Here's the suit filed against the generators.  Reporter says our suit will
look the same.

Mark
----- Forwarded by Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron on 11/29/2000 10:53 AM -----

	"Leopold, Jason" <Jason.Leopold@dowjones.com>
	11/29/2000 10:47 AM

		 To: "'Mark.Palmer@enron.com'" <Mark.Palmer@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Notice of Press Conference today

James C. Krause, Esq., SBN 066478
Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq., SBN 133464
Patrick N. Keegan, Esq., SBN 167698
Stephen W. Poirier, Esq. SBN 200868
KRAUSE & KALFAYAN
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 232-0331
Fax: (619) 232-4019

Attorneys for Plaintiff
(Additional Counsel on Signature Page)

 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PAMELA R. GORDON, on behalf of ) Case No.
herself and all others similarly situated, )
       ) CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR
) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,  ) BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
) oo16720, ET SEQ. AND oo17200 ET SEQ.
vs.     ) ANTITRUST and UNFAIR
BUSINESS
) PRACTICES
RELIANT ENERGY, INC.; SOUTHERN )
COMPANY; NRG ENERGY; DYNEGY,  )
INC.; AES CORPORATION; WILLIAMS )
ENERGY; DUKE ENERGY NORTH )
AMERICA; and  DOES 1 through 100,  )
Inclusive     )
)
Defendants.  )
___________________________________  )

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NATURE OF THE CASE 1

II. VENUE 2

III. PARTIES 2

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5

V. COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 6

A. The California Wholesale Electricity Markets 6

B. Defendants' Improper Acts 8

C. Results of Defendants' Activities 13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 15
Violation of Sections 16720 and 16726 of the California Business and
Professions
Code Trust In Restraint of Trade or Commerce in Violation of the Antitrust
Act
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18
For Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act Based Upon Violations of
the
Antitrust Act

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 19
For Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act Based Upon Defendants'
Unfair Business Acts and Practices

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20
Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 21

 Plaintiff hereby alleges on information and belief based upon the
investigation made by and through her attorneys, as follows:
 I.
 NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a class action seeking redress under the law of California
for defendants' conduct in the market for wholesale electricity.  During the
spring and summer of 2000, a group of electricity generators and traders,
including defendants, exercising market power, unlawfully manipulated the
California wholesale electricity market, resulting in grossly inflated
wholesale electricity prices throughout the state and much of the Western
United States. Defendants accomplished this result by, inter alia,
improperly using confidential real time generator capacity, use, and
maintenance data, and transmission system flow data to "game" the wholesale
electricity market, by withholding electrical generating capacity from the
California Power Exchange's forward markets, by improperly parking power
with affiliates in other states which was later resold in California at
inflated rates, by scheduling previously unplanned plant outages to coincide
with other plants' planned maintenance shutdowns, and by scheduling
transmission flows to cause or exacerbate congestion.
2. The improper use of confidential real time data was in violation of
the California Tariff by which  defendants are authorized to sell wholesale
electricity within California.
3. By engaging in said unfair business practices, defendants have
directly and severely damaged purchasers of electricity supplied through the
California Power Exchange.  As noted in the August 30, 2000 San Diego Union
Tribune:  "The utility bills of all [electric] ratepayers in San Diego are
exorbitant. . . . Rates that were 3 cents per kilowatt hour have risen to 19
cents per kilowatt hour in just three months -- nothing short of
confiscatory rates."
 4. In its November 1, 2000 Order, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC") expressly found that electricity prices in California
have been maintained at "unjust and unreasonable" levels during the relevant
period, though it determined that it did not have the authority to mandate
refunds or other retroactive relief with respect thereto.  In its November
22, 2000 response to the November 1st FERC order, the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) concluded that due to market manipulation by
wholesale energy producers and traders, customers of electricity supplied
through the California Power Exchange had been overcharged more than $4
billion dollars during the summer of 2000.  In its November 22nd response to
the November 1st FERC order, even the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) which manages California's transmission system infrastructure, known
as the "power grid", found that the summer 2000 prices resulted from the
exercise of intolerable levels of market power by generators and traders.
 II.
 VENUE

5. Venue is proper because defendants each transact business in the
State of California and because the damages caused by defendants' unlawful
manipulation of the price of wholesale electricity occurred in San Diego
County.
III.
 PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Pamela R. Gordon is an adult resident living in San Diego,
California.  Plaintiff Pamela R. Gordon is a retail electricity customer of
SDG&E, and has been forced to pay rates for electricity during the Class
Period (defined infra) that are unjust and unfair and that have been
artificially inflated by defendants' misconduct.  Moreover, plaintiff Pamela
R. Gordon was born with no lymph nodes in her legs which results in a lack
of circulation.  Exposure to high temperatures will cause plaintiff Pamela
R. Gordon's legs to swell, which can lead to possible severe health
consequences.  As a result of her condition, plaintiff Pamela R. Gordon must
maintain her home at temperatures of not more than 67 degrees at night and
71 degrees during the day.  Plaintiff Pamela R. Gordon is unable to
terminate her electricity service and has been forced to pay unjust and
unfair rates for electricity from SDG&E as a result of defendants'
misconduct.  Specifically, plaintiff Pamela R. Gordon was charged and/or
paid the following rates for electricity by SDG&E during the Class Period:
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

Dates
Total Electric Charges

5-26 to 6-27-00
$180.92

6-27 to 7-27-00
$226.67

7-28 to 8-28-00
$311.84

8-28 to 9-27-00
$143.48

9-27 to 10-26-00
$84.71

7. Plaintiff was charged less for electricity per kWh prior to the
Class Period and the inception of Defendants' wrongful conduct:

Dates
Total Electric Charges

3-29 to 4-27-00
$100.50

8. Defendant Reliant Energy (hereinafter "Reliant") is a Houston, Texas
based public corporation doing business in the state of California as
Reliant Energy Services.  It is a generator and trader of wholesale
electricity which is ultimately sold to California consumers, including
plaintiff and the class, and is a WSCC member.  Reliant operates five
electricity generating plants in California which supply wholesale
electricity to the California Power Exchange.
9. Defendant Southern Company (hereinafter "Southern") is an Atlanta,
Georgia based public corporation doing business in the state of California
as Southern Energy, Inc.  It is a generator and trader of wholesale
electricity which is ultimately sold to California consumers, including
plaintiff and the class, and is a WSCC member.  Southern Energy operates six
electricity generating plants in California which supply wholesale
electricity to the California Power Exchange.
10. Defendant Dynegy, Inc. (hereinafter "Dynegy") is a Houston, Texas
based public corporation doing business in the state of California as Dynegy
Marketing and Trade. It is a generator and trader of wholesale electricity
which is ultimately sold to California consumers, including plaintiff and
the class, and is a WSCC member.  Dynegy operates two electricity generating
power plants in California which supply wholesale electricity to the
California Power Exchange.
 11.  Defendant NRG Energy, Inc. (hereinafter "NRG") is a Minneapolis,
Minnesota based public corporation doing business in the state of California
as NRG, a generator and trader of wholesale electricity which is ultimately
sold to California consumers, including plaintiff and the class.  In
partnership with defendant Dynegy, NRG operates eight electricity generating
plants in California which supply wholesale electricity to the California
Power Exchange.
12. Defendant AES Corporation (hereinafter "AES") is an Arlington,
Virginia based public corporation doing business in the state of California
as AES Pacific Group, a generator and trader of wholesale electricity which
is ultimately sold to California consumers, including plaintiffs and the
class, and a WSCC member.  AES Pacific Group operates four electricity
generating plants in southern California which supply wholesale electricity
to the California Power Exchange.
13. Defendant Williams Energy is a Tulsa, Oklahoma based public
corporation doing business in the state of California as Williams Energy
Marketing and Trading Company, a generator and trader of wholesale
electricity which is ultimately sold to California consumers, including
plaintiffs and the class, and a WSCC member.  Williams Energy Marketing and
Trading Company operates three electricity generating plants in southern
California which supply wholesale electricity to the California Power
Exchange.
14. Defendant Duke Energy North America (hereinafter "Duke Energy") is a
Houston, Texas based public corporation doing business in the state of
California as Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, a generator and trader
of wholesale electricity which is ultimately sold to California consumers,
including plaintiffs and the class, and a WSCC member. Duke Energy operates
four electricity generating plants in California which supply wholesale
electricity to the California Power Exchange.
 15. Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued herein under
fictitious names because their true names are unknown to the Plaintiff.
When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend
this complaint by substituting their true names and capacities herein.
Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that each of
the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged, and thereby proximately caused injuries and
damages to Plaintiff, as herein alleged.  Further, Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the
Defendants designated by a fictitious name participated in and/or benefited
from the wrongful acts, conduct, and omissions described in this complaint,
and that said acts, conduct, and omissions directly and proximately caused
injury and damages to Plaintiff and the class as alleged below.
 IV.
 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of
Civil Procedure as a class action on behalf of all electricity customers,
including the retail customers of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E),
who purchased electricity supplied through the California Power Exchange
during the period from May 22, 2000 through and including the date of trial
(hereinafter the "Class Period").  All such persons and entities have paid
and/or have been charged prices for electricity that were "unjust and
unreasonable" and that were artificially inflated due to defendants'
exercise of market power, improper use of confidential information,
manipulations, and unlawful actions.  Members of the Class are extremely
numerous and their joinder would be impracticable.  Approximately 1.2
million SDG&E customers are within the class.
17. Common issues of fact and law predominate over individual issues,
including:
-whether defendants committed unfair business practices by sharing
confidential real time data in violation of ISO Tariffs and thereafter
"gamed" the market;

-whether defendants charged "unjust and unreasonable" prices for electricity
during the Class Period or otherwise benefited from said inflated price for
electricity;

-whether defendants exercised "market power" in the California electricity
market during the Class Period;

-whether defendants received improper and excess profits which should be
refunded and paid to members of the Class.

18. Plaintiff's interests are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the
interests of the class.
19. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in class action
and consumer fraud litigation and intends to vigorously prosecute this
action.
20. A class action is superior to all other methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The size of the individual
damages is small in comparison to the complexity and scope of the
defendants' operations and alleged misconduct.  A class action is the only
method whereby plaintiff and the class can efficiently seek redress and
obtain a uniform adjudication of their claims. Plaintiff does not anticipate
any difficulty with the management of this action.
/ / /
  V.
 COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

A. The California Wholesale Electricity Markets

21. In 1996 California deregulated its electricity industry and required
the State's privately owned utility companies to divest themselves of their
generating plants.  The purpose of deregulation was to introduce competition
into the electricity markets, with the intention of reducing rates for
electrical power.  In fact, however, certain participants in this recently
deregulated industry have, in violation of their operating Tariff, taken
advantage of structural flaws in the system and improperly obtained
confidential competitor information to artificially inflate prices for
electricity, yielding themselves billions of dollars in windfall profits at
the expense of California consumers.
22. As part of the deregulation, several new entities were created to
facilitate the workings of this new market.  California's investor owned
utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE),
and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) (the"Utilities"), now purchase
electricity for their customers from independent generators and traders,
including defendants, through a market known as the California Power
Exchange (PX).  The PX maintains a market for the purchase and sale of
wholesale electricity through a variety of forward contracts and real time
markets.  Under the California deregulatory scheme, the Utilities were,
until just recently, required to purchase power through the PX and
prohibited from independently contracting for power outside this market.
23. The deregulated market also led to the creation of the California
Independent System Operator (CAISO).  The CAISO is an "independent"
non-profit corporation, though its managing board includes representatives
from among the generators and traders, that was created to manage the flow
of electricity and ensure reliability along the long distance, high-voltage
power lines that make up the bulk of California's transmission system.
Approximately 75% of California's electricity is distributed through the
CAISO managed  "power grid".  The CAISO monitors electrical loads (i.e.,
demand) on an on-going basis and ensures that there is an adequate supply of
power to meet that demand.
/ / /
 24. The CAISO accomplishes this by maintaining a Real Time Imbalance
Market (the "Real Time Market").  When the CAISO receives bids from
suppliers that are insufficient to meet the demand for power, it must accept
any bid, which then sets the market-clearing price for that hour. Under the
single price auction system used by the CAISO, all sellers of electricity in
the Real Time Market automatically receive the market clearing price, which
is the (second) highest price paid in the market, even if they were willing
to sell and had in fact bid to sell electricity at lower prices. This
mechanism allows sophisticated market participants, such as defendants, to
game the market by withholding bids in an effort to maximize the clearing
price.
25. The Real Time Market was not designed to handle large transactions,
but merely to provide a mechanism to correct short term imbalances in supply
and demand.  Defendants nonetheless pushed a substantial portion of the
daily wholesale electricity sales into this market by under bidding capacity
to the forward market leaving wholesale customers no alternative place to
obtain the power to satisfy their retail customers' demand.
26. The CAISO also manages the Replacement Reserve Market, which is used
to balance supply and demand of electricity.  Sellers in the Replacement
Reserve Market receive a fixed premium for having available capacity.  If
called upon by the ISO to deliver energy, sellers in the Replacement Reserve
Market also receive the Real Time Market price.  Thus, if generators know
that capacity is short, they have an incentive to withhold supplies from the
spot markets and push as much as possible into the Replacement Reserve
Market.  Access to real time generating information facilitates such
"gaming" of the markets by demonstrating, in real time, available competing
supply.
27. In times of high demand, the CAISO has the authority to purchase
energy from out-of-state sources, as to which there is no operative price
cap.  The CAISO was forced to do so during the Summer of 2000.  California
generators and marketers can export electricity to surrounding markets in
order to create artificial shortages and drive up prices in the California
markets.  They can then resell that electricity to the CAISO at inflated and
uncapped prices.  As the PX Compliance Committee noted in its November 1,
2000 Report ("the PX Compliance Report"):
/ / /
 "During periods of high Out-of-Market purchases, when prices are above the
Real-Time energy price cap, in-state generators have an incentive to export
energy out of California.  Surrounding control areas can effectively park
that energy for resale to the CAISO Out-of-Market calls and return it to the
state."

Id. at p. 44.
28. Notably, the summer of 2000 witnessed an approximately 370% increase
in exports from  the California energy market, despite the very high prices
and short supplies that existed in the State.
  "Market power" is defined by the CAISO as the ability to
significantly influence market prices and cause them to vary from
competitive levels for a material period of time.  Generators and suppliers
(including defendants) can exercise market power by physically or
economically withholding electricity from the market, moving electricity out
of the California markets, and by pricing and bidding their resources in
ways that impede the efficiency of the market.

29. Notably, the California energy market consists of a relatively small
number of firms, some of which control a substantial fraction of the total
generating capacity.  The small number of suppliers facilitates the exercise
of  market power during periods of high demand, even when there is not a
true scarcity of available generating capacity.  In addition, the relatively
inelastic demand for energy further facilitates the exercise of such market
power.
B. Defendants' Improper Acts
30. Prior to May 22, 2000, the CAISO began supplying the Western Systems
Coordinating Council ("WSCC"), an organization consisting of electric
industry participants, including defendants, with real time industry data as
to electricity generating levels, known as metering data, and transmission
system flow data, known as scheduling data, pertaining to individual market
participants. Through the WSCC Internet web site, wholesale electricity
market participants, including defendants herein, were thereby given access
to real time data as to their competitors' actions, although access to such
data was forbidden by the ISO Tariff.  When requested by various
governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") the WSCC refused access.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
 31. CAISO/FERC Tariff section 10.2.6 states in relevant part;
Meter Data supplied by an ISO  metered entity shall be made available by the
ISO to the scheduling coordinator representing such ISO metered entity and
other authorized users identified in its meter services agreement, but shall
not be disclosed to any third party except as otherwise may be required by
law, FERC any local regulatory authority or other provision of this ISO
Tariff.

32. CAISO/FERC Tariff section 20.3.1 states in relevant part:

The ISO shall maintain the confidentiality of all of the documents, data and
information provided to it by any Market Participant that are treated as
confidential or commercially sensitive under Section 20.3.2; provided,
however, that the ISO need not keep confidential: (1) information that is
explicitly subject to data exchange through WEnet pursuant to Section 6 of
this ISO Tariff; (2) information that the ISO or the Market Participant
providing the information is required to disclose pursuant to this ISO
Tariff, or applicable regulatory requirements (provided that the ISO shall
comply with any applicable limits on such disclosure); or (3) information
that becomes available to the public on a non-confidential basis (other than
as a result of the ISO's breach of this ISO Tariff).

33. CAISO/FERC Tariff section 20.3.2 states in relevant part:

The following information provided to the ISO by Scheduling Coordinators
shall be treated by the ISO as confidential:

(a) individual bids for Supplemental Energy;

(b) individual Adjustment Bids for Congestion Management which are not
designated by the scheduling coordinator as available;

(c) individual bids for Ancillary Services;

(d) transactions between Scheduling Coordinators;

(e) individual Generator Outage programs unless a Generator makes a
change to its Generator Outage program which causes Congestion in the short
term (i.e. one month or less), in which case, the ISO may publish the name
of that Generator.

34. CAISO/FERC Tariff section 20.3.2 states in relevant part:

No Market Participant shall have the right hereunder to receive from the ISO
or to review any documents, data or other information of another Market
Participant to the extent such documents, data or information is to be
treated as in accordance with Section 20.3.2; provided, however, a market
Participant may receive and review any composite documents, data, and other
information that may be developed based upon such confidential documents,
data, or information, if the composite document does not disclose such
confidential data or information relating to an individual Market
Participant and provided, however, that the ISO may disclose information as
provided for in its bylaws.

 35. Part of the CAISO Tariff is the ISO Market Monitoring & Information
Protocol (MMIP).  The objective of this Protocol (MMIP) is to set forth the
workplan and rules under which the ISO will monitor the ISO markets to
identify abuses of market power.  The MMIP part of the tariff applies to all
ISO Market Participants, including Defendants.
36. MMIP Section 2.1.1. states in relevant part:
Anomalous market behavior, which is defined as behavior that departs
significantly from the normal behavior in competitive markets that do not
require continuing regulation or as behavior leading to unusual or
unexplained market outcomes.  Evidence of such behavior may be derived from
a number of circumstances, including:

MMIP 2.1.1.1  withholding of generation capacity under circumstances in
which it would normally be offered in a competitive market;

MMIP 2.1.1.2  unexplained or unusual redeclarations of availability by
Generators;

MMIP 2.1.1.3  unusual trades or transactions;

MMIP 2.1.1.4  pricing and bidding patterns that are inconsistent with
prevailing supply and demand conditions, e.g., prices and bids that appear
consistently excessive for or otherwise inconsistent with such conditions;
and

MMIP 2.1.1.5  unusual activity or circumstances relating to imports from or
exports to other markets or exchanges.

The Market Surveillance Unit shall evaluate, on an ongoing basis, whether
the continued or persistent presence of such circumstances indicates the
presence of behavior that is designed to or has the potential to distort the
operation and efficient functioning of a competitive market, e.g., the
strategic withholding and redeclaring of capacity, and whether it indicates
the presence and exercise of market power or of other unacceptable
practices.

37. MMIP Section 2.1.3 states in relevant part:

"Gaming", or taking unfair advantage of the rules and procedures set forth
in the PX or ISO Tariffs, Protocols or Activity Rules, or of transmission
constraints in periods in which exist substantial Congestion, to the
detriment of the efficiency of, and of consumers in, the ISO Markets.
"Gaming" may also include taking undue advantage of other conditions that
may affect the availability of transmission and generation capacity, such as
loop flow, facility outages, level of hydropower output or seasonal limits
on energy imports from out-of-state, or actions or behaviors that may
otherwise render the system and the ISO markets vulnerable to price
manipulation to the detriment of their efficiency.

 38. Market participants used their trade organization, the WSCC, to
share access to and use real time information, notwithstanding the fact that
its publication and use violated the  ISO's operating procedures, as set
forth in tariffs and protocols that were filed with and approved by FERC,
and by adoption made part of the contracts by  which defendants were
authorized to sell electricity to the PX.  Those tariffs and protocols
required that such data be kept confidential to prevent gaming the market
and not be used by market participants to engage in anti-competitive
behavior.
39. It has been reported in the Dow Jones Work. Com Newswire on October
19, 2000, that:
"Electricity generators may have used real-time plant activity reports from
the state's grid operator to their advantage in California's wholesale
electricity market, according to an official with the Western Systems
Coordinating Council.

 * * * * * * *

"At issue is real-time information the California Independent System
Operator provided the Western systems Coordinating Council, a governmental
[sic] organization that monitors electricity reliability in the western
U.S., about power plant activity in the state.

"The real-time information allows market participants . . . to access data
via an internet site that shows how much capacity a plant with more than 200
megawatts has online at any given moment. . . . .

"The information was intended to be used to monitor electric reliability on
the grid . . . .

"Last month, however, the ISO's attorneys alerted the WSCC that the 'data is
being used against them and to game the market,' according to Bill Commish,
director of dispatch with the WSCC.

 * * * * * *

"Commish said generators could use the information to withhold supply and
drive up power prices or to identify transmission congestion in a particular
region and use that to gouge customers.

"However, the ISO, which controls about 75% of the state's power grid and
real-time market, may have violated a FERC rule because it is required to
keep such information confidential for 90 days, an ISO attorney told the
WSCC.

"Beginning Monday, the ISO will no longer provide such information  to the
WSCC or other market participants."

 40. Starting on or about May 22, 2000, Defendants used such real time
data to exercise market power by, among other things, reducing their output,
strategically under-bidding supply to the forward markets, and exporting
electricity from the State in order to drive up the Real Time Market price
and other market prices.  As a direct result of their improper access to and
use of this information, the price of wholesale electricity spiked sharply
upwards on May 22, 2000 and has remained at artificially inflated prices
ever since.  FERC, CPUC, and CAISO Dept. of Market Analysis, have all now
concluded that market participants should be excluded from the CAISO board.
41. As noted in the North County Times on October 19, 2000:
"A case study of San Diego County's two big power plants has concluded that
they held back from full production of electricity in June, even as prices
skyrocketed and California's power manager was scrambling for supplies to
prevent blackouts.

"To the study's author . . . the low production in San Diego county is clear
evidence that the companies that generate and trade electricity in CA were
creating an artificial shortage to drive up prices.

 * * * * * *

McCullough's hour-by-hour analysis of power output for June found that the
Encina plant in Carlsbad generated 44 percent of the megawatt hours that it
could have during periods when prices were higher than the plant's cost of
production.  The South Bay power plant in Chula Vista generated 61 percent
of what would be expected under traditional economic theory.

Economists estimate it costs $45-$55 per megawatt hour to generate
electricity at the plants. The wholesale price in June averaged $120 per
megawatt hour.

A separate analysis conducted by the North County Times revealed "mysterious
cutbacks in Carlsbad during a heady market of sky-high prices."

 * * ** *

"Investigators and market analysts have documented extensive evidence that
electricity traders have waited until prices rose on California's market
this summer before they would commit their power plants to production."

"'We did see evidence of withholding in the bidding,' according to Jim
Detmers, the ISO's operations chief."

 42. In addition, defendants used such real time information about their
competitors to improperly withhold electrical supplies from the forward
markets operated by the PX in order to take advantage of the ISO's need to
balance supply and demand in the spot market and thereby benefit from the
single price auction system by obtaining the highest price paid at any given
period.  In addition, certain defendants sold or parked electricity with
affiliates in other states in order to artificially drive up prices in the
California markets.  They then sold that electricity back into the
California markets at the artificially inflated prices they had created.
These tactics forced buyers in the California wholesale electricity market
to purchase more than 30% of their electricity needs in the inflated Spot
Market, rather than the less than 5% that should be sold in that market. The
Spot Market was solely intended to satisfy last minute fluctuations in the
demand for energy.
C. Results of Defendants' Activities
43. From late May 2000 through the present, defendants' activities have
raised wholesale electricity prices to record levels, well above the rates
that would prevail in a competitive marketplace and disproportionate to the
costs of generating that electricity.  Those prices have resulted in an
approximate tripling of electricity rates in areas served by SDG&E, where
retail rates have been deregulated and represent in large part a pass
through of SDG&E's costs for such power, which it purchases from the
defendant generators and traders through the California Power Exchange.
44. As the Market Surveillance Committee ("MSC") of the CAISO concluded
in its September 6, 2000 Report ("the MSC Report"), during the months of May
and June 2000 revenues from the sale of ISO loads in the California energy
market were 37% and 182%, respectively, above the revenues that would have
been generated under competitive pricing conditions.    MSC Report at p. 2.
The MSC Report unambiguously concluded that market participants exercised a
"significant amount of  market power" in the California energy markets,
beginning as early as October 1999 and increasing dramatically during the
Class Period.  Id. at pp. 4, 15, 17.
45. The average market clearing price in California's wholesale markets
during August of 2000 was $166.24/MWh under moderate load conditions,
compared with $32.31/MWh a year earlier.  While load demand conditions in
California during August 2000 were slightly higher than in August 1999, they
were similar to those during August 1998 when prices were much lower.  Peak
demand in August 2000 was lower than in August of either of the prior two
years, negating representations by industry leaders that excessive demand
caused these price increases.  Indeed, some California electricity producers
were only running at 60% of capacity during the so-called emergency periods.

 46. These price hikes have even been effect during the middle of the
night, when electricity is abundant and demand is low.  Further, prices in
November 2000, when demand for electricity is much lower than during the
summer months, continue to be substantially in excess of the prior years'
levels and in excess of the levels that should prevail in a competitive
marketplace.
47. As a result of defendants' exercise of market power, they
artificially increased prices to record levels and have obtained huge
windfall profits.  As reported in the October 17, 2000 San Diego Union
Tribune,  analyst Anatol Feygin of JP Morgan estimated that electricity
industry profits from California for the 3 months ended September 30, 2000
could reach $6 billion, even after taking into account cost increases.
Feygin stated, "'The industry was literally at eight times the profitability
of last year . . .. that is a fortune.'"
48. Defendant Reliant has reported that its third quarter earnings will
top last year's figure by about $110 million.  Similarly, defendant Dynegy
reported an 83 percent increase in its third quarter 2000 income, as
compared to its third quarter 1999 figures.   Profits from Defendant
Dynegy's wholesale energy generating and trading division quadrupled to
$141.9 million, which represented 80 percent of Dynegy's overall profits.
"This is the most successful quarter in Dynegy's history", reported chairman
and chief executive officer, Charles 'Chuck' Watson.  Other defendants also
obtained large windfall profits during this period.
49. Prior to deregulation, the historical cost to produce a megawatt
hour of electricity in San Diego County was approximately $23-45 per MWh.
During the Summer of 2000, defendants' conduct caused the Real Time Market
price of wholesale electricity to frequently reach $750 per MWh, resulting
in an approximate tripling of SDG&E customers' bills.
50. In its Order issued on November 1, 2000, FERC concluded that
wholesale prices of electricity in California had been at "unjust and
unreasonable" levels during the Summer of 2000. CAISO and CPUC responses to
the November 1st FERC order both concluded that wholesale prices during
Summer 2000 were due to a substantial exercise of market power by generators
and traders.
 51. Plaintiffs and the class were injured by the manipulated and
inflated prices paid for wholesale electricity, including retail customers
of SDG&E since costs were fully passed through to them.  The CPUC's November
22, 2000 report to FERC concluded that the exercise of market power by
wholesale producers resulted in a $4 billion dollar overcharge for the
delivery of electricity to California during the summer of 2000.  Due to the
unlawful conduct alleged above, plaintiffs and the class paid approximately
$4 billion dollars more for electricity than they otherwise would have,
causing great hardship to numerous individuals and businesses. As
Congressman Brian Bilbray stated: "Every day that goes by you've got small
businesses bleeding to death.  People are literally dying financially from
this situation."  Work.com Newswire (10/21/00).
52. The improper sharing and use of real time wholesale electricity
generation and transmission data by defendants to withhold generation by
unplanned outages and to maintain bidding strategies which led to contrived
and artificial shortages, and other manipulative conduct, had the effect of
artificially inflating and maintaining wholesale electricity prices above
competitive prices allowing defendants to reap illegal profits amounting to
billions of dollars, at the expense of plaintiffs and the class.
 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
 Violation of Sections 16720 and 16726
 of the California Business and Professions Code
 Trust In Restraint of Trade or Commerce in Violation of the
Antitrust Act
 (Against All Defendants)

53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation set forth above.
54. The Cartwright Act states, at o16726, that: "Except as provided in
this chapter, every trust is unlawful, against public policy and void."  A
trust is defined at o16720 as follows:
55. "A trust is a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more
persons for any of the following purposes:
(a) To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce.

(b) To limit or reduce the production, or increase the price of
merchandise or of any commodity.

(c) To prevent competition in manufacturing, making, transportation,
sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or any commodity.

(d) To fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public or
consumer shall be in any manner controlled or established, any article or
commodity of merchandise, produce or commerce intended for sale, barter, use
or consumption in this State.

(e) To make or enter into or execute or carry out any contracts,
obligations, or agreements of any kind or description, by which they do all
or any or any combination of the following:

 (1) Bind themselves not to sell, dispose of or transport any article or
any commodity or any article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or
consumption below a common standard figure, or fixed value.

(2) Agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or
transportation at a fixed or graduated figure.

(3) Establish or settle the price of any article, commodity or
transportation between them or themselves and others, so as directly or
indirectly to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves,
or any purchasers or consumers in the sale or transportation of any such
article or commodity.

(4) Agree to pool, combine or directly or indirectly unite any interests
that they may have connected with the sale or transportation of any such
article or commodity, that its price might in any manner be affected."

56. Plaintiffs and the Class are empowered by the Cartwright Act o16750
to commence a private action for up to three times their damages and
equitable relief due to the injuries they have suffered and continue to
suffer as a result of defendants' violations of the Antitrust Act.  The
Cartwright Act states:
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of
anything forbidden or declared unlawful by this chapter, may sue therefore
. . . and to recover three times the damages sustained by him or her,
interest . . . and preliminary or permanent injunctive relief . . . .

57. Plaintiffs and the Class, are "persons" within the meaning of the
Antitrust Act as defined in o16702.
58. Beginning on or about May 22, 2000, the exact date being presently
unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants embarked on a conspiracy to make available
and use confidential real time industry data as to electrical generating,
power plant capacity, utilization, and outages through the WSCC, an
organization consisting of Defendants, and others, to inflate the market
prices of wholesale electricity, in restraint of trade and commerce in
California. As a result of these efforts, Defendants engaged in acts and
entered into Agreements, which  were intended to and have in fact restrained
trade and commerce in the California Power Exchange and other electricity
markets, in violation of the Antitrust Act, which violations are continuing
to the present day.
 59. The aforesaid acts, contracts, agreements, combinations and
conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce have consisted of continuing
agreements, undertakings and concert of action among Defendants, the
substantial terms of which were to artificially limit the supply of
electricity to the California markets.  Through these acts and Agreements,
Defendants acted to set, raise and maintain the prices of electricity on the
Real Time Imbalance Market and other markets to wholesale purchasers of
electricity, and, indirectly and ultimately, to California consumers, at
supra-competitive prices.
60. Defendants successfully set, raised and maintained supra-competitive
wholesale prices for electricity beginning on May 22, 2000, to the customers
of the California Power Exchange.
61. Such overcharges were paid by consumers of electricity, such as
Plaintiff and the Class she seeks to represent.
62. Defendants' acts, contracts, agreements, combinations and
conspiracies were intended to restrain and did, in fact, restrain trade and
commerce in California during the Class Period.
63. Defendants' unlawful restraints of trade have had and, unless
enjoined, threaten to continue to have the following anti-competitive
effects, among others:
(a) Prices charged by Defendants for electricity to wholesale
purchasers, and, ultimately, to the customers of SDG&E in California have
been and will continue to be set, raised and maintained at artificially high
and non-competitive levels;

(b) Fair and equitable price competition for the supply of electricity
and retail and wholesale price levels for electricity have been restrained
and adversely affected; and

(c) Plaintiff and other Class members have been deprived of the benefit
of free and open competition in the electricity market in California.

64. As a direct and proximate result of the violations alleged herein,
Plaintiff and members of the Class have been unable to and will continue to
be unable to purchase electricity at prices determined by free and open
competition, and Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged and
will continue to be damaged by their respective purchases and/or charges for
electricity at prices higher than they would have otherwise paid, absent
Defendants' unlawful conduct.
65. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law for their
irreparable injuries.
66. Defendants' acts, contracts, agreements, conspiracies, and
combinations in restraint of trade violate the Antitrust Act.  Accordingly,
Plaintiff and the Class seek three times their damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Antitrust Act and a permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants' continuing violations of the Cartwright Act.
/ / /
 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
For Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act
Based Upon Violations of the Antitrust Act
(against all defendants)

67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation set forth above.
68. The Unfair Trade Practices Act prohibits all unfair competition,
which is defined as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice," and includes violations of the Cartwright Act,  oo16700 et seq.
of the B&P Code.
69. As alleged hereinabove, beginning as early as May, 2000, defendants
unlawfully conspired, agreed, arranged and combined to prevent and restrain
competition for the sale of electricity, in violation of oo 16700 et seq.
and oo 17200 et seq. of the B&P Code.
70. Pursuant to B&P Code oo 17200 et seq., Plaintiff brings this action
seeking injunctive relief to enjoin defendants' unfair trade practices and
requiring defendants' disgorgement of all monies obtained by virtue of their
violations of the Cartwright Act as described hereinabove.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the violations alleged herein,
Plaintiff and members of the Class have been unable to and will continue to
be unable to purchase electricity at prices determined by free and open
competition, and Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged and
will continue to be damaged by their respective purchases and/or charges for
electricity at prices higher than they would have otherwise paid, absent
defendants' unlawful conduct.
72. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law for their
irreparable injuries.
73. Defendants' acts, contracts, agreements, conspiracies, and
combinations in restraint of trade and free and open competition, alleged
herein, violate the Antitrust Act.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class
seek restitution and disgorgement by defendants to the Class of all monies
obtained by defendants' acts of unfair competition with respect to the
contract, conspiracy, combination and trust, and a permanent injunction
enjoining defendants' continuing violations of the Cartwright Act.
/ / /
/ / /
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
For Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act
Based Upon Defendants' Unfair Business Acts and Practices
In Charging Unjust and Unreasonable Rates
(against all defendants)

74. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation set forth above.
75. Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business & Professions Code
prohibits acts of unfair competition, which include any "unlawful, unfair,
or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or
misleading advertising".
76. The Defendants consistently engaged in numerous acts of  "unfair
competition", as more fully described above, by inter alia, manipulating the
price of wholesale electricity in the California markets.
77. In addition, pursuant to the Federal Power Act:
"All rates and charges made, demanded, or received by any public utility for
or in connection with the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to
the jurisdiction of the Commission . . . shall be just and reasonable and
any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared
to be unlawful."

16 U.S.C. Section 824d(a).

78. Defendants are public utilities within the term as used in the
foregoing statute.
79. The FERC has specifically found that the prices defendants charged
for the wholesale electricity they sold in the California markets during the
Class Period were in fact unjust and unreasonable.  The California Public
Utilities Commission has determined that said unjust and unreasonable prices
resulted from the exercise of market power by generators and traders in the
California wholesale electricity market.
80. As a result of the conduct described above, the  defendants
unlawfully acquired money and property from Plaintiff and the Class and have
been and will be unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the
members of the Class.  Specifically, defendants have deprived Plaintiff and
the Class of billions of dollars in monies from the sale of electricity at
unjust, excessive, and manipulated prices.
/ / /
 81. Pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business & Professions
Code, Plaintiff and the members of the class seek an order of this Court
restoring to them all money wrongfully taken from them and allowing them a
claim in the full amount of all of defendants' ill-gotten gains, so as to
restore any and all monies to Plaintiff and the members of the Class and the
general public, which were acquired and obtained by means of such unfair and
deceptive acts and practices.
82. Pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business & Professions
Code, Plaintiff and the members of the class seek an order of this Court
providing appropriate equitable and/or injunctive relief restraining
defendants from charging unjust and unreasonable rates and from manipulating
the electricity markets.
 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
 Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
 (Against All Defendants)

83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation set forth above.
84. Such acts and practices by defendants violate the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.  Defendants' acts warrant
appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief, including an injunction
restraining them from charging unjust and unfair rates or manipulating the
market for electricity.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unconscionability
(Against All Defendants)

85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
allegation set forth above.
86. Defendants charged rates for wholesale electricity that were
unconscionable given their cost of production, the newly emergent markets
for that product, and the consumers' need for electrical power.
87. Defendants' rates were  inherently  excessive, invalid and
unconscionable, particularly in light of the deceptive and manipulative
practices they used to inflate the market prices and the vital need
consumers and businesses have for electrical power.
/ / /
 88. Defendants' unconscionable prices were passed through to Plaintiff
and the majority of the Class in the retail electricity rates charged by
SDG&E and thereby directly damaged Plaintiff and the Class.
 VI.
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for judgment against defendants as
follows:
(a) That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a
class action and direct that reasonable  notice of this action be given to
the members of the Class;
(b) That the combination, contract, arrangement, agreement, conspiracy
and trust alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable
restraint of trade in violation of Sections 16720 and 16726 of the
California Business and Professions Code;
(c) That damages be granted according to proof, and that Plaintiff and
the Class be awarded treble damages or statutory damages, where applicable,
attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements;
(d) That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded pre- and post-judgment
interest;
(e) That the Court enter appropriate injunctive and other equitable
relief, including the disgorgement of defendants' unlawful profits; and
(f) That Plaintiff and the Class have such other and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: November 27,  2000     KRAUSE &
KALFAYAN

_______________________________
James C. Krause, Esq.
Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
Stephen W. Poirier, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:
David B. Zlotnick, Esq., SBN 195607
Attorney at Law
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 232-0331
Fax: (619) 2

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark.Palmer@enron.com [mailto:Mark.Palmer@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:44 AM
To: Leopold, Jason
Subject: Re: FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Notice of Press Conference today

Got the announcement.  Can you forward the complaint (suit) as an
attachment?

Mark


Bill -We will go ahead and sign and file it Monday (11/26).  Thanks for your help.  Donna

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Petersen, Keith
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:41 AM
To:	Rapp, Bill
Cc:	Miller, Mary Kay; Martens, Donna
Subject:	FW: Transwestern Red Rock Expansion; Extension Request

I made two changes and tracked them.  I did not fill in the phone number, because I assumed Bill was to sign.

Keith

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rapp, Bill
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:44 AM
To:	Martens, Donna; Petersen, Keith
Cc:	Miller, Mary Kay
Subject:	Transwestern Red Rock Expansion; Extension Request

Attached is a revised draft of the letter. The only change from the prior draft is to the volumes in the first sentence of the second paragraph. I've changed the contracted capacity figure from 120,000 Mcf to 106,700 per feedback from Keith. I think this is now ready to file, except that we will need to fill in the blanks. Please confirm this and give me a call at your convenience so that we can discuss the logistics of the filing. Thanks.

 << File: TWFERCExtensionB.doc >>


I am glad you enjoyed the game!  Please coordinate with Janette.  Mark

	John Viverito@ENRON
	11/08/2000 09:11 AM

		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Thanks!

Mark-

Thanks for the opportunity to see the game last night.  I had a great time.
I hope I have the opportunity to return the favor some time.

How about the Presidential election!

With regard to the Consulting Services Agreement to be signed by John
Lavorato, please inform me as to when you would like me to drop by to discuss.

Thanks,

John


The Texas Gas Group will definitely be rolling out a "Super Peak" 5x8 product
for gas delivery from 1300 to 2100 CDT.  If we decide to roll out another
product, probably a "Peak" 5x12 (900 to 2100 CDT) we will let you know
sometime today.
We will relay the prices to you on Monday.

Dale Neuner   06/23/2000 09:43 AM

To: Steve Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheri
Thomas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: New EOL Product

Steve -

One issue that immediately comes to mind is the 'General Terms and
Conditions' ability to handle intra-day nominations. .This may require a new
Product Type and GTC.

Are we presently trading this product OTC, or is this unprecedented?

Dale

To: Dale Neuner/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: New EOL Product

---------------------- Forwarded by Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT on 06/23/2000 09:30
AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Steve Venturatos                           06/23/2000 09:29 AM

To: Sheri Thomas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: New EOL Product

We are finalizing plans to introduce a new gas products(s) for July.  The
product(s) would be an hourly product either 5x8 or 5x12 or 5x16.
Even though we have not decided which product to introduce, I thought I would
give you a heads up to keep you in the loop.


How about the others?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Franklin, Mary Theresa
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 8:04 AM
To:	Perlingiere, Debra
Cc:	Singer, John
Subject:	RE: New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

I estimate the monthly volumes for Cgas meter 711586  to be about 150 MMBTUs

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Singer, John
Sent:	Friday, October 12, 2001 12:51 PM
To:	Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT@ENRON
Cc:	Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ENRON
Subject:	RE: New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

Will you provide Debra with estimated metered volumes for the Reliance Energy meters which were to Mark Hardesty, Guy Dugan, Valley Petroleum, C&E Oilfield and Don McKee.
Thanks,
John
---------------------- Forwarded by John M Singer/Corp/Enron on 10/12/2001 12:36 PM ---------------------------
From:	Debra Perlingiere/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/10/2001 09:15 AM
To:	John M Singer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	RE: New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

Thanks for your email.  However I need to know about volumes.  Is it 100% of production for these new contracts?

 Thanks

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Singer, John
Sent:	Wednesday, October 10, 2001 6:53 AM
To:	Perlingiere, Debra
Subject:	RE: New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

I apologise for not listing  the pricing on my requests.  You are correct, the price is 100% of the TCo Appalachian Index.
Thanks,
John

From:	Debra Perlingiere/ENRON@enronXgate on 10/09/2001 05:55 PM
To:	John M Singer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject:	RE: New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

Should I assume we are purchasing 100% of production for the last 6 you have sent me?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Singer, John
Sent:	Thursday, October 04, 2001 12:03 PM
To:	Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ENRON
Cc:	Mary Theresa Franklin/HOU/ECT@ENRON
Subject:	New Contract for: Mark Hardesty

Would you please prepare and mail a new contract to:

Mark Hardesty
6708 Bethel Road
Gambier, OH  43022

Contact:  Mark Hardesty
Phone:

Meter's:  711586 (on CGas)
State:  Ohio
County:  Knox

Effective Date:  November 1, 2001
Term:  Monthly w/60 day notification
Price:  100% FOM IF TCo Index less any gathering and/or processing fees incurred by Buyer including those fees charged by Gatherco, Inc.

Ownership of the above meter was transferred  to Mark Hardesty effective 11/1/01 by Reliance Energy, Inc.

Thanks,
John


That's ok.  Our trading policy doesn't allow you to trade anything we trade.


Attached please find the EPMI Power Credit Watch List as of 01/29/01.  Please
direct any questions and/or comments to the Credit Hotline (713-853-1803).

Thank you,
Veronica Gonzalez


From astrology.com (must I beware of overindulgence in such websites?)
I like the part about charm and charisma and think it is very true.

Sagittarius and Sagittarius
When two Sagittarians join together in a love match, the truth-loving natures
makes theirs a near perfect relationship. This couple views the world around
them with an educated eye and both share an intense hunger for more
knowledge. They will engage one another in pleasant conversation and
banter that challenges and tickles the mind.  An occasional hotheaded dispute
can erupt in the Sagittarius-Sagittarius relationship, when one fact-fanatic
Sag
partner carries things a little too far. Easygoing and independent, these two
are
compatible when it comes to balancing personal interests. They've never known
jealousy, and each partner keeps busy with personal projects when not with
their
lover. When they are together, however, they do all they can toward pleasing
their partner and satiating common interests.  Although they are adaptable
and
modern, they can, at times, fly off the handle. However, it is not in the
Archer's
nature to hold a grudge or let disagreements fester very long.

Sagittarius is ruled by the Planet Jupiter (Luck). Expansion is the key word
here;
as both partners enjoy the acquisition of knowledge, they will carry over
exciting
ideas into their relationship. They must be mindful of over-indulgences, as
such
gluttony will only distract them. Their charm and charisma make them a very
pleasant couple not only to one another, but the entire crowd.


No Problem.  One question though, why are we taking Enovate out of Agg-gas?
---------------------- Forwarded by Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT on 11/22/2000
12:03 PM ---------------------------

Bilal Bajwa
11/22/2000 11:54 AM
To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Agg-gasiv and agggas

Robin,
Don't make the changes to the portfolios yet. We have been looking at these
books already- for we need to actually take Enovate out of Agg-gas IV as
opposed to adding it in Agg-Gas...
Lets talk about it before we add these books!
Thanks,
Bilal


Sheri,

Shari is our physical power lawyer.  What are your thoughts on the below?
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 02/07/2001 02:48 PM -----

	Shari Stack
	02/07/2001 02:46 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: TradeSpark, L.P. Website

I don't know.

	Tana Jones
	02/07/2001 02:34 PM

		 To: Shari Stack/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: TradeSpark, L.P. Website

When do you think you could reply by, so I can get Sheri an ETA?

	Shari Stack
	02/07/2001 02:29 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: TradeSpark, L.P. Website

I will try - but cannot promise. I have some very urgent things on my plate
right now.

	Tana Jones
	02/07/2001 02:07 PM

		 To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON, Stacy E
Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shari Stack/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Wayne Gresham/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, John
Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: TradeSpark, L.P. Website

I just got a call from Sheri Thomas with EnronOnline checking on the status
of your reviews.  When each of you has completed the review of your products
can you let me know, so we can sign off on that product.  Sheri is being
pressured by our traders to get this up and is also getting daily calls from
the President of Tradespark.  She would like to have everyone's sign off by
Friday if possible.  Can you let me know whether this will present any
problem.

Thanks!


GT,   What's up?  Got that house in order yet?  Keeps you busy doesn't it.
Hope everything is going well.

 I and the redfaced Eric are thinking about a road trip to Austin on the
weekend of March 18th.  A band we really want to check out (Tenacious D) is
playing at La Zona Rosa on Sat. the 18th.  Are you going to be around that
weekend?  We have confirmation via some web site that Tenacious D will be
there, but have tried calling La Zona Rosa about tix with no success.  Do you
know anything about this place?  Are the concerts usually walk up tix sales?

Let me know what your schedule looks like.   Oh yeah, Eric's wife Jennifer
will probably accompany him to Austin.  Eric couldn't get a hall pass for the
weekend.


Carol:

I can't recall if we discussed but this was one CP discussed at out last
legal/credit meeting.  We should update at next meeting.

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com


Darren,
 The changes are okay.  Since they are making the changes to their document,
please have them accept the red line changes and send you the signed
original. Call if you have any questions.

	Darren Vanek/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/06/2001 12:37 PM

		 To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject:  Exelon Marked-up Version Enron Guaranty

Dan,
We spoke about this grty last week. Please let me know if you are comfortable
and make the changes that you see fit. I will send it to the counterparty
when you are done.

-Darren

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Lynda.Jean@UCM.COM@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-Lynda+2EJean+40UCM+2ECOM+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:20 AM
To: Vanek, Darren
Subject: FW: Marked-up Version Enron Guaranty

Darren, here is  a copy of the attached "marked-up" version of the Enron
Guaranty Darren Vanek review our recommended changes.

> Our recommendation is to replace references to "Buyer" and "Seller" with
> explicit references to "Enron" and "Exelon Energy", respectively.
>
Thank You

Lynda Jean
708-236-8042

>  <<Guaranty for Enron Marked-Up Version 02-16-01.doc>>
>
>
>

******************************************************************************
***
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corp. proprietary
information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright
belonging to the  Exelon Corp. family of Companies.  This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If
you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation
to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful.  If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this E-mail and any printout.  Thank You.
******************************************************************************
***

 - Guaranty for Enron Marked-Up Version 02-16-01.doc


Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

                        - Oscar Wilde

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.

                        - Henny Youngman

"Wit is educated insolence."
     - Aristotle (284-322 B.C.)

"I think - therefore I'm single."

                        - Lizz Winstead

It is with true love as it is with ghosts;
everyone talks about it, but few have seen it.
-La Rochefoucauld

"Life moves pretty fast.  If you don't stop and look around once in
     awhile, you might miss it."
     -Ferris Beuller's Day Off

     Arnold:  "I've taught myself how to cook, sew, fix plumbing and even give
     myself a pat on the back when necessary. The only things I need from
     anyone is love and respect and anyone who can't give me that has no
     place in my life"


---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Peterson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
03/06/2001 01:50 PM ---------------------------

"Sumanto Basu" <BasuS@arentfox.com> on 07/07/2000 04:40:32 PM
To: <Daniel.R.Rogers@enron.com>, <Nancy.Corbet@enron.com>,
<Todd.Peterson@enron.com>
cc: "Michael Kurman" <KurmanM@arentfox.com>, "Eugene A. Massey"
<MasseyE@arentfox.com>

Subject: Draft reponse to COU letter (1st point)

At Gene Massey's request please find attached a draft response to the first
point of the COU letter from Cabot.

 - COU-EAMletter1.doc


<http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>

  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>	 RIGZONE <http://www.rigzone.com/images/email/top_Rigzone.jpg>	  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/email/top_Curve.gif>	  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>	  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/email/top_special.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>	   home <http://www.rigzone.com/default.asp> | news <http://www.rigzone.com/news/> | search <http://www.rigzone.com/search/> | maps <http://www.rigzone.com/maps/> | data <http://www.rigzone.com/data/> | jobs <http://www.rigzone.com/jobs/> | market <http://www.rigzone.com/market/> | store <http://www.rigzone.com/store/> 	  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>	 <http://www.rigzone.com/store/product.asp?p_id=362>  <http://www.rigzone.com/store/product.asp?p_id=362>

Mapper On Sale - only $350

Now through January 31, you can save 50% on the already reduced price of Rigzone's Mapper software. This is an unbeatable deal on an unparalleled software application for the upstream oil and gas industry. To purchase your copy today, visit the Rigzone Store <http://www.rigzone.com/store/product.asp?p_id=362>.

Mapper is the solution ... the solution to your GIS mapping and data management needs, the solution to your offshore planning and route creation requirements, the solution to your desire for customized maps designed to your specifications Mapper is a user-friendly, Windows-based software package backed by the power and expertise of Rigzone. It provides a complete offshore data solution enhanced with powerful drawing, reporting, and data search tools.

Features:

Print your customized maps up to 11x17"
Export your maps using a variety of common formats (bitmap, JPEG, GIF, etc.) and use the images in reports, sales materials and more
Generate custom route reports
Search for mobile offshore drilling units, fields, blocks, platforms, and other structures
Use precision drawing tools to customize your maps with lines, polygons, text, symbols, and more
Easy-to-learn so it can be used by anyone

Data:

Gulf of Mexico base data: blocks, leases, cities and counties, bathymetry
Gulf of Mexico platforms and caissons
Gulf of Mexico pipelines for both natural gas and oil
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units including detailed information such as location, rig type, status, rig name, operator, and more updated weekly through Rigzone

To learn more about Mapper and the ways in which it can fill your mapping and data needs, visit: <http://maps.rigzone.com/>

System Requirements:
Windows 98/NT4/2000, CD-ROM Drive, 100MB Hard Drive Space
System Recommendations:
28MB RAM, 300MHz Pentium II Processor, or better
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>
Member Services
If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, you may unsubscribe by clicking here <http://www.rigzone.com/daily_unsubscribe.asp> or by logging in to Rigzone and updating your profile. You can also change the format you receive (HTML or Text) and your email address by logging in and updating your account. Click here to log in <http://www.rigzone.com/login.asp?returnURL=/member_register.asp>.
  <http://www.rigzone.com/images/spacer.gif>


Today's Hottest Travel Deals from Bestfares.com!

We are down to only four days for some unbelievable worldwide monster sale airfares. We have discounts of up to 60 percent off to the Caribbean, Hawaii, Europe, Mexico, Tokyo and Central and South America that are set to expire for ticketing on Tuesday, January 15, 2002. Our travel clubs will be open this Saturday and Sunday until midnight (EST) for our coast-to-coast fare sale for $178 roundtrip or less. Our international travel club and our free stopover in Las Vegas or Phoenix program travel club will be open only on Saturday (Sorry, but our crew is burnt out!). Check out all of the travel deals listed below for our final sale days. Note: If the sale period for these super reduced fares is not extended beyond Tuesday, many of them will more than double.

FINAL 4 DAYS: SAVE UP TO 60% OFF TO EUROPE FOR APRIL, MAY, JUNE, JULY & AUGUST 2002--DON'T MISS THIS SALE!

At approximately 3:00 p.m. (CST) on Friday January 11, 2002, we got the O.K. to continue our sale to over 30 European destinations for spring and summer travel. Airfares from New York City, Newark, Boston and Washington (DC) are only $349 roundtrip and airfares from Los Angeles, Chicago or Miami are only $449 roundtrip for April and May departures. We have very limited seats to Europe for June, July and August departures for only $100 more. As a matter of fact, Miami is completely sold out for June, July and August. However, we do have seats from Miami for April or May departures. Our vendor plans to increase these fares by $50 or more next week, so act fast. Our international travel club will be open Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (CST), to handle your calls, but will be closed on Sunday to rest up to handle the expected heavy volume on Monday and Tuesday. Visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=50230>

FINAL 4 DAYS: TAKE A FRIEND TO A MEXICO BEACH FOR 50% OFF

Purchase a roundtrip ticket to select Mexican beaches and you can take a friend for 50 percent off. For example, Los Angeles to Acapulco is $310 roundtrip. A second person would only pay $155 roundtrip. Dallas to Puerto Vallarta or Los Cabos is $364 roundtrip, a second person pays $182 roundtrip; Minneapolis to Puerto Vallarta is $348 roundtrip, a companion pays $174 roundtrip; New York City to Puerto Vallarta is $430 roundtrip, a companion pays $215 roundtrip. This offer is valid from select U.S. cities to Acapulco, Ixtapa, Mazatlan, Manzanillo, Puerto Vallarta and Los Cabos. Request Companion Pays 50% when booking. Visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=646>

LONDON FOR FREE: FREE STOPOVER IN LONDON + 2 NIGHTS FREE HOTEL FROM $218 RT

Final 6 days: Tickets for this rare promotion must be purchased by 6:00 p.m. (CST) Thursday, January 17, 2002. We do not expect any extension on this monster of a deal. Fly from New York City to Amsterdam or Paris for as low as $285 roundtrip and we will throw in a free stopover in London and two free nights in London at a three-star hotel. That's a WOW! We are currently offering this special for departures through April 6, 2002. You can depart from 21 U.S. cities to your choice of 45 European destinations. If you want more bang for your buck, check out our London for Free promotion at <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=50737>

FINAL 4 DAYS: FLY TO THE CARIBBEAN FROM $199 RT; THINK SUNNY, 86-DEGREES

If you live in Texas, pack you bags, because Montego Bay (which was 86 degrees today) is as low as $199 roundtrip through March 24, 2002. We also have specials for the next four weeks to Nassau (81 degrees) or Bermuda (72 degrees) from over 40 U.S. cities from $218 roundtrip through February 14, 2002. We have San Juan (84 degrees), Montego Bay (86 degrees), Grand Cayman (86 degrees) or the Dominican Republic (84 degrees) for $298 roundtrip or less. From Atlanta to Grand Cayman the fare is $221 roundtrip; from New York City to the Dominican Republic, $249 roundtrip; Fort Lauderdale to San Juan is only $151 roundtrip. If you want some sun and fun and warm destinations, we have over 15 Caribbean cities on sale for $458 roundtrip or less including Aruba, Cancun, St. Thomas, St. Croix and many others to thaw out in. Visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=647> or Quickfare Finder for more options at <http://quickfares.bestfares.com/quickfare/qfsearch.jsp>

FINAL 4 DAYS: SUNNY HAWAII FROM MOST U.S. CITIES FOR $598 RT OR LESS

Fly from most U.S. cities to Honolulu, Maui or Kona for $598 roundtrip or less. Travel is valid through May 19, 2002. Check out your city on Quickfare Finder today at <http://quickfares.bestfares.com/quickfare/qfsearch.jsp>

37 U.S. CITIES TO FLORIDA FROM $72 RT THROUGH FEB. 14, '02

Need to thaw out on a cheap buck? Think Florida. Fly from many southern and East Coast cities for only $72-$89 roundtrip to Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach. From other cities such as Boston, New York City, Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland, you pay only $108 roundtrip. All travel must be completed by February 14, 2002. Check out all of our super cheap airfares to sunny Florida at <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=50887>

HOTEL RESERVATIONS NETWORK

Need a hotel room? Look no further because HotelDiscounts.com is the place to find great deals at great prices. HotelDiscounts.com provides up to 70 percent off on hotels in major cities worldwide with guaranteed lowest rates. Book online at <http://www.hoteldiscounts.com/cgi-bin/pickcity?SID=NW2&LKF=NW2>

FINAL 4 DAYS: COSTA RICA, BELIZE, RIO DE JANEIRO FOR 60% OFF THROUGH MARCH 31, '02

From Chicago to Rio de Janeiro (86 degrees) the fare is only $408 roundtrip; from Los Angeles to Costa Rica, the fare is only $357 roundtrip or from Dallas to Belize, $355 roundtrip. You can't go wrong. Many of these discounts are just unheard of during peak winter travel. If you want some warm international flare on a cheap Bestfares.com buck, visit <http://quickfares.bestfares.com/quickfare/qfsearch.jsp>

FINAL 4 DAYS: TOKYO ON SALE FROM $349 RT THROUGH MAY 19, '02

If you can depart from San Francisco or San Jose (CA), you could be on your way to Tokyo for as little as $349 roundtrip. How about Las Vegas or Dallas to Tokyo for only $358 roundtrip or Houston, Chicago, New York City or Tampa to Tokyo for $448 roundtrip? We have 21 U.S. cities on sale to the capitol of Japan. Visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=42711>

FLY COAST-TO-COAST FOR $178 RT OR LESS + A FREE STOPOVER IN LAS VEGAS OR PHOENIX THROUGH JUNE 7, '02

This is the first time this year that we have been able to offer our (most popular) free stopover in Las Vegas of Phoenix program for travel through June 7, 2002. From select U.S. markets, you can visit two cities for less than the price of one. Visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=50916>
You can also fly between 58 U.S. cities through June 7, 2002 for $178 roundtrip or less. Visit Quickfare Finder so we can show you so many options for this sale at <http://quickfares.bestfares.com/quickfare/qfsearch.jsp>. Remember, our travel club will be open Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (CST), to handle your calls, but will be closed on Sunday.

SYDNEY OR AUCKLAND FROM $809 RT THROUGH JUNE 7, '02

Now you can fly to the South Pacific for as low as $809 roundtrip through June 7, 2002. To qualify for the lowest fare, you must depart between May 1 and May 31, 2002. For approximately $100 more, you can depart between March 1 and April 30, 2002; and for approximately another $100 additional, you can depart between January 24 and February 28, 2002. Travel to Auckland is available starting February 14, 2002. This is our first major sale to the South Pacific for 2002. Check out our special section. You could save up to $300. For fares to Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, visit <http://www.bestfares.com/travel/desks/story.asp?id=49466>

You are currently subscribed to hotdeals as ebass@enron.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-hotdeals-1324881S@hotdeals.bestfares.com <mailto:leave-hotdeals-1324881S@hotdeals.bestfares.com>

Copyright 2002 by Bestfares USA Inc. All rights reserved.


As we discussed, Enron North Amercia  would like to permanently assign a
portion of our  Vintage WIC Medicine Bow capacity to J.M. Huber Corp.  We
would like to structure the release so that all financial responsibility for
the capacity is permanently held by Huber.

The following are the volumes and terms we are looking to release.

Package 1

Term     1/01/02 - end of term

Quantity 10,325 mmbtu/d

Rate  Contract rate of $.12 per mmbtu

Package 2

Term     11/01/02 - end of term

Quantity 35,975 mmbtu/d

Rate  Contract rate of $.12 per mmbtu

We prefer to release at the contract rate, however, if it is a tarriff
requirement we can adjust that to max rate.
I think you will find J.M. Huber to have excellent financials and probably a
higher credit rating than Enron North America.  You should be receiving their
financials soon, if you need help getting that information please let me know.

Let me know what else you might need.

Thanks for your help.

Mark


He's re-trading on the retainage.  Let's discuss.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 01/04/2001 03:11
PM ---------------------------

michael.o.sandridge@us.abb.com on 01/04/2001 01:42:58 PM
To: ben.jacoby@enron.com, Kay.mann@enron.com
cc: david.onuscheck@us.abb.com, karla.hesketh@us.abb.com

Subject: Contract comments

Ben/Kay,
After reviewing the contract with Dave we found only a couple of points that
we
would like to mention;
1) 1.48 the Maximum Liability Amount should be $768,000 USD
2) The unit will not be delivered until the last 10% (ten percent) retention
is
paid and we will post the surety bond as shown in in Exhibit D
3) ABB would not buy back the unit except from Enron.

Please let me know if there is any way that we may further assist you.

MIKE


Carl,

Don want to have following assumptions:

- ENA deals with just energy piece, not anciliary service portion.
- Gas curve: Transco zone 6 (may be bundled one)
- Power curve: East hub of NY power pool
- EES short load is fixed

For valuation;

   Revenue from serving load (to make 12% IRR for an IPP)
+ Spread option value
+ ICAP
-  Fixed expenses
= NI

Jin


Tana,

We are needing a quick Legal blessing for Media General today.  Tom should be
emailing us
today but I wanted you to know before this.

Media General, Inc.
333 East Grace Street
Richmond, VA
CPID  79935

Let me know if you need more details.

Thanks!
Camille


PREBON
571801 was a duplicate of another sale to EES - Mike killed the duplicate
(#571920) and kept this deal

AMEREX
572245 - changed to BOM (4/9 - 4/30)

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
04/05/2001 02:25 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: 4/5 errors

BLOOMBERG
No Errors

PREBON WEST

Mike Swerzbin
DEAL 571801
Prebon does not recognize

AMEREX WEST

Dianna Scholtes
deal 572245
Amerex shows term as BOM we have in as 4/6-4/7


I didn't realize she sent it to the entire company.

DG
---------------------- Forwarded by Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001
09:07 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Toni Graham @ ENRON                           01/16/2001 06:48 PM

To: Chris Abel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Theresa T Brogan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Darron C
Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dutch Quigley/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT,
John Swinney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, D Todd
Hall/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michelle Bruce/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Timothy M Norton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frank Prejean/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Risk Resume - Lawrence Clayton

Please review this internal candidate for your Risk positions.    His
supervisor has ok'd him to search opportunities within Commercial Support.
He has a good recommendation from his current supervisor. He is not
comfortable on the commercial side.


Start Date: 4/30/01; HourAhead hour: 8;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001043008.txt
Error: Invalid variant type conversion

---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
*** Final schedule not found for preferred schedule.
     Details:

  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTstCA
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/30/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_5001
  ENGY_TYPE: FIRM
*** Final schedule not found for preferred schedule.
     Details:

  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/30/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_SCOUT
  ENGY_TYPE: FIRM
*** Final schedule not found for preferred schedule.
     Details:

  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTstCA
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/30/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_GUZMAN
  ENGY_TYPE: FIRM


---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 04/11/2001 02:28
PM ---------------------------

suzanneadams@att.net on 04/11/2001 02:26:46 PM
To: taffy.milligan@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: MS150

Taffy and Neil made pledges for the MS150 to my
brother.  Would you please send a check made out to the
National MS Society to:

Charles Adams
2923 Goldspring Lane
Spring, TX  77373

Charles appreciates your help in this good cause, and so
do I.  Thanks again, Suzanne


Start Date: 3/7/01; HourAhead hour: 9;  HourAhead schedule download failed.
Manual intervention required.


I saw your picture in the paper today as ( I think) a "woman of distinction." Congrats.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	melanie.gray@weil.com@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-melanie+2Egray+40weil+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 6:43 PM
To:	Sanders, Richard B.
Subject:	RE: Enron N.A. contact info.

Thanks for the direction.  EES also has a claim, separate and apart from
the claim described in my orignial email. EES's claim was in the $5 million
range and they've already gotten a distribution in the $700,000. Thanks and
hope you're doing ok and not doing as much traveling.

Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com on 09/24/2001 09:55:24 AM
cc:
Subject:  RE: Enron N.A. contact info.

Yes-- deal with Willie directly. As for the claim of 1.825 million, as long
as ENA accounting agrees to that #, I am fine. Is that just ENA or does EES
also have a claim?
    -----Original Message-----
   From:   melanie.gray@weil.com@ENRON

[mailto:IMCEANOTES-melanie+2Egray+40weil+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]

   Sent:   Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:20 PM
   To:     Sanders, Richard B.
   Subject:  FW: Enron N.A. contact info.

   Hello!

   It was nice to see you at the POS event last week.  I can't believe that
   we're into a new school year. I'm sorry I haven't been in touch; we did
   a
   fair amount of traveling this summer and now I'm over my head preparing
   for
   a trial that begins mid-October.

   I assume/hope that you did receive a payment from the PCA trustee on
   account of EPMI's allowed claim.  If you didn't, shame on me for not
   following up.  If you need me to, please just let me know.

   The only other open matter I have for ENA is in the Perry Gas case in
   which
   ENA filed a proof of claim in the amount of about $1,918,000.  A plan of
   liquidation has been confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the
   anticipated
   (not guaranteed) payout over time is expected to be in the 55-60% range.
   The post-confirmation trustee is in the process of reconciling claims.

   From the email below sent to my from the post-liquidation trustee's
   counsel
   (who was also counsel to Perry Gas during the bankruptcy case), it
   appears
   that the trustee's accounting people have been talking to Willie Stewart
   in
   accounting at ENA to try to reconcile the slightly different numbers.

   From what I understand, Willie Stewart and Perry agree that, with the
   exception of $78,337.16 that ENA owed Perry  for August 1999 deliveries,
   the amount of the prepetition claim is $1,903,490.72.   Provided that
   there
   is no disagreement about the amount of unpaid sales from Perry to ENA
   for
   August 1999, the $78,337.16 should be offset against the $1,903,490.72
   claim, which would leave ENA with a prepetition claim of $1,825,153.56.

   I would be happy to deal directly with Willie on this if you'd like --
   just
   let me know.  If Willie agrees with the $78,337.16 amount due to Perry
   for
   August 1999, do I have authority to agree to the prepetition claim of
   $1,825,153.56?  Perry has made one distribution and I'll get the
   commitment
   up front that as soon as the agreed order allowing ENA's claim, Perry
   will
   cut a check for the first distribution.

   If my case settles, I'll give you a call to set up a lunch.  I'd like to
   get caught up.  Thanks and take care.
   ---------------------- Forwarded by Melanie Gray/HO/WGM/US on 09/22/2001
   02:03 PM ---------------------------

   "Randy Rios" <RRIOS@floydisgur.com> on 09/18/2001 01:45:41 PM
   cc:
   Subject:  FW: Enron N.A. contact info.

   Attached is the contact information on the Enron North America employee
   that
   we discussed.  I will fax to you the Enron North America claim schedule
   that
   Perry received.

   Thanks,

   Randall A. Rios
   Floyd, Isgur, Rios & Wahrlich, P. C.
   700 Louisiana, Suite 4600
   Houston, Texas 77002-2732
   Tel: 713 222-1468
   Fax: 713 222-1475
   Email: rrios@floydisgur.com

   -----Original Message-----
   From: maurice.marichal@us.pwcglobal.com
   [mailto:maurice.marichal@us.pwcglobal.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:04 AM
   To: rrios@floydisgur.com
   Subject: Enron N.A. contact info.

   Randy,

   The name of the person with whom I have had contact is:

   Willie Stewart:  Tel.  (713) 853-5950,  Fax (713) 646-8420

   I will follow this up with a fax containing a summary of their A/R
   balances
   with Perry Gas.

   Regards,
   Maurice Marichal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
   which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
   material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
   taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
   entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you
   received
   this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
   any
   computer.

   **********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.

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


I'll bring them by your office this afternoon.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/28/2000
02:37 PM ---------------------------

"Julie Haviland" <julie.haviland@PaineWebber.COM> on 04/28/2000 12:57:40 PM
To: "'vkamins@enron.com'" <vkamins@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Some municipal bonds for you to look at.....

I called out muni desk to have them take a look at the current munis avaiable
that looked best at this time to invest $50,000 going out to 30 years for
you.  The following is what they came up with....

Pecos Co TX Cert of Obl w/a Coupon 5.5% Matures in 02/01/11 callable at par
on 02/01/07 offered at $101.964 - AAA rated

Brownsville Util Rev w/a coupon of 5.25% maturing in 09/01/15 callable at par
on 09/01/05 offered at $97.425 - AAA rated

Alvin TX ISD PSF w/a coupon of 5.75% maturing in 08/15/22 callable at par on
08/15/10 offered at par - AAA rated

Houston TX Air Revs w/a coupon of 5.00% maturing in 07/01/28 callable at par
on 07/01/08 offered at 86.479 - AAA rated

Remember, these are subject to change, but if these interest you and they are
not still available, I will see if there is something comparable.

Talk to you soon.  Please call me with any questions.  Thanks, Julie


This looks ok to me.

	Melba Lozano
	12/06/2000 04:46 PM

		 To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: REVISED - EOL description change

---------------------- Forwarded by Melba Lozano/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 04:46
PM ---------------------------

From:  Melba Lozano
  12/06/2000 04:45 PM

To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@E
cc: Kevin Meredith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve Jacobellis/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert
B Cass/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: REVISED - EOL description change

Please approve the following change to the product description.  If you have
any questions please let me know.  Steve needs this approved as soon as
possible.  I need to make sure this language works for both one day deals and
term deals.

Thanks,

Melba
58986

 Bolded for your ease of reference:

From:

A currency Transaction with Risk Management & Trading Corp. ("RMT") under
which either (A) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer to buy
from RMT, Counterparty shall pay a Fixed Amount and shall receive the
Floating  Amount, or (B) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer
to sell to RMT, Counterparty shall receive the Fixed  Amount and shall pay
the Floating  Amount. Each calendar month during the term of the Transaction
will be a Determination Period; provided however, that in the event the term
of the Transaction is less than one calendar month, the Determination Period
shall be the term of the Transaction. The Notional Amount per Determination
Period shall equal the volume submitted by the Counterparty via the website
divided by the number of Determination Periods during the term of the
Transaction. The Fixed  Amount payable per Determination Period shall equal
the product of  the Notional Amount per Determination Period multiplied by
the price submitted by the Counterparty via the website. The Floating Amount
payable per Determination Period shall equal the product of the Notional
Amount per Determination Period multiplied by the Index. The Payment Date
shall be the Valuation Date.

The term of the Transaction shall be from the Effective Date of 01 Nov 2000
to the Termination Date of 31 Mar 2001.

The Index for each Determination Period shall be the USD/CAD rate equal to
the rate set forth on Rueters page BOFC under the headings 'Bank of Canada';
'Canadian Dollar' Exchange rates';'Noon', opposite the caption 'USD' as of
12:00 p.m. noon, Toronto time, on the Valuation Date. The Valuation Date for
each Determination Period shall be the last Business Day of such
Determination Period.(DELETED)
The price is quoted in Canadian Dollars per unit of volume, which will be the
Contractual Currency.
The unit of measure against which the price is quoted shall be US Dollars,
and each unit of volume shown represents one million US Dollars ($1,000,000).

To:

A currency Transaction with Risk Management & Trading Corp. ("RMT") under
which either (A) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer to buy
from RMT, Counterparty shall pay a Fixed Amount and shall receive the
Floating  Amount, or (B) for the case in which Counterparty submits an offer
to sell to RMT, Counterparty shall receive the Fixed  Amount and shall pay
the Floating  Amount. Each calendar month during the term of the Transaction
will be a Determination Period; provided however, that in the event the term
of the Transaction is less than one calendar month, the Determination Period
shall be the term of the Transaction. The Notional Amount per Determination
Period shall equal the volume submitted by the Counterparty via the website
divided by the number of Determination Periods during the term of the
Transaction. The Fixed  Amount payable per Determination Period shall equal
the product of  the Notional Amount per Determination Period multiplied by
the price submitted by the Counterparty via the website. The Floating Amount
payable per Determination Period shall equal the product of the Notional
Amount per Determination Period multiplied by the Index. The Payment Date
shall be the Valuation Date. The Valuation Date for each Determination Period
shall be the first Business Day of such Determination Period.(Added)

The term of the Transaction shall be from the Effective Date of 01 Nov 2000
to the Termination Date of 31 Mar 2001.

The Index for each Determination Period shall be the USD/CAD rate equal to
the rate set forth on Rueters page BOFC under the headings 'Bank of Canada';
'Canadian Dollar' Exchange rates';'Noon', opposite the caption 'USD' as of
12:00 p.m. noon, Toronto time, on the Valuation Date.
The price is quoted in Canadian Dollars per unit of volume, which will be the
Contractual Currency.
The unit of measure against which the price is quoted shall be US Dollars,
and each unit of volume shown represents one million US Dollars ($1,000,000).

Thank you,

Melba
58986


I don't have an electronic copy.  I just want to check with Greg to see if he does.  Otherwise, I'll fax you what we sent Georgetta.  We're expecting SoCalGas to come back with a response today.  thanks, maria

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Donoho, Lindy
Sent:	Monday, November 26, 2001 1:45 PM
To:	Pavlou, Maria
Cc:	Fancler, Dan
Subject:	Offer of Settlement - SoCal Billing Issue

Dan asked me for a copy of the offer we sent to SoCal on the billing issue.  I must have deleted the e:mail.  Do you still have it electronically & if so, could you forward it to Dan?  He's interested in the excel spreadsheet with the $$ impact.

Thanks!
Lindy