'd be glad to cover the coach
>    >    airfare
>    >    >    and
>    >    >    > >    > lodging.  How about the first week of October, say on
>    >    either
>    >    >    10/2 or
>    >    >    > >    10/4,
>    >    >    > >    > or the last week of October, say 10/30?  The
>    arrangement
>    >    would
>    >    >    be that
>    >    >    > >    you
>    >    >    > >    > come in on the evening of a Monday or a Wednesday and
>    give
>    >    a
>    >    >    seminar
>    >    >    > >    on a
>    >    >    > >    > Tuesday or a Thursday.  Please let me know what works
>    best
>    >    for
>    >    >    > >    > you.  Thanks.
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > Shijie
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > Shi-Jie Deng
>    >    >    > >    > Assistant Professor
>    >    >    > >    > School of ISyE
>    >    >    > >    > Georgia Institute of Technology
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    > Office Phone: (404) 894-6519
>    >    >    > >    > E-mail:       deng@isye.gatech.edu
>    >    >    > >    > Home page:    http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~deng
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >    >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >
>    >
>    **********************************************************************
>    >    >    > > 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.
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >
>    >
>    **********************************************************************
>    >    >    > >
>    >    >    >
>    >    >    >
>    >    >
>    >    >
>    >    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>
>
>
>
>


fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 07/18/2000 05:44
AM ---------------------------

"ROB TAYLOR" <TAYLR@andrews-kurth.com> on 07/17/2000 07:03:45 PM
To: <kay.mann@enron.com>
cc: <Roseann.Engeldorf@enron.com>

Subject: ABB Transformer Agreement

Kay:

The revised draft of the ABB Contract that I received today looked fine.

Regards,

Rob Taylor
Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.
Chase Tower
600 Travis Street
Suite 4200
Houston, Texas  77002

Tel:  (713) 220-4436
Fax:  (713) 238-7273

robtaylor@andrews-kurth.com

This e-mail (and any attachment(s) hereto) 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 attachment(s) hereto) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
notify me at (713) 220-4436 and permanently delete the original and any copy
of such e-mail and destroy any printout of such e-mail.


Hey Baby,

Sorry that I haven't been able to email you yet.  It's been a busy day
already.  My presentation went well this morning (at least my part
did).  I'm meeting with Jen Garcia to work on our project again today.
I should be home before 7 unless Jen and I have some good things going.
When I get home, I have a exam to study for.

About grad. dinner- I called the other Mezzaluna and they're booked
also.  Bren called her mom for suggestions and she named about 8
different restaurants.  So, hopefully some of them will have room!  I'll
tell you which ones they are when I get home.  PLEASE remind me about
the invitations!  I've got to send them out soon.  I'm sending mine to
your parents, Bren's parents, Tom & Jeanette, and the Denneys.  Anybody
else?

I'm really hungry so I'm going to eat my pb&j sandwich soon!  (Yeah,
food!)  I'm so weak (or is it tired?) that I can't see very well.

Seeing you soon is what keeps me going!

Love you,
Jenn


Thank you for the note,  I wish you the best of luck in your journey to find a match.  Happy New Year!

JMT
-----Original Message-----
From: <plucci01@talkmatch.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:36 PM
To: <jilltaylor34@myfamily.com>
Cc:
Subject: Match.com - You've Got Mail: Hello

Hello,

I ran across your picture and profile and was very impressed.  I sent along my profile take a look.  If there is any interest I'd like to hear back from you.

Paul

Click the following link to view the sender's profile:
http://www.match.com/doubleblind/showprofile.asp?UserID=484948454C4B4E&trackingid=65685

The following is my profile text:

Hello, I'm a down to earth person that likes to laugh and have a good time. I work in downtown Denver as a commodities trader for a large energy trading house. I do enjoy my career but understand life needs to be kept in prospective and be balanced. I enjoy activities over sitting and watching, but I have been known to sit in front of the TV and watch football or college basketball all day. I'm looking for someone who enjoys life and doesn't take themselves too seriously.

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

ADDITIONAL TIPS from Match.com:

Our anonymous re-mailer will strip away your real email address, so
that it will NOT appear in the 'From:' line.

You may also contact this person from their Match.com profile by
clicking 'Contact this person' and composing your message directly from the
site.

However:

* Check to ensure that your email address is not in the BODY of your
message as we are unable to remove these.

* Check to ensure that you REMOVE ANY AUTOMATIC SIGNATURE at the end of

your email. And note that you cannot use 'Cc:' or 'Bcc:' if you want
your email to remain anonymous.

Match.com does not monitor private email between members, nor are we
liable for the content of these messages. All members are bound by our
Match.com Service Agreement.

_____________________________________________________________________
Get your own family web site at at www.MyFamily.com!

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

IMPORTANT TIPS TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS AT Match.com:

If you use the "reply" button to respond to this message, please take the following steps:

1.  DELETE ALL TEXT from the body of your message, including header information which may include your actual email address.

2.  REMOVE ANY AUTOMATIC SIGNATURES which may include your personal contact information.

Our anonymous re-mailer will strip away your real email address (in the From: field), so that it will NOT appear in the "From:" line. However, DO NOT use the "Cc:" or "Bcc:" fields as these addresses CANNOT be stripped away.

You may also contact this person from their Match.com profile by clicking "Contact this person" and composing your message directly from the site.

Match.com does not monitor private email between members, nor are we liable for the content of these messages. All members are bound by our Match.com Service Agreement.


Dale,

What is your availability for a conference call with GE today?

Kay


Thanks for taking care of this.  Sorry I was not reachable.

To: David Forster/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: New Short Descriptions

David, As long as the long descriptions have not changed and the traders are
fine with the short description changes as being clearer, I have no problems
with the changes on the financial side.  Stacy will respond on the physical
gas side.

David Forster
11/24/99 11:44 AM
To: Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: New Short Descriptions

Please find attached a spreadsheet showing the new descriptions and some
samples of the old descriptions (I have to match these by hand, so it is not
a comprehensive list).

The changes are:

1) Re-ordering of the elements
2) Shortening the index/location description to something which is more
recognizeable to the traders (and our customers)

We would like to be showing these short descriptions to customers on Monday,
so your response/input is needed today.

Sorry about the short notice - we're all in the same boat on this one.

Dave


Please set up 15 minutes.  Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT on 04/27/2001 01:07 PM -----

	"Dilg, Joe" <jdilg@velaw.com>
	04/27/2001 12:53 PM

		 To: "Walls, Rob (Enron)" <rob.walls@enron.com>, "Williams, Robert (Enron)"
<robert.c.williams@enron.com>, "Haedicke, Mark (Enron North America Corp.)"
<mark.e.haedicke@enron.com>, "Michelle A. Blaine (E-mail)"
<mblaine@enron.com>, "Richard B. Sanders (E-mail)"
<richard.b.sanders@enron.com>, "'Gail.Brownfeld@Enron.com'"
<Gail.Brownfeld@Enron.com>
		 cc: "LaMaster, John (London)" <jlamaster@velaw.com>, "Sheppard, Ben H., Jr."
<bsheppard@velaw.com>, "Derrick, James (Enron)" <james.derrick@enron.com>
		 Subject: Stephen York

   I have arranged a meeting at Enron's offices with Jim Derrick on
Monday May 7 from 10 to 11 for Stephen York, Ben Sheppard and other members
of Vinson & Elkins International Arbitration and Litigation Practice Group.
Stephen York who will join our London office as a partner in May is an
experienced UK solicitor who began his legal career with Slaughter & May,
spent 7 years in Hong Kong and most recently headed Hammond Suddards
arbitration practice in London.  Jim asked if I would contact each of you
about your availability that morning. Please let me know and I will work
with Stephanie Harris to arrange a location.  Thanks  Joe Dilg
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:
Contains attorney-client communications
and/or attorney work product

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


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT on 10/16/2000
08:56 AM ---------------------------

Plove570@cs.com on 10/15/2000 07:13:59 PM
To: plove@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Fwd: FW: More on Gore

Return-Path: <love@cl.uh.edu>
Received: from  rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226])
by air-zd05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:51:21
-0400
Received: from  b25tr.cl.uh.edu (b25tr.cl.uh.edu [129.7.166.5]) by
rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:50:52 -0400
Received: by B25TR.CL.UH.EDU with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id
<4YVVPSP2>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:52:30 -0500
Message-ID: <02903EC33ADAD211A9CD00A0C98455E7036B8A3D@B25TR.CL.UH.EDU>
From: "Love, Dianne" <love@cl.uh.edu>
To: "Wooten, Kevin" <wooten@cl.uh.edu>,        "'plove570@cs.com'"
<plove570@cs.com>
Subject: FW: More on Gore
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:52:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denise James [SMTP:drjames@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:41 AM
> To:   MasseyEnt@aol.com; Love, Dianne; Linda Hester; Nancy Terrell Rogers;
> Judith Eder; Lisa Cross; Deborah Carpenter; Cathy Garfield Kranz
> Subject:  FW: More on Gore
>
> This story was passed to me today & I thought you might find it
> > > interesting:
> > >
> > >  Al Gore gave a big speech this week about how his faith is so
> > "important"
> > >  to him.  In this attempt to convince the American people that we
> > should
> > > consider him for president, he announced that his favorite Bible verse
> > is
> > > John 16:3.
> > >
> > > Of course the speech writer meant John 3:16, but nobody in the Gore
> > > camp was familiar enough with scripture to catch the error.  And do
> you
> > > know what John 16:3 says?
> > >
> > > John 16:3 says "And they will do this because they have not known the
> > > Father nor
> > > Me"
> > > The Holy Spirit works in strange ways.
> > > Pass it on..........
> > >
>
>


Christi,

I'm so glad you wrote, not just because the information is so important, but
also because I've been meaning to return your call.

I look forward to working with you on this and other issues. I'm sure I'll be
calling with questions soon.

Kay


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

To add additional people to this distribution, or if this report has been
sent to you in error, please contact Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002.

For other questions, please contact Bill Bradford at x3-3831, Russell Diamond
at x5-7095, Brant Reves at x3-9897, or Veronica Espinoza at x6-6002.


Please see the following articles:

Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Lawmakers debate efforts to save Edison:
Competing bills range from a straight bailout to purchase of transmission
lines
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: PG&E sues state over seizure of long-term power contracts
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Energy Digest: Advocate attacks utility rescue plan
Sac Bee, Wed, 7/18: Hour of decision: Who will pay for costly power of past,
future?   (Editorial)
SD Union, Tues, 7/17: Utility sues state seeking millions in seized power
contracts
LA Times, Wed, 7/18: PG&E Sues State Over Contracts
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Consumer prices up as energy costs moderate
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Contra Costa may upgrade 9 buildings
$1.7 million earmarked for conservation
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: Lawmakers devise rival bailout plans for Edison
Push to come up with alternative to bankruptcy before recess
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: News briefs on the California power crisis
SF Chron, Wed, 7/18: State's largest utility sues state seeking millions in
power contracts seized by governor
Mercury News, Wed, 7/18: Surplus state power sold at loss
Mercury News, Wed, 7/18:  Light bulb moment (Commentary)
LA Times, Wed, 7/18: California Trading, Wholesale Power Boost Duke's
Earnings 27%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers debate efforts to save Edison: Competing bills range from a
straight bailout to purchase of transmission lines.
By Jim Sanders
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Published July 18, 2001)
Divided legislators began wrestling Tuesday with competing proposals to keep
one of California's largest private utilities, Southern California Edison,
from going bankrupt.
Pressure is rising as Edison continues to struggle with more than $3.5
billion in debt and a tentative plan by Gov. Gray Davis to buy the utility's
transmission lines for $2.76 billion has attracted little support.
The question now is whether legislators will accept a modified version of the
governor's deal, will approve an entirely different rescue plan, or will
simply let Edison join Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in bankruptcy court.
"We're encouraged that at least there's activity and people are grappling
with the issues," said John Fielder, an Edison senior vice president.
The Assembly's energy committee heard testimony on two of the competing
proposals Tuesday. The Senate's energy committee will take up the third plan
today.
The issue conceivably could be decided this week, since legislators are
scheduled to begin their summer recess Friday.
Of the three proposals under consideration, one would authorize state
purchase of Edison's transmission lines, one would provide an option to buy,
and one would simply tally Edison's debts and charge ratepayers to pay them
off.
Some legislators favor doing nothing at all and letting a bankruptcy judge
decide Edison's fate.
Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Davis, said the Democratic governor supports
anything that "comes close" to the tentative deal, hammered out in April, to
buy Edison's transmission lines.
Assemblyman Fred Keeley, D-Boulder Creek, and Assembly Speaker Robert
Hertzberg, D-Sherman Oaks, have proposed a rescue plan that would buy the
lines at a lower price -- $2.4 billion -- and would modify the governor's
plan substantially.
Key elements of the bill would allow the state to buy Edison's hydroelectric
assets if the transmission-line sale falls through, allow businesses to
contract with private suppliers for electricity in 2003, and commit the state
to paying only 70 cents of every dollar owed by Edison to power generators.
The deal also would provide California with ownership or conservation
easements to more than 20,000 acres of land, and would require Edison to
increase its supply of alternative energy -- such as wind or solar. The
proposal is not expected to spark new rate hikes, Keeley said.
The Senate plan, like the Keeley-Hertzberg proposal, would require large and
medium businesses to pay down much of Edison's debts.
The Senate plan dedicates up to $2.5 billion in large-user rates for debts
involving banks and renewable energy sources known as "qualifying
facilities."
The plan, written by Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo Alto, seeks to leave Edison with
$1 billion in debt from generators and marketers for the utility to work out
on its own.
The Senate plan would give the state a five-year option to buy Edison
transmission lines for book value -- about $1.2 billion.
Rather than provide conservation easements, the plan calls for Edison's
environmentally sensitive acreage to be acquired by the state or a trust.
Remaining parts of the proposal are similar to the governor's deal.
A third proposal, pushed by several lawmakers, seeks to eliminate debt for
Edison and PG&E. It would not involve transmission lines, conservation
easements or other such elements.
Advocates say Edison's debt stemmed largely from failed state regulatory
policies, so the state should simply charge consumers a monthly fee to pay it
off.
"This is a straight bailout -- no hidden balls, no extras," said Assemblyman
Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles.
It is not yet known whether that monthly fee could fit within the existing
rate structure. For home'owners, the amount is estimated at $4 in the PG&E
service area and $2 within Edison's boundaries.
Consumer groups are wary of the Edison rescue proposals, fearing the state
will ultimately promise too much and get too little.
"When a supermarket and dairy farmer both are forced to pay a 10-year bailout
tax, the consumer pays more for milk," said Doug Heller of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

The Bee's Jim Sanders can be reached at (916) 326-5538 or jsanders@sacbee.com
<mailto:jsanders@sacbee.com>.
Kevin Yamamura of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to this report.

PG&E sues state over seizure of long-term power contracts
By Dale Kasler
Bee Staff Writer
(Published July 18, 2001)
Reopening an old wound in California's energy crisis, Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. has sued the state over a group of low-cost energy contracts
seized almost six months ago by Gov. Gray Davis.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, stems from the
collapse of the California Power Exchange and the state's entry into the
power-buying business in January.
PG&E and Southern California Edison had entered into a series of long-term
purchase contracts through the exchange, a now-defunct market for buying and
selling electricity. But as both utilities collapsed financially and the
Power Exchange was clinging to life, the exchange seized the contracts and
was about to auction them off for nonpayment of bills.
That's when Davis stepped in. Using his emergency powers, the governor
grabbed control of the contracts, saying he didn't want them resold at
inflated prices.
At the time, the exchange said the contracts were worth about $1 billion,
with PG&E's share set at $348 million.
But it's likely their value has fallen along with the spot market price of
electricity. Back when the governor seized them, PG&E's contracts were for
$60 to $130 a megawatt-hour. That was a bargain at the time, and made the
contracts very valuable. Now that spot prices have plunged, those contracts
are no longer such a great deal.
PG&E's lawsuit didn't put a value on the contracts. Nevertheless, "the state
has benefited from the contracts," said PG&E spokesman Ron Low. "We should be
compensated."
The state had planned to pay for the contracts, at a price to be determined
by a state government claims board, said Davis' spokesman Steve Maviglio. But
he said the state also expected to be taken to court over the issue.
"We always thought we'd be fighting it out in a neutral forum," Maviglio
said. "This comes as no surprise."

The Bee's Dale Kasler can be reached at (916) 321-1066 or dkasler@sacbee.com
<mailto:dkasler@sacbee.com>.

Energy Digest: Advocate attacks utility rescue plan

(Published July 18, 2001)
The state's consumer advocate criticized Gov. Gray Davis' proposed rescue
plan for San Diego Gas & Electric on Tuesday, calling it too generous to the
utility's shareholders.
The Public Utilities Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates called the
proposed deal with SDG&E and its parent company, Sempra Energy, "clearly
excessive."
The advocate said the state goes too far in the core element of the rescue
plan -- the $1 billion state purchase of SDG&E's transmission lines. The
advocate said the money would be better spent building or buying new
generating plants.
The plan must be approved by the Legislature and PUC. A similar plan, to buy
Southern California Edison's transmission lines, has run into numerous
roadblocks in the Legislature.
--Dale Kasler

Hour of decision: Who will pay for costly power of past, future?

(Published July 18, 2001)

In the next few days, state lawmakers and regulators must make some
unsettling choices about how to share the financial burdens of California's
electricity debacle.
Looking backward, they will decide how -- or whether -- to erase $3.5 billion
in debts run up last year by Southern California Edison, when it bought
pricey power but couldn't pass the costs on to consumers. Looking ahead, they
will choose who, if anybody, will get out of paying for expensive power
purchased by the state since the utilities ran out of cash last January.
In both cases, the principle guiding the decision ought to be the same: No
one is blameless in getting California into this mess, and no group can
escape the pain of getting out of it.
Democratic lawmakers in the Assembly are searching in vain for ways to hide
the real costs from voters. Their idea is to have the large users of power
(mostly big businesses) pay off Edison's past debts. In return, businesses
would get some freedom to shop for cheaper power deals in the future.
The problem is that there won't be much opportunity to shop in the coming
years. That's because Gov. Gray Davis went out at the very peak of the market
and bought up most of the state's future electricity supply before it went on
sale. The strategy of locking most of California's power demand into
long-term contracts seemed ill-advised at the time, even more so now.
Now that the governor has done all this shopping, the Public Utilities
Commission must assure that electric customers will pay for all that
electricity -- $43 billion worth of power over the next decade or so. In
addition, the PUC must commit customers to repaying the state for the power
it has already purchased this year -- many billions on top of that. The state
borrowed from itself to buy all this power, and is banking on a bond sale to
pay off this debt. Unless a portion of the rate customers pay is dedicated to
repaying those bonds, they can't be sold.
This web of regulation, contracts and finance is so complex, so huge, it's
hard to see how the energy leaders in a few days will find a graceful, fair
solution. But for a political compromise to work, all the interests involved
must take some pain.
Southern California Edison must swallow some of its debt. Power generators
and the state must renegotiate some of their long-term contracts so that the
generators give back some of the bounty they reaped by market manipulation.
And no consumer, big or small, should be allowed to avoid paying the true
costs of the power they use. In this reckoning, there's no easy way out for
anyone -- and especially not for the elected officials who must deliver the
bad news.

Utility sues state seeking millions in seized power contracts

\
objattph
By David Kravets ASSOCIATED PRESS  July 17, 2001  SAN FRANCISCO )
California's largest utility sued the state Tuesday seeking reimbursement of
millions of dollars in energy contracts the governor seized Jan. 31.  San
Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said it "has received no
compensation for the damage to its property," according to a suit filed in
San Francisco Superior Court.  The suit came as PG&E, which filed for
bankruptcy protection in April, struggles to repay $14.4 billion in debt to
thousands of creditors.  Invoking constitutionally vested powers, Gov. Gray
Davis seized the energy contracts to keep the California Power Exchange from
liquidating them. The now-defunct exchange, which was the state's middleman
for the buying and selling of power, wanted the contracts for itself to
recoup hundreds of millions in unpaid power buys that PG&E owed it.  The
governor's office acknowledged that California owes PG&E for the contracts,
an amount that Davis wants a judge to determine. At the time they were
seized, the state estimated their value at $160 million, while the power
exchange priced them at $347 million.  "We seized the contracts to have
reasonable priced power and expected that price to be set in a neutral
forum," said Steve Maviglio, the governor's spokesman.  It's not easy to
determine their value. Using the contracts, the state buys electricity at a
set price, and can avoid the sky-high prices it has to pay for power bought
at the last minute. Therefore, the contracts' value changes with the volatile
price of electricity.  "We believe the state has benefited from the value of
our contracts, and as a result we should be compensated," PG&E spokesman Ron
Low said.  Low declined to place a value on the contracts.  The contracts in
question, which the state is now using to buy electricity because the
utility's bad credit rating restricts it from buying its own, promise power
at rates below those being charged today by power generating companies.
Because of the shaky financial pictures of PG&E, Southern California Edison
Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the state in January began buying much
of the electricity to supply the ratepayers of those utilities.  The power is
sold to ratepayers through the utilities, which reimburse the state through
consumers' bills. But, because of energy pricing rules that prompted the
utilities' unstable financial footing, current rates are not enough to repay
the state. To recoup its losses, the state is expected to sell $8 billion or
more in bonds to be repaid through increased consumer power rates.  Under
California's 1996 deregulation plan, the state's utilities sold many of their
power plants and were forced to buy electricity on the market through the
newly created power exchange.  As demand mushroomed and supplies became
scarce, the utilities began paying substantially more for electricity than
deregulation rules allowed them to collect from consumers.  The case is PG&E
v. California, 322921.

PG&E Sues State Over Contracts
From Bloomberg News

July 18 2001

SAN FRANCISCO -- PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. utility sued
California on Tuesday, saying it wants to be paid for the wholesale
electricity contracts the state seized in January.

Gov. Gray Davis took away Pacific Gas' 12-month forward contracts to ensure a
sufficient and continuous supply of electricity for the state. At the time,
California estimated the contracts were worth $150 million.

Pacific Gas claims the contracts had "significant value" because they allowed
the utility to receive power for less than current market rates. "Although
PG&E has demanded just compensation from the [state], PG&E has received no
compensation for the damage to its property," the utility said in court
papers filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court.

The company, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in April, is seeking
damages and attorney fees. The state claimed in January that the contracts
would have delivered enough electricity to power 100,000 to 500,000 homes for
6 cents to 13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Officials in the governor's office did not immediately return calls seeking
comment.
Copyright 2001, Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com>

Consumer prices up as energy costs moderate
LEIGH STROPE, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/finan
cial0837EDT0023.DTL>
(07-18) 05:37 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Consumer inflation edged up last month as electricity prices continued to
surge, while the cost of gasoline and other energy products retreated.
The Labor Department reported Wednesday that the Consumer Price Index, the
government's most closely watched inflation measure, climbed by a seasonally
adjusted 0.2 percent in June. The index was up 3.8 percent for the year.
The new reading on consumer prices matched analysts' expectations.
The "core" rate of inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food prices,
rose 0.3 percent in June compared with just 0.1 percent in May.
,2001 Associated Press

Contra Costa may upgrade 9 buildings
$1.7 million earmarked for conservation
Jason B. Johnson, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com>
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/18/
MNC199898.DTL>
Contra Costa will spend as much as $1.7 million to conserve energy at the
county's nine worst "energy hog" buildings under a proposal approved
yesterday by the Board of Supervisors.
The measure is part of a larger effort the board in March agreed to undertake
to reduce the county's energy use by up to 10 percent.
A private company will install upgraded heating, ventilation and air
conditioning control systems at the nine buildings, resulting in savings of
just under $200,000 a year.
"What we've done is pick our energy hogs," said Bart Gilbert, the county's
general services director. "To start the process of making our buildings more
energy efficient."
County officials had no difficulty in identifying the hogs, which tended to
be large buildings that serve a variety of uses and are open as much as 24-
hours a day, seven days a week, said Gilbert.
Eight of the buildings are in Martinez, the county seat, and one is in
Antioch. They include the Bray Courts building in downtown Martinez,
sheriff's offices and morgue, and the Employment and Human Services building
in Antioch.
One energy waster is the 120,000-square-foot Summit Center, an office
building on Arnold Drive in Martinez that the county acquired last year.
The building's cooling system activates at a particular setting -- 76
degrees. So it shuts down completely when the temperature reaches below that
setting and won't turn on until it reaches about 79 degrees.
But new digital technology controls allow the system to gradually reduce or
increase power without having to shut down, which saves energy.
"When you turn the system on everything doesn't kick in, everything doesn't
come on full speed," said Gilbert. "That's a tremendous savings."
The county will contract with Syserco Inc. of Fremont to install the new
control systems from July through June 30, 2002.
County officials believe that the plan will reduce demand by 700,000 kilowatt
hours and pay for itself in about five years by reducing energy costs.
The county has applied for a low-interest loan from the state's Energy
Department that would cover about half the plan's costs. It is one of several
Bay Area communities seeking such loans during the energy crisis.
In the past two months, state officials have received $50 million worth of
new loan applications from city and county governments.
Before the energy crisis, the department would average between $5 and 10
million in loan applications, said Virginia Lew, project manager for the
department's Energy Partnership Program.
San Francisco is set to receive $5 million in loans for replacing inefficient
lighting at San Francisco General Hospital and city traffic signals.
Solano County will receive $1.1 million for lighting and efficiency projects
similar to those in Contra Costa, while Santa Rosa was given $1.5 million for
water and wastewater treatment facility upgrades.
Oakland officials are awaiting approval of the city's application for about
$400,000 for a combination of lighting and ventilation efficiency projects.
e-mail Jason B. Johnson at jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:jbjohnson@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 17

Lawmakers devise rival bailout plans for Edison
Push to come up with alternative to bankruptcy before recess
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau <mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright>
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/18/
MN76320.DTL>
Sacramento -- Lawmakers are struggling this week to agree on a plan to keep
Southern California Edison from declaring bankruptcy as they rush to complete
business before Friday's scheduled summer recess.
After months of talking about a solution and dismissing one agreed to by
Edison and Gov. Gray Davis, lawmakers now have several competing proposals to
consider.
A plan introduced last week by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, D-Sherman
Oaks (Los Angeles County), was debated for several hours yesterday, along
with a GOP-backed alternative by Assemblyman Roderick Wright, D-Los Angeles.
The two plans, which are scheduled for votes today in the Assembly Energy
Costs and Availability Committee, take sharply different approaches:
-- Hertzberg's plan would pay $2.4 billion for Edison's transmission lines to
help cover the utility's estimated $3.5 billion debt. The utility would be
allowed to pay off its remaining debt by issuing bonds.
The utility would repay the bonds using ratepayer money. For the first two
years, all customers would pay for the debt, but after that the largest users
would pay off the rest.
-- Wright calls his plan a "straight bailout." It would allow the utility to
issue bonds to cover all of its debt and impose a $2 a month rate increase
for all users until the debt is paid.
The Senate also introduced its own plan. A bill by Sen. Byron Sher, D-Palo
Alto, would give the state a five-year option to buy the transmission lines
and would have the state back only $2.5 billion of the utility's debt.
Since Davis announced a deal with Edison earlier this year, lawmakers,
business groups and consumer advocates have all expressed reservations with
one aspect or another of it. Opposition has usually focused on the state
purchase of Edison's transmission lines.
The flurry of activity this week is an effort by lawmakers to take some kind
of vote before they adjourn. The Edison agreement has an Aug. 15 deadline for
approval by the Legislature.
Brian Bennett, a spokesman for Edison, said creditors view that date as
extremely important.
"We're as close to bankruptcy as our creditors want us to be," he said. "Is
it a drop dead date? I don't know, but it is clearly an important date."
Consumer groups have denounced Wright's plan, and at least one calls
Hertzberg's proposal just another bailout and said it would cost Californians
$6.7 billion over the next 10 years.
"We cannot be seduced by big businesses paying a bailout tax," said Doug
Heller, a consumer advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights. "At the end of the day, we know businesses will pass these costs on
to the consumer."
Included in the 76-page Hertzberg bill are provisions that would allow large
companies to buy their power directly from a provider instead of going
through the utility after 2003.
But a coalition of large business groups also said they are strongly opposed
to the plan because it does not allow for immediate direct access.
"Ultimately, we think our companies buying power for themselves is the best
solution," said Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and
Technology Association. "If businesses think there's a light at the end of
the tunnel where they see lower rates coming, they might tough it out and
stay."
Wright argues that the beauty of his proposal is that it could easily apply
to the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. service area if the company wanted to use
it as a way out of bankruptcy court. He estimates that PG&E customers would
pay about $4 a month to help the company pay off its debt.
"This is a straight bailout," Wright said. "This is not a hidden bill. There
are extras."
Wright said he believes his constituents would rather pay an extra $2 than be
unemployed because their business left the state due to high energy costs.
Business groups said the idea makes sense.
"What good would it do to have your electricity bill reduced by $10 or $15
but not have a job?" said Bill Hauck, president of the California Business
Roundtable.
Whatever plan is eventually authorized would be used to convince the PG&E
bankruptcy judge to follow a similar model for that company, giving the state
those transmission lines as well.
The purchase of the transmission lines has been at the center of Davis' plan.
He argues that the purchase will give the state the ability to upgrade the
system, allowing a better flow of power between Northern and Southern
California and a decreased chance of blackouts.
But opponents argue that the state is getting one-third of a complicated
system that will cost billions to upgrade and operate.
"It's like buying a car with three wheels -- it is not going to get out of
the lot," consumer advocate Heller said.
E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com
<mailto:lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle </chronicle/info/copyright> Page A - 14

News briefs on the California power crisis

Wednesday, July 18, 2001
,2001 Associated Press
URL:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/state
0913EDT0146.DTL>
(07-18) 06:13 PDT (AP) -- diuriegr1 ?By The Associated Press?SAN DIEGO (AP) -- County supervisors want to eliminate a $100 fee for ?installing solar power systems to spur interest in the alternative energy ?source. ?Supervisor Ron Roberts proposed waiving the fee at the board's Tuesday ?meeting. A new ordinance may be ready for the supervisors' approval in two ?months. ?The fee is charged to homeowners who live in the unincorporated areas of the ?county. Solar power systems for hot water heaters can cost about $4,000 and ?home units can cost about $26,000. ?The county has been issuing more permits for solar units this year and ?expects to issue 250 permits by December. Two years ago, the county issued ?only 12. ?TEMECULA, Calif. (AP) -- An Indian burial ground sits in the way of a ?proposed power-line route and tribal members have asked U.S. Sen. Barbara ?Boxer to help preserve the site. ?Boxer, D-Calif., last week introduced an amendment to the Interior ?Appropriations bill that would place more than 700 acres of land owned by the ?Pechanga tribe in a federal trust. If approved, the legislation would allow ?the tribe to bypass the procedure review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ?San Diego Gas & Electric wants to run a 500,000-volt power line through the ?area. The $271 million route would run through southwestern Riverside County ?and link the utility's grid with one operated by Southern California Edison. ?SDG&E officials said the proposed federal legislation wouldn't derail the ?company's project. ?"I don't think it jeopardizes the project," said SDG&E spokeswoman Jacqueline ?Howells. "There are variations of our line that don't require that land, and ?there are alternatives further west." ?The state's Public Utilities Commission must still approve the project. ?The tribe recently purchased the site, which has one of the state's oldest ?oak trees. It is also home to several village sites and areas used for ?cremation. Tribal chairman Mark Macarro said the amendment wasn't ?specifically meant to block the power line project but rather to preserve the ?land from development. ?,2001 Associated Press ???????State's largest utility sues state seeking millions in power contracts seized ?by governor ?DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer?Wednesday, July 18, 2001 ?,2001 Associated Press ?URL: ?<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/07/18/natio?nal0848EDT0542.DTL>?(07-18) 05:48 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- ?California's largest utility has sued the state seeking reimbursement of ?millions of dollars in energy contracts seized by the governor. ?San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric Co. "has received no compensation ?for the damage to its property," the company said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday ?in San Francisco Superior Court. ?PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection in April and is struggling to repay ?$14.4 billion to thousands of creditors. ?Gov. Gray Davis seized the energy contracts on Jan. 31 to keep the California ?Power Exchange from liquidating them. The now-defunct exchange, which had ?been the state's middleman for buying and selling power, wanted the contracts ?to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars that PG&E owed it. ?The governor's office acknowledged that California owes PG&E for the ?contracts, an amount that Davis wants a judge to determine. At the time they ?were seized, the state estimated their value at $160 million, while the power ?exchange priced them at $347 million. ?"We seized the contracts to have reasonable priced power and expected that ?price to be set in a neutral forum," said Steve Maviglio, the governor's ?spokesman. ?Under the contracts, the state buys electricity at a set price rather than ?paying higher prices for power bought at the last minute. Therefore, the ?contracts' value changes with the volatile price of electricity. ?"We believe the state has benefited from the value of our contracts, and as a ?result we should be compensated," PG&E spokesman Ron Low said. ?Low declined to place a value on the contracts. ?,2001 Associated Press ?????Surplus state power sold at loss ?Posted at 11:50 p.m. PDT Tuesday, July 17, 2001 ?BY JOHN WOOLFOLK ??Mercury News ???State officials who bought power contracts averaging $138 per megawatt-hour ?for this month are selling some of the power back for as little as $1 per ?megawatt-hour, traders say. ?After scrambling this spring for every megawatt it could buy to stave off ?summer blackouts, cool weather and decreased demand have left the state ?holding more power than it needs and selling the surplus for whatever it can ?get. ?State officials won't say how much they are selling the power for, but ?acknowledged unloading surplus electricity. ?``We're seeing certain times of the day where we may not need power that we ?previously thought we needed, and we're selling it on the open market,'' said ?Oscar Hidalgo, spokesman for the state Department of Water Resources. ``We're ?probably moving a little more power than we anticipated, but I don't think ?anybody anticipated a July like we're experiencing.'' ?Utilities routinely sell surplus contract power when demand is lower than ?expected. But the state's recent sell-off could fuel criticism that ?California bought too much power at too high a price, fearing rolling ?blackouts and soaring prices this summer. ?``There's a painful lesson to be learned when you overbuy when supplies are ?tight,'' said Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading ?Forum. ``Anybody can lose money in this business, and the state of California ?is getting a taste of that.'' ?The state in the past week has sold anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of its ?available power, Hidalgo said. On Tuesday, the state had up to 40,000 ?megawatts available, while demand hovered around 32,000 megawatts, according ?to the power grid operator. ?Must be sold ?Because electricity cannot be stored, power purchased in contracts for a ?later date would be wasted if not used or sold. ?``It's better than losing it altogether,'' Hidalgo said. ``The way the ?electricity business is set up, you either use it or move it. You can't put ?it in a bottle and put it on a shelf.'' ?State officials would not say how much they've made in sales to offset ?purchase costs, citing concerns about jeopardizing their bargaining position. ?According to California Energy Markets, a trade weekly, the state was ?unloading power last Thursday at $25 per megawatt-hour. Ackerman said the ?state has been selling power for as little as $1 to $5 per megawatt-hour. ?Power was selling on the spot market for $20 to $40 per megawatt-hour ?Tuesday. ?The state, which assumed the role of power buyer for California's biggest ?utilities in January, expected to sell surplus power from time to time, ?although not quite this much, Hidalgo said. Even with demand down, the state ?still is buying more power than it sells, he said. ?With temperatures throughout the West unseasonably low in recent weeks, other ?utilities also are selling their surplus power at a loss. ?``That's an accepted operating risk we always assume,'' said Scott Simms, ?spokesman for Portland General Electric, adding that recent federal price ?caps are lower than what the Oregon utility paid. ``Sometimes you gain, ?sometimes you lose. Hopefully, if you planned well, you end up winning.'' ?Whether the state planned well or overbought is hard to say. The contracts ?could prove invaluable if another heat wave threatens blackouts. Ackerman ?likened power contracts to insurance -- a prudent move to guard against ?shortages and price spikes, even if it turns out you don't need it. ?At the very least, the current situation underscores the importance of ?weather in the volatile electricity market. Traders pore over forecasts and ?even buy weather insurance, Ackerman said. ?Demand and prices have been so low that some energy companies are shutting ?down the small power plants called ``peakers.'' ?Hidalgo said the state has no regrets. ?``What we were doing was making sure we had an available supply with these ?contracts,'' Hidalgo said. ``We were facing scarcity in the market early on. ?There wasn't enough supply to fulfill the need. What the contracts have done ?is obligated the producers to give us power.'' ?Blackout threat fades ?The state's daily power costs have fallen from more than $100 million in May ?to less than $26 million in July, Hidalgo said, and there hasn't been a ?blackout in two months. While some of the surplus power is sold on the ?market, it is also being traded to Northwestern hydropower utilities to cover ?past debts, he said. ?``This is not a bad position for us to be in,'' Hidalgo said, adding that the ?situation could always take a turn for the worse. ``We can't lose sight of ?the fact that we're still in an emergency situation. If this was routine, ?this crisis would be over. We're not out of the woods.'' ???Contact John Woolfolk at jwoolfolk@sjmercury.com ?<mailto:jwoolfolk@sjmercury.com> or (408) 278-3410. ????????Light bulb moment ?Published Wednesday, July 18, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News ?NOW it all makes sense. Dick Cheney hasn't been pushing to drill for more oil ?and gas because of his pals in the energy business. It's because of his ?electric bill. ?The veep mansion, it turns out, consumes electricity the way a 1965 ?Oldsmobile burned gas. The bill for this year -- $186,000 -- shouldn't have ?to come out of Cheney's budget, the White House says. It should be paid by ?the Navy, which owns the property. ?No way, we say -- unless the house lights have some national defense value. ?Perhaps blinding the pilots of incoming fighter jets? ?The Bush team says California should just face up to market prices. So why ?not Cheney? ?But there is an alternative, as we've discovered out here. Conservation. It ?works. Really. ?Cheney's got a 33-room house. Do they all have to be lit up all the time? ?????Business; Financial Desk ?California Trading, Wholesale Power Boost Duke's Earnings 27%?THOMAS S. MULLIGAN??07/18/2001 ?Los Angeles Times ?Home Edition ?Page C-2 ?Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company ?Pushed by the explosive growth of its trading and wholesale-power businesses, ?Duke Energy Corp. on Tuesday reported a 27% increase in second-quarter ?profit, narrowly topping Wall Street estimates. ?Duke's net income was $419 million, or 53 cents per share, in the quarter ?ended June 30, up from $329 million, or 44 cents, in the year-ago quarter. ?The consensus estimate of industry analysts was 52 cents per share. ?Revenue for the quarter leaped 43% to $15.6 billion. ?Shares rose 38 cents to close at $42.03 on the New York Stock Exchange. ?Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke, like other out-of-state independent power ?producers, is under fire from Gov. Gray Davis for allegedly overcharging for ?electricity from its California generating plants. ?Duke does not break out its California results, but its profits from soaring ?spot-market prices in California during the quarter probably amounted to no ?more than a penny or two per share, according to analyst Jeff Gildersleeves ?of Argus Research in New York. ?California accounts for about 10% of Duke's U.S. wholesale-power business, ?and about 90% of its California power is sold through long-term contracts ?rather than on the spot market, the company has said. ?Those long-term contracts are a source of worry for investors, Gildersleeves ?said. Neither Duke nor the state has disclosed whether the contract prices ?can be adjusted downward if spot-market prices fall, he said. If the prices ?are not firm, it could represent a risk to future profits, he added, ?especially if spot prices continue to fall. ?Duke's North American Wholesale Energy business unit posted second-quarter ?operating earnings of $251 million, up 128% from $110 million a year earlier. ?Analyst Timothy M. Winter of A.G. Edwards in St. Louis said the overall ?quarter was "very good," considering that Duke's earnings from its ?regulated-utility business in North and South Carolina actually were flat ?because of mild weather, a slowing economy and increased costs associated ?with some nuclear generating facilities being out of operation. ???PHOTO: Duke, which owns a plant in Morro Bay, beat analyst estimates.; ; ?PHOTOGRAPHER: CAROLYN COLE / Los Angeles Times ?


I have GREAT tickets (behind the Rockets bench) to tonight's game against
the Lakers.  It starts at 7:30.  Let me know if you are interested.

**********NOTE**********
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone (713-546-5000), and destroy the original
message. Thank you.


---------------------- Forwarded by David Baumbach/HOU/ECT on 11/14/2000
10:22 AM ---------------------------

Russ Porter@ENRON
11/13/2000 03:49 PM
To: Ceci Torn/TNPC/EES@EES, Todd Neugebaur, Reagan Mathews/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Brandon Luna/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, James Armstrong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Billy Braddock/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Mark Santikos/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Bobby Oubre/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Brad Mauritzen/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Aggie vs t.u. Flag Football


Twanda, would you please print this for me?  Thanks.  MHC--my printer is not
working (or maybe I haven't selected my local printer correctly)

----- Forwarded by Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT on 05/12/2000 09:20 AM -----

	David Oxley
	05/12/2000 07:27 AM

		 To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Tell me that....................

- Milnthorp's draft is in his hands
- Clemmons final has been sent
- Lemmons is with him
- Brown has been sent to him

David


As per our discussion yesterday, please find below some information on our
past discussions with i2, our current status and our suggested course of
action for your call with i2.  If you have any questions, please contact me
at extension 36635 or my assistant is Tina Spiller at 35746.

Thanks.

Greg Piper

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Shelby, Rex
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:56 AM
To: Piper, Greg
Cc: Shelby, Rex
Subject: EnronOnline Opportunity with i2

As background for Mr. Lay's call to Sanjiv Sidhu of i2 concerning the
EnronOnline opportunity, here is a brief summary of where we stand and our
suggestions:

History of Enron/i2 Discussions

? i2 was one the initial companies contacted by Enron Net Works (ENW) for the
EnronOnline commercial discussion.
? The focus of the Enron/i2 discussion earlier this year was a complete sale
of the software asset that drives EnronOnline to i2.
? i2 expressed considerable interest in the opportunity below the executive
level, but ENW had difficulty getting a concrete bid or proposal from i2.
? In order to get the discussion started, ENW provided an offer to i2.
? i2's response to the Enron offer was that they considered it high and that
they would prefer to partner with Enron in some manner in addition to some
form of purchase.
? ENW expressed interest in talking with i2 about this and requested that
they outline their preferred deal to Enron.
? ENW never received a term sheet or other information on a new price and
partnering concept from i2.

Current Status of EnronOnline Commercial Initiative

? Since those early discussions with i2, ENW has discussed the EnronOnline
opportunity with other selected technology companies, and is now considering
bids from several potential counterparties.
? Generally speaking the deal structure that appears to provide the best
opportunity for both parties entails involvement by ENW after the
transaction, in the form of equity participation or royalty payments or both,
as well as the transfer of some Enron people.
? This seems to move us into the realm of a "partnership" structure that
could fit the initial i2 interest.

Current Enron/i2 Status

? Rex Shelby talked briefly with Greg Brady, i2 CEO, at a conference in NYC
two weeks ago.
? Greg Brady expressed interest in renewing talks around the EnronOnline
opportunity.

Current Status of the Sale Opportunity

? We are now reaching the point in the process at which we need to determine
whether there is an interest from i2.
? We want to make sure we give i2 the opportunity to outline a proposal with
a price as well as outline their needs for a relationship going forward, or
to confirm that they are not interested.

Suggested Message to Sanjiv Sidhu

Our suggested message to Sanjiv is:
.
1. Enron remains interested in exploring this opportunity with i2 if there is
a genuine interest from i2.
2.   Enron is open to considering deal structures that provide incentive for
participation by Enron after the transaction.
3.   Enron is moving down the path with other parties, so if i2 has an
interest, we would need to start working with them soon.

Thank you for your assistance on this.  Please let us know if you need more
information.


The report named: West NG Prices - Basis <http://trv.corp.enron.com/linkFromExcel.asp?report_cd=45&report_name=West+NG+Prices+-+Basis&category_cd=2&category_name=WEST&toc_hide=1&sTV1=2&TV1Exp=Y&current_efct_date=11/27/2001>, published as of 11/27/2001 is now available for viewing on the website.


Start Date: 1/17/02; HourAhead hour: 20;  HourAhead schedule download failed. Manual intervention required.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002011720.txt
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
!!!Unknown database.
Alias: dbCaps97Data
Error: dbCaps97Data: Cannot perform this operation on a closed database


Sara,
How close is KBW?
Thanks. Sheila

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Fowler, Mike J
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 10:13 AM
To:	Glover, Sheila
Subject:	KBW

Sheila

Could I get an update on the status of legal documents for us to work with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods ?

Thanks.

Mike