Jim,

I did participate in the Reception and First Round Interviews for Georgetown October 8-10th.  Thanks for your support on this!  I'll also be part of the team 10/18 to help develop the business plan and success process to welcome new Georgetown Associates.

Thanks again.

Sarah-Joy
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hunter, Sarah-joy
Sent:	Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:29 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Subject:	Interested in joining the efforts on 9/18 and/or 10/8_Georgetown Recruiting Season is Upon Us!!!

Jim:

I've just been added to the Georgetown recruiting team and was part of the 1st round interview team last year.

Per my conversation with you this evening I would like to participate in the presentation September 18th and/or the 1st rounds on October 8th-9th.  I am a Johns Hopkins University (SAIS) graduate, came throught he Associate organization and am now a Sr. Manager, Business Development in Enron Corp.

Thanks for the opportunity!

Sarah-Joy Hunter
Enron Corporation, Business Development
#(713)-345-6541
sarah-joy.hunter@enron.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Herasimchuk, Alyse
Sent:	Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:31 AM
To:	Hunter, Sarah-joy
Cc:	Lebeau, Paul
Subject:	FW: Georgetown Recruiting Season is Upon Us!!!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lebeau, Paul
Sent:	Friday, August 17, 2001 2:11 PM
To:	Akan, Emel; Bergoglio, Teseo; Canavati, Juan; Furey, Denise; Garg, Alok; Gonzalez, Andrea; Griffin, Scott; Ham, Roshena; Howe, David; Jennaro, Jason; Kose, Ahmet; Malamud, Joselyn; McDonald, Rob; Mitchell, Heather; Neuner, Kirk; Polsky, Phil; Samudio, Juan; Soldano, Louis; Sparling, Jay; Steffes, James D.; Velasco, Enrique; Will, Nathan; Willis, James; Wood, Brian; Xu, Calvin
Cc:	Herasimchuk, Alyse
Subject:	Georgetown Recruiting Season is Upon Us!!!

RECRUITING SEASON IS UPON US!!

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

As you know, employing quality recruits has been a key to Enron's continued growth and success and assisting with this effort is everyone's responsibility.  Therefore, we urge each of you to set aside some dedicated time to make our campus recruiting effort successful.  Clearly, on-campus interviewing is the most critical event, but participation in the outings and presentations is also key to our overall message.

Below are the dates that we will be on campus:

Presentation:			Tuesday, Sept 18th, 6:30 - 8:30pm, Carr Barn

Interviews:

	Reception & 1st Round	Monday-Tuesday, Oct 8th - 9th

	2nd Round			Wednesday, Oct 10th

Please e-mail me with your availability.

Thank you in advance for your support and participation.

Paul LeBeau/Recruiter (X57588)
Alyse Herasimchuk/Recruiting Coordinator (57339)


I just had this conv. w/Mark and Marcus Nettleton today about parties acting
as agent, or in some fiduciary capacity online.  What I am being told is that
the system is set up for parties to only act as principals for online
trading.  It does not deal with agent, fiduciary or similar relationships.
The only exception to this rule so far has been GPU where they had an agency
relationship with 3 utilities, on the power side, where Leslie had some
specific documentation that she got signed.  But I am told should not be
entering into transactions with counterparties as anything other than
principals, except under extraordinary circumstances.

	Shari Stack
	08/29/2000 05:04 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Rhonda L Denton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: EOL Credit Responses 08/29/00

Tana:

"Ameren Energy, Inc. as agent":  On hold til I speak with Leslie. I imagine
they will need to sign our std. Consent & Acknowledgement form which allows
them act as agent. It would be helpful to know for whom they are acting as
agent. Do you know this?

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

The following CPs are not authorized to trade US power products:

Ameren Service Company - Restricted by Credit
Oglethorpe Power Corporation.- Not a current CP/Not FERC approved
Curbell, Inc. -   Restricted by Credit

Thanks,

Shari


fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 01/25/2000
11:22 AM ---------------------------

"Grant Dorfman" <gdorfman@ogwb.com> on 01/24/2000 11:31:30 AM
Please respond to "Grant Dorfman" <gdorfman@ogwb.com>
To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: "Bill Ogden" <BOgden@ogwb.com>
Subject: Enron/Natole Turbine Schedule

Richard--

We have agreed to depose Ron Natole on Feb. 18 at 10 a.m., at his lawyer's
office.  I will copy you on the amended notice we are sending out today.

We have not rescinded our depo notices for the 2 Korean gentlemen, but have
agreed to reset the dates.  I expect Plaintiff's counsel will de-designate
these men rather than bring them here for their depos.  The only other notice
we sent out last week was for the designated expert from the Wood Group --
Robert Harrison.  I will attempt to obtain available dates directly from him.

With respect to the depos of Enron personnel, please check with Mike Miller
and Bob Virgo regarding their availability during the 2 weeks we discussed --
Feb. 21 and Feb. 28 -- March 3.  Of course, we will also need a block of time
in advance of the depos to prepare with the witnesses.  Bill has a trial
setting the 2nd week (Feb. 28), which may be postponed in the near future.
If it is not, I can present them for their depos.  Plaintiff's counsel has
not mentioned any other Enron personnel by name, but has generally requested
dates for anyone else we may be presenting at trial as a fact witness or
corporate rep.

The only other name that I recall having potentially significant involvement
was Dave Marshall, an ECT risk management guy who appears to have had some
discussions with IBC's Ron Anderson about Enron's requirements with respect
to repaired/refurbished parts.  Bill believes there may be other Enron
witnesses, and that Miller and Virgo will know who they are.

We are also working up a list of proposed mediators -- preferably with strong
commercial litigation experience.  Gary McGowan currently heads the list, but
I would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions you may have.

Lastly, I agree with your suggestion regarding our question as to why the
Wood Group (Robert Harrision) has appeared on Plaintiff's expert list.  It
would certainly be helpful to have Miller's thoughts on that subject.

--Grant Dorfman

 - att1.htm


Lowest rates in 37 YEARS!!

How long will it last?

Get a FREE NO OBLIGATION Mortgage Rate Quote NOW.

Don't waste money EVERY SINGLE MONTH!!

Simply fill out our FREE NO OBLIGATION form and
find out how much you can save every single month.

It's That Easy!

Visit our website:
http://www.lookatthescreen.com/forgreatrates/

================================================

To be removed, click below, and send:
mailto:autoremove@hey.letskeepintouch.com?subject=autoremove


I was wondering what I was going to do in my spare time!

From: Carlos Sole on 03/27/2001 08:04 AM
To: kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Great News

Just what I wanted to hear, I think I'm ready to go meet Kendall and start
driving over railroad tracks


---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/10/2000
11:29 PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling & Joe Sutton @ ENRON
07/10/2000 05:47 PM

Sent by: Office of the Chairman@ENRON
To: All Vice Presidents and Above
cc:
Subject: United Way Executive Breakfasts

Please join us for one of the Executive Breakfasts at DePelchin Children,s
Center, our adopted agency for this year and one of the more than 80
community organizations supported by the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast.
The Executive Breakfasts will focus on our 2000 campaign.  To reach our goal
of  $2,310,000, it will take the active leadership and support of each of
you. We look forward to seeing all of you at one of the breakfasts.

Event:  Executive Breakfast
Date:  Thursday, August 3, 2000 (hosted by Joe Sutton)
   or
  Friday, August 4, 2000 (hosted by Jeff Skilling)
Time:  7:45-9:00 a.m.
Location: DePelchin Children,s Center
  100 Sandman (close to Memorial and Shepherd intersection)

Transportation: Bus will depart from the Enron Building (Andrews Street side)
promptly at 7:30 a.m.

NOTE: Bus transportation is encouraged, due to limited onsite parking.
However, if you should need to drive, a map will be provided.

Please R.S.V.P. no later than Wednesday, July 26 to confirm your attendance
and bus transportation to Jessica Nunez
at 853-1918.


Did you talk to these guys?
---------------------- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 11/05/99 08:53
AM ---------------------------

Info Central
11/05/99 01:02 AM
Sent by: ECTHOU_LN1
To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Over due library item(s)

You are receiving this message because library records indicate that you have
the following items checked out.
If you believe this to be in error or wish to extend the checkout time,
please contact the library

 Learn Portuguese now was due on 09/02/1999


What???  I'm confused.


Dear Generation/Power Marketing Executive:

This Alliance Info Alert includes three items of interest:
1)  The weekly Alliance Express newsletter
2)  Listing of recent filings at FERC
3)  Timeline for FERC action on California Markets  (attached)

                       Alliance of Energy Suppliers ExpressDecember 19, 2000

INSIDE WASHINGTON   FEDERAL AFFAIRS

***FERC De-Federalizes California Markets, Adopts Other Structural Reforms***

At a special meeting Friday afternoon, FERC unanimously approved its eagerly
awaited final order reforming the California wholesale markets, adopting the
major outlines of its November 1 proposed order and sending back to
California the responsibility for addressing state-related matters.  At the
same time, FERC deferred consideration of retroactive refund issues as well
as the imposition of region-wide price caps.  FERC reiterated their earlier
conclusions that under certain circumstances, California ratepayers were
subjected to unjust and unreasonable power rates due to California's
"seriously flawed" market structure and rules in conjunction with tight
demand and supply conditions throughout the West.

FERC adopted the November proposal to eliminate, effective immediately, the
state's mandatory requirement that the state's investor-owned utilities buy
and sell electricity through the PX, and allow these utilities to purchase
electricity through forward contracts and other alternative mechanisms to
manage supply risks.  FERC terminated the PX's rate schedules effective at
the close of business on April 30, 2001.  In effect, as Chairman James
Hoecker stated, the order de-federalizes 60 percent of the California
wholesale market established under the state's restructuring law, returning
ratemaking authority over company-owned generation to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC).

The agency also modified the effective period of the $150/MWh "soft cap"
proposal, limiting its application through April 2001, whereupon a
"comprehensive and systematic monitoring and mitigation program which
incorporates appropriate thresholds, screen and mitigation measures" must be
in place.  In a related move, FERC ordered a technical conference early next
year to develop such a program by March 1, 2001, so that these measures can
be place by the May 1, deadline.

***Energy Secretary Issues Order to Power Generators and Marketers To Bolster
California's Supplies***

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has responded to the severely constrained
power supply situation in California by issuing an order, pursuant to Section
202(c) of the Federal Power Act, to require generators and marketers to make
power available to meet the state's electricity needs.  The emergency
directive requires that, if the California independent system operator (ISO)
certifies that there is an inadequate supply of electricity, certain
suppliers would be required to make power available to the ISO if they have
power available in excess of the amount needed to satisfy service to firm
customers. Those suppliers that have provided power to the California power
exchange (PX) and the ISO over the last 30 days that have firm capacity
available would be subject to the order.

Under the order, the ISO is required to provide notice to each supplier
subject to the order of the amount and type of service requested by 9:00 pm
EST on the day before the requested service.  The ISO must, to the extent
feasible, allocate the requests in proportion to the amount of each
supplier's available power.  The price for the power provided pursuant to the
order will be set by an agreement between the ISO and the supplier.  If no
agreement is reached, FERC is to determine the just and reasonable rate at a
later date.   The order will remain in effect until 3:00 am EST on December
21, 2000 unless modified.

***EPA Sets Plans to Regulate Plants' Mercury Emissions***

EPA Administrator Carol Browner, in a long-awaited announcement, indicated
last week that the Administration will require reductions of mercury
emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants.  The agency stated that it
plans to propose new regulations in December 2003, and hopes to finalize new
rules by December 2004.

In the wake of the decision, EEI called on EPA to make certain that any
program to control utilities' mercury emissions be based on the best
scientific information available in order to assure the protection of public
health.  "EEI urges EPA to maintain its commitment to resolving the key
scientific and technological issues," said Paul Bailey, EEI Vice President,
Environmental Affairs.  Given these uncertainties, EEI is disappointed that
the regulatory determination includes statements regarding public health
threats and hazards that are unsupported by current science," said Mr. Bailey.

"In the meantime, the electric power industry will continue to work with all
stakeholders to determine the extent to which additional mercury reductions
from power plants may be needed, and how those cuts should be achieved," Mr.
Bailey concluded.

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

 ***Calpine Completes Acquisition of EMI Power Assets***

Calpine Corporation has announced that it has completed the acquisition of
power assets from Energy Management, Inc. (EMI).  In the deal, Calpine
acquired the remaining interest in three recently constructed, combined-cycle
power generating facilities located in New England, as well as a joint
marketing venture between Calpine and EMI.  Prior to the transaction, Calpine
held a 50 percent net interest in the projects.

"We are very pleased to have completed the acquisition of these new and
highly efficient power plants.  The Dighton, Tiverton, and Rumford facilities
were among the first merchant power plants to enter commercial operation in
New England," said Calpine Senior Vice President Bob Alff.  "Combined with
our other announced project in the Northeast, we have created a coordinated
system of low-cost assets, with excellent geographic diversity, to provide
power to a very attractive New England market," added Alff.

***Exelon Completes Acquisition of 49.9 Percent of Sithe***

Exelon Corporation and Sithe Energies have announced the completion of
Exelon's acquisition of 49.9 percent of the stock of Sithe.  The completion
of the acquisition finalizes an agreement in which PECO Energy Company agreed
to purchase 49.9 percent of Sithe's assets in North America for $682
million.  PECO has since merged with Unicom Corporation to form Exelon
Corporation.

Under the terms of the agreement, Exelon has the option to purchase the
remaining 50.1 percent of Sithe within two to five years at a price based on
prevailing market conditions when the purchase option is exercised.  Exelon
and Sithe will continue to operate independently, said the companies.

ENERGY DATA

*** Weekly Electric Output (Week 50)***

Electric output reached 74,737 GWh for the week ending December 9 (Week 50),
with the highest increase over 1999 levels in the Mid-Atlantic region, which
had a 15.8 percent increase over 1999.  Looking at year-to-date information,
the Pacific Southeast leads the nation in growth of output.  For more
information, email alliance@eei.org.

WHO'S WHO

***Allegheny Energy Announces Leadership Change***

Allegheny Energy, Inc. this week announced the appointment of Michael
Morrell, Senior Vice President and CFO, as President of its unregulated
supply business, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, effective February 1,
2001.  Morrell will replace Peter Skrgic, current President, who will be
retiring on that date after 37 years of service to the company.

In his new position, Mr. Morrell will direct and continue the growth of
Allegheny's energy supply business, which operates and markets competitive
retail and wholesale electric generation throughout the eastern US.
Additionally, Morrell will identify new opportunities to expand the Company's
generation holdings, announced a press release.

The Alliance Express is a free news service sponsored by the Alliance of
Energy Suppliers.  This document can be redistributed.  Please send
questions, comments, or requests to alliance@eei.org, or telephone
202/508-5680.

***Due to the holidays, the Alliance Express will not be published next
Tuesday, December 26.

                                             == RECENT FERC FILINGS ==

(1)  RTO DEVELOPMENTS

*  The following entities filed comments regarding the California wholesale
electric market.  EL00-95-000, et. al.  Filed December 13, 2000.

-  AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOC.:  "Market Power: Will We Know It When We See
It?  The California Experience"
-  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.: "Proof that Soft Price Caps Do Not Result
in Lawful Rates" and request for rehearing
-  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.: Request for immediate modification of the
December 8, 2000 Order
-  SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC: Motion to clarify the record

*  The following entities filed motions for an immediate modification and to
intervene regarding the Commission's emergency order December 8 approving the
CA ISO's tariff amendments.  ER01-607-000, ER00-95-000 et. al.  Filed
December 13, 2000.

-  WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM
-  RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION
-  PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
-  CA ISO
-  DYNEGY POWER MARKETING

*  SOUTHERN ENERGY COMPANIES filed a supplemental protest regarding PJM's
Order 2000 Compliance Filing.  RT01-2-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

(2) OATT/TRANSMISSION

*  UGI UTILITIES filed an interconnection agreement with ALLEGHENY ENERGY
SUPPLY CO.  ER01-617-000.  Comments due by December 28, 2000.

*  PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO filed proposed revisions to its FERC
Electric Tariff, a statement of Policy and Code of Conduct governing the
relationship between itself and wholesale power marketing affiliates and a
notification of a change in status relating to its authorization to sell
power at market-based rates.  ER01-615-000.  Comments due by December 28,
2000.

*  AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP. (AEP) filed an executed
interconnection agreement between INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. and DUKE ENERGY
BERRIEN.  The agreement is pursuant to AEP COMPANIES' OATT.  ER01-626-000.
Comments due by December 29, 2000.

*  COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. filed revisions to its OATT to reflect the
creation of a new generation subsidiary of EXCELON CORP., COMED's holding
company.  ER01-628-000.  Comments due by December 29, 2000.

*  DETROIT EDISON COMPANY filed a Service Agreement for Network Integration
Transmission Service under the Joint OATT between itself and CONSUMERS
ENERGY.  The Service Agreement is between itself and NORDIC MARKETING.
ER01-622-000.  Comments due by December 28, 2000.

*  DETROIT EDISON COMPANY filed service agreements for short-term firm and
non-firm point-to-point transmission service under the joint OATT between
itself and CONSUMERS ENERGY. The Service Agreement is between itself and H.Q.
ENERGY SERVICES.  ER01-621-000.  Comments due by December 28, 2000.

*  LOUISIANA GENERATING filed a motion to intervene and protest regarding
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY's Restated and Amended Electric System
Interconnection Agreement between SOUTHWESTERN and LOUISIANA GENERATING.
ER01-504-000.  Filed December 13, 2000.

*  ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES filed a response to several protests
regarding its proposed amended OATT.  ER01-312-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

*  ELECTRICITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY and the
CITIES OF ORANGEBURG and SENECA, SC filed a motion to intervene and protest
regarding DUKE ENERGY, CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT and SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC &
GAS' proposed accounting and rate treatment of start-up costs associated with
establishing a new RTO.  EL01-13-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

*  SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES filed a proposed amendment to its OATT in order
to incorporate creditworthiness criteria, interconnection procedures and
source and sink requirements.  ER01-668-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

*  BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION filed a petition for declaratory order
stating that its proposed OATT satisfies the Commission's reciprocity
compliance principles.  NJ01-1-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

*  AMERICAN TRANSMISSION CO. filed proposed Open Access Transmission rates
and requested expedited consideration.  ER01-677-000.  Filed December 15,
2000.

(3) MARKET COMPLAINTS

*  H.Q. ENERGY SERVICES filed for an Order directing the NY ISO to restore
the original market clearing prices for energy on May 8, 2000.  EL01-19-000.
Comments due January 2, 2001.

*  NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. filed an answer to the RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY
GENERAL's protest regarding the application of the joint owners of the
undivided interest in the Millstone 3 nuclear plant to transfer ownership to
the DOMINION Applicants.  EC00-137-000 and ER00-3639-000.  Filed December 13,
2000.

(4) MERGERS/CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING

(5) MISCELLANEOUS

*  CA ISO filed an amendment to schedule 1 of the Participating Generator
Agreement between CA ISO and SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES.  ER01-619-000.
Comments due by December 28, 2000.

*  AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE filed a new rate schedule under which it will
provide its auction and scheduling service in its California market.
ER01-658-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

*  AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE filed a new rate schedule under which it will
provide its auction and scheduling service in a new geographic market, known
as the APX Midwest Market.  ER01-659-000.  Filed December 14, 2000.

Nancy Tarr
Manager, Business Development
ntarr@eei.org
202-508-5680

_________________________________________________________

 - Timeline.doc


Sold NYJ  50 mws   $99  Onpeak FG01
Sold NYG  50 mws   $88  Onpeak FG01
Sold Cinergy  50 mws   $48.50  Onpeak Cal02
Sold Ercot  20 mws   $32.50  Offpeak  FG01
Bought Nepool  50 mws   $2.20 (kwm) RTC  Cal02
Bought Nepool  50 mws   $2.45 (kwm) RTC  Cal02
Bought Nepool  50 mws   $4.75 (kwm) RTC  Cal01
Bought Nepool  50 mws   $2.50 (kwm) RTC  Cal03


I am negotiating the master.  Do you have the credit info for me to tuck in
from Rudwell?
----- Forwarded by Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT on 06/04/2001 11:41 AM -----

	Rudwell Johnson/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/30/2001 05:26 PM

		 To: Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Stacy E Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: FW: Master Agreement - enovate LLC - Constellation Power (Revised
Dra ft)

Hi Debra!

As per our conversation, attached is Constellation Power's comments to the
Master Firm agreement they received from
Roy Rodriguez.  I will be happy if you can review this.  Additionally, as
soon as I come to some agreement with their credit group regarding threshold
and MACs, I will draft a credit worksheet and forward same to you.

Thanks
Rudwell.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  "McGilloway, Vangie" <Vangie.McGilloway@constellation.com>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22McGilloway+2C+20Vangie+22+20+3CVangie+2EMcGilloway+40con
stellation+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May  30, 2001 11:01 AM
To: Johnson, Rudwell
Subject: Master Agreement - enovate LLC - Constellation Power (Revised Dra ft)

Rudwell- Pursuant to our discussion, attached please find a revised draft of
the Enfolio Agreement between CPS and enovate LLC.  The form of agreement is
the original one used by Enron and edited accordingly for enovate LLC.

The edits proposed (as submitted to enovate back in January) are consistent
with industry standards and according to my notes were being forwarded to
enovate's Legal (Enron) for further review.   We are continuing contact and
discussions to this matter with Roy Rodriguez at enovate and hope we can put
closure to this agreement in the very near future.

Regards,
Vangie McGillloway
Constellation Power Source, Inc.
Phone 410-468-3798
Fax 410-468-3499
Email vangie.mcgilloway@powersrc.com

 <<enovate -Master Firm Purchase Sale Agreement(rev 1-jan 15).doc>>

 - enovate -Master Firm Purchase Sale Agreement(rev 1-jan 15).doc


Please check the cancellation policy for next week's seminar.  I may not be
going.

Thanks,

Kay


The Pacific Research Institute has agreed to get an abstract out in early
August, and according to Gary, will be marketing it.  Will have more info
shortly.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/23/2001 11:34 AM -----

	Gary Ackerman <foothillservices@mindspring.com>
	07/23/2001 11:20 AM
	Please respond to foothillservices

		 To: Sue Mara <smara@enron.com>, Curtis Kebler
<Curtis_L_Kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Huhman, Steve"
<steve.huhman@mirant.com>, Roger Pelote <roger.pelote@williams.com>, Greg
Blue <gtbl@dynegy.com>, George Vaughn <gavaughn@duke-energy.com>, Mark Smith
<Mark_J_Smith@fpl.com>, Bob Anderson <Robert_Anderson@apses.com>, Marcie
Milner <MMilner@coral-energy.com>, John Marchand <jpmarchand@aep.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: funders for PRI study

Whereas some of you have not yet committed to funding the PRI study by
Dr. Ben Zycher,  five of you have.  Those who have not confirmed
participation, please do so ASAP.  Per the request of Enron, and agreed
to by PRI, a preliminary abstract of the study will go out in early
August to members of the California Legislature.  This is to not only
wet their appetites, but also to provide some timely information in a
positive way while the Legislature remains in session.  The abstract
will be distributed by PRI.

gba


I have asked Linda to get back to you personally about the status of this
bill.

	"Bill W. Ogden" <bogden@ogwb.com>
	06/26/2000 11:08 AM
	Please respond to bogden

		 To: "Richard Sanders" <richard.b.sanders@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Natole Invoice

Richard:
 Our accounting department still shows the $17,312 invoice unpaid and 120
days out. Is there anything you or Linda could do to assist in clearing this
up? Thanks in advance for your help.

Best regards,

Bill


I am ok listing you.  Mark

	Christi L Nicolay
	04/20/2001 02:03 PM

		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Designated person to receive FERC service

Mark -- We need to update FERC's records for our wholesale power marketers
(EPMI and our plants) to list an official to receive service of certain FERC
documents.  I believe that you are general counsel for all of these and would
like to list you.  If something comes from FERC (which should not happen
often), you would just forward it to me.  I need to send this information to
FERC next week.  Is this fine with you?

Thanks.  Christi


Santagio,

Attached are the NYMEX settles from Jan '98 forward.

Thanks,

Errol


Joe, do you have a copy of the proposed RTO bylaws or what ever is
available.  I appreciate the summary but would like to see what could be done
to get a Board that is appointed independently also.

	Joe Connor@ENRON
	10/13/2000 12:56 PM

		 To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Staines/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel
Allegretti/HOU/EES@EES, Donna Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Janine
Migden/DUB/EES@EES, Jeff Brown/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard Ingersoll/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robin Kittel/HOU/EES@EES, Ron
McNamara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Montovano/DUB/EES@EES, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON, Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Thane
Twiggs/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Tom Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
Delaney/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Hoatson/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: Re: Enron Response to October 15 RTO Filings/Southeastern RTO

Attached are the FERC talking points for the Southeastern RTO filing.  If you
have any questions, please call me (205-567-5433)


I agree with Sami's comments.
Brazilian contracting parties + Brazilian matter in controversy = Brazilian
judge will probably accept jurisdiction and review the case, in accordance
with Article 88 (I)(II)(III) of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code, in case
one of the two Brazilian contracting entities challenge foreign arbitration,
although parties have deliberately chosen foreign arbitration.

Jos, Margalith
Assessoria Jur?dica
Fone n (11) 3138-7589
Fax n (11) 259-1530
e-mail: margalith@elektro.com.br

>>> <Randy.Young@enron.com> 01/10 10:49 am >>>

For what it is worth, I agree with Sami's concern that we may laboring
under a false sense of security in assuming that a foreign arbitration
provision in a Brazilian contract, between Brazilian contracting parties
relating to a Brazilian matter in controversy would be easily enforced by a
Brazilian court.  Inevitably, we have to fight hard for these "concessions"
in our negotiations and end up leaving a lot of Enron consideration (not to
mention blood and sweat) on the table to get these provisions inserted in
our contracts.  If we are really being "taken" by these crafty Brazilian
lawyers (like the former General Counsel of the Odebrecht Group), I think
we should re-think the policy in this specific instance.

Elektro, because it is the fifth largest electricity LDC in Brazil, has a
long history of litigation in the Sao Paulo courts (we had a number of
cases, you will recall, when we bought it, and have had others since). It
is clearly not the only substantial, high-profile Brazilian company Enron
has down here, making it a little hard for us to negotiate these provisions
as "foreigners"  the way we do elsewhere.

By all means we should check with Jose Emilio, but if he shares Sami's
(and, I have to say, my) concerns, I think we should consider making a
special rule for Brazil-to-Brazil contracting transactions.  Perhaps we
could have the first position be ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo (in
English?), with a forum savings clause that states that if the arbitration
provision is held unenforceable that the litigation will be in the courts
(federal, if possible) of Sao Paulo.  The worst thing that could happen is
that we enter into an arbitration provision, thinking we are safe, and end
up in some court in a smaller city in a backwater part of Brazil where they
are a little loose on the law and perhaps even looser on the concepts of
justice, due process, etc.

If you would like me to be involved in the further discussions, let me
know.

Randy

Sami Arap
01/10/2001 06:20 AM

To:   Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
margalith@elektro.com.br, Randy Young@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob
Walls@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject:  Re: Elektro's telecom project

Thanks again, Bob.

I will call Jos, Emilio to check.  I agree that a foreign arbitral award is
enforceable in Brazil (whether international or local aspects are under
discussion) provided that you follow the "exequatur" procedure at the
Brazilian Supreme Court.  I have personally participated in the enforcement
of a foreign arbital award against Odebrecht a few years ago.

However, the point I am raising is that in case one of the two Brazilian
contracting entities challenge such foreign arbitration clause and refer
the matter under dispute to a local court, it is most likely that the
Brazilian judge will accept jurisdiction and review the case, in accordance
with Article 88 (I)(II)(III) of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code.  In
such event, if Enron (please note that I am always & only referring to an
Enron Brazilian entity) agrees to a foreign arbitration clause with a
Brazilian counterparty, it may end up resolving its contractual disputes at
the Brazilian courts (and this is exactly what I am trying to avoid by
suggesting ICC arbitration in S?o Paulo for all contracts entered into
between two Brazilian entities).

Even if the two Brazilian contracting entities refer the matter under
dispute to foreign arbitration and, at the same time or at a later stage,
one of the parties decide to challenge the foreign arbitration clause and
refer the matter to the local courts, it is most likely that the Brazilian
Supreme Court will recognize the local courts jurisdiction and decide that
the foreign arbitration clause was null and void.

I will be in Houston on Friday, January 26, and would very much appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail with you and possibly with
Rob Walls and/or Jim Derrick.

Regards,

Sami

Robert C Williams@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
01/09/2001 10:18 PM

To:   Sami Arap/SA/Enron@ENRON
cc:   Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
margalith@elektro.com.br@ENRON, Randy Young, Rob Walls

Subject:  Re: Elektro's telecom project  (Document link: Sami Arap)

Sami,

I agree on the issue of Brazilian law.  But on the question of foreign
arbitration, our advice has been that such a clause will be enforced by the
local courts, even if the dispute has no international aspects other than
the parent is foreign (although there was a dissenting opinion from one
lawyer on this issue).   Could you check this point with Jose Emilio Pinto
at Tozzini or Fernando Serec?  As to local arbitration, we have accepted
this where the dollar amount of the disputes is likely to be less than
$500,000.  We should probably also have a cumulative cap of, say, $5
million.   On bigger deals, Rob orJim have resisted local court
jurisdiction.  The most flexible they have been to my knowledge where more
$ is at stake is to agree to ICC-administered arbitration in Sao Paulo.  In
this case, I think we should propose the local arbitration procedure which
would is best calculated to result in an impartial award, whether that be
ad hoc, ICC, FIESP, or Canadian-Brazilian C of C.  Jose Emilio would have a
view on this, too.  Hope this is helpful.

Bob

Sami Arap@ENRON
01/09/2001 04:48 PM

To:   Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robert C
Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   margalith@elektro.com.br

Subject:  Re: Elektro's telecom project  (Document link: Robert C Williams)

(Embedded
image moved   (Embedded image moved to file: pic09894.pcx)
to file:
pic17035.pcx)

Michelle and Bob;

Thanks for the reply.  The issue here is when Brazilian entities (only) are
entering into a contract which obligations will only be performed in Brazil
and such agreement is governed by Brazilian laws.  My understanding of the
Enron arbitration policy (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that when
Enron (as a foreign company) is dealing with foreign governments,
governmental agencies or government-owned companies, or private companies
from the host company, we must follow our internal policy by choosing
preferred arbitration rules, preferred place of arbitration and preferred
governing law.

In case of Elektro, as well as any other Brazilian Enron entity (EAS, ECE
etc), entering into a contract with another Brazilian party with
obligations to be performed in Brazil, such contract will most likely be
governed by Brazilian laws.  Although the parties are in principle able to
select a foreign law in Brazil, the contracting parties must comply with
local public policy.  I strongly advise that two or more Brazilian parties
contracting obligations in Brazil agree that the respective contract be
governed by the laws of Brazil.

With respect to the dispute resolution mechanism, we are all aware of
Enron's policy to avoid referring disputes to the Brazilian courts.  In
case of the above mentioned Elektro deal, the idea is to submit all
contract controversies to arbitration under ICC rules in S?o Paulo.  To me,
the question is whether we use "ad hoc" arbitration OR institutional
arbitration (i.e. submit the matter to FIESP or the Canadian-Brazilian
Chamber of Commerce to act as the "arbitration administrator").

FYI since I joined Enron, I've been told that all of Enron's Brazilian
entities should use foreign arbitration as their contracts' dispute
resolution mechanism.  In my opinion, this concept may not work the way
Enron wants.  If the local Enron entity is dealing with another Brazilian
party and (suppose) both parties have agreed to use ICC arbitration in NY,
it is most likely that, in case the Brazilian counterparty decides to refer
the matter under dispute to the Brazilian courts, the local judge will
accept jurisdiction and review the case.  You may ask "why".  The reason is
because there are two Brazilian parties contracting obligations to be
performed in Brazil under the laws of Brazil; as a consequence a local
judge will accept jurisdiction.

I'd very much like to emphasize that, while working as General Counsel of
the Odebrecht Group, I use to accept foreign arbitration clauses in
contracts entered with Affiliates of foreign companies because I knew that,
at the end of the day, I could always challenge the dispute resolution
mechanism agreed in the contract and refer the matter to the local courts.
Since Odebrecht's counterparties did not do their homework properly ...

Arbitration was first introduced in Brazil through the Federal Constitution
of 1824.  The Civil Code of 1916 ractified the use of arbitration, however,
it obliged the arbitral award to be reviewed by the local courts.  Only in
1996, with the issuance of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law 9307), it was
recognized the use of arbitration as a definitive dispute resolution
mechanism without having to submit the final arbitral award to the review
of the local courts.

With respect to enforceability, please note that the arbitral award is
final, binding and enforceable towards the contracting parties.  Only in
case a Party decides not to comply with the final arbital award, the other
Party may refer the arbitral award to a local judge to obtain an
"exequatur".

Please feel free to contact me at the earliest possible convenience to
continue to discuss this arbitration matter.

Rgds,

Sami

Robert C Williams@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
01/09/2001 03:55 PM

To:   Michelle Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   Sami Arap/SA/Enron@ENRON

Subject:  Re: Elektro's telecom project  (Document link: Sami Arap)

There was a concern at one point that FIESP would favor big, "homegrown"
companies.   I'm sure Sami knows more about this than I do, though.

Michelle Blaine
01/09/2001 12:37 PM

To:   Sami Arap/SA/Enron@ENRON
cc:   Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject:  Re: Elektro's telecom project  (Document link: Robert C Williams)

Definitely we do not want to submit to the local courts.  Do suggest ICC
arbitration but I am only vaguely familiar with FIESP. I think that is
fine, but please remind me what it is.  I am going to call you from my cell
in a little bit because I have to leave the office.

Sami Arap@ENRON
01/09/2001 11:47 AM

To:   Robert C Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Michelle
Blaine/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject:  Elektro's telecom project

(Embedded
image moved   (Embedded image moved to file: pic23811.pcx)
to file:
pic28703.pcx)

Elektro is participating in the negotiation of a telecom project to form a
SPC among Elektro and four other LDCs (Bandeirante, CPFL, CTEEP and EPTE).
The SPC will be named "SP Telecom".  SP Telecom will develop
telecommunication services using the LDCs' infra-structure.  After SP
Telecom's formation, an investor will be selected to purchase the majority
of the company's shares.  Elektro will have a 5% participation in SP
Telecom and this deal will generate approximately US$10MM in revenues for
Elektro.

The Parties have been discussing a draft MOU for several months, however,
this matter came to my attention only a few weeks ago.  The MOU has been
reviewed by all Parties and is currently on final rounds of negotiation.

There is one pending issue which I need to discuss with you before I get
Jim Derrick's sign-off.  CTEEP and EPTE (state and private owned LDCs) have
requested that the MOU, as well as any other SP Telecom project agreement,
includes a dispute resolution mechanism through the courts of S?o Paulo.  I
have discussed this matter with Jose Margalith (Elektro's in-house counsel)
and Randy Young, and have suggest Margalith to offer ICC arbitration at
FIESP (the S?o Paulo State Industries Federation) as an alternative.

Orlando Gonzalez asked me to assist him to resolve this pending issue at
the earliest possible convenience.  Any thoughts or ideas ?  Please feel
free to call me (55-11-5503-1226).

Tks for your assistance to this matter.

Sami Arap

(See attached file: SP Telecom 08-01-01.ppt)


Here are some thoughts for Enron to share with at the Analyst meeting.
Please let me know if you have any additions, changes, or deletions.  What I
tried to put down were the key facts and positions.  If I've missed anything
let me know.  This is not a great story.

Jim

OUR PHYSICAL POSITION IN CALIFORNIA

EES has electricity customers within the territories of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E
(about 800 MW of usage) [NOTE - CHECK WITH EES].  EES has natural gas
customers within the territories PG&E and SoCal Gas.

Enron does not have any generation in California (we own a small QF in Nevada
but only have 50 MW excess).

We supply power to the Utilities and to our retail load by buying excess in
California or by transmitting power into the state.  Enron sells natural gas
to the LDCs mainly under spot arrangements.

Enron continues to manage the risk by using traditional hedging tools and by
using the full complement of resources of EES - demand reduction, load
shaping, and efficiency improvements.

Transwestern has long-term capacity arrangements with PG&E.

OUR POLITICAL POSITION IN CALIFORNIA / MESSAGES

The current situation (shortages and potential bankruptcy) is not the result
of competitive markets, rather it is the result of barriers to workable
retail and wholesale markets designed into the California deregulation model
(for instance, the overreliance of the Utilities on the spot market, the
residual CTC calculation, incomplete retail tariff unbundling requiring
direct access customers to pay more than their fair share for the Utilities'
common costs).

Enron does not want to see the California Utilities go bankrupt because those
naysayers of competition will use this situation as an argument against
competition.  Enron disagrees.  What it proves is that not finishing the job
of creating real competition can result in problems.

Enron believes that there are workable short-term and long-term solutions for
California.

In the short-term, (1) California must provide credit enhancement or directly
buy power for the Utilities' needs to ensure a stable supply of electricity,
(2) California should incent customers to institute demand reductions, and
(3) California should raise rates to cover reasonable costs so that the
Utilities do not petition for bankruptcy.

In the long-term, (1) California needs to continue its activities to promote
retail competition (and most importantly it must allow real price signals to
be sent to large customers), (2) California should implement the changes that
the FERC highlighted (end the reliance on the spot market, remove
stakeholders on the Cal ISO Board, give the Utilties the ability to recover
wholesale power costs), (3) California must remove unnecessary barriers to
the development of additional generation capacity, and, most importantly, (4)
California must establish reasonable structures so that the Utilities develop
a balanced portfolio of supplies to better manage electricity market
volatility.

California should not get into the business of owning or operating generation
assets or transmission facilities.

California should not stop moving forward with retail competitition which
allows customers to manage price risk rather than some regulator.

KEY ENRON ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA

We do have outstanding deliveries into the California utilities and would be
an unsecured creditor if bankruptcy occurs. We continue to sell to
creditworthy counterparties in Western Power markets. [NOTE - THE AMOUNT OF
RISK IS AN IR ISSUE THEY WANT TO MANAGE].

The PX Credit (and associated negative CTC) continues to be an issue.  Enron
believes that the rate freeze has not yet ended legally and PG&E's and SCE's
tariff requires the Utilities to pay funds to the customer's agent.  We filed
a Complaint Friday January 19 at the CPUC.  We are confident that these funds
will be recovered.  [NOTE - I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS - AGAIN
AN IR ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE RECEIVABLE]


You have received this email because the requester specified you as their Manager. Please click http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000081127&Page=Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000081127
Request Create Date : 1/16/02 3:29:26 PM
Requested For       : israel.estrada@enron.com
Resource Name       : Market Data Kobra Power
Resource Type       : Applications


fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/01/2001 11:44
AM ---------------------------
From: Herman Manis/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/01/2001 11:33 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, William Fleenor/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Roseann Engeldorf/ENRON@enronXgate, Lisa Bills/ENRON@enronXgate,
Catherine Clark/ENRON@enronXgate

Subject: RE: form of option

See comments therein.  We should discuss presentation.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:22 AM
To: Manis, Herman; Fleenor, William
Cc: Engeldorf, Roseann; Bills, Lisa; Clark, Catherine
Subject: form of option

Here's the long awaited form of option for your review and comment.

 << File: FORM - Option to Purchase Real Estate (Kay's revisions2).doc >>

I'm sending it to Rose, Lisa and Catherine for their review also.

Thanks,

Kay


Just a note that the new bandwidth is still in EBS Legal being run thru the
legal and regulatory hoops.  As soon as I hear from Robbi or Marie that it's
approved, I'll pass on the word.


The Benefits Open Enrollment deadline is TODAY at 3:00 PM Pacific (5:00 PM Central).  If you are planning to change any of your benefit plans, you must make these changes before the system closes today!

If you have any questions, please contact me or Grace (x8321).

Thanks!

Julie K
x7404


Dear Vince,

Thank you very much for your e-mail. I am very excited about the opportunity y
to see you soon in Dallas. Any week day, in general, and Fridays, in
particular,
is convenient for me. Please let me know what day might be convenient for you.

I look forward to hearing from you and to seeing you soon.

Sincerely,
Valery


Sally-

I will gladly include you on the distribution of the weekly status on the MG
acquisition and integration and instruct Esther Gerratt to add your name to
the list.

I concur that Brent's return to Houston will create a potential information
gap that even the best of weekly reports won't fill.  I think we may have an
opportunity to keep your information level high and address my need to assess
MG's remote offices.  If Brent were to linger in London for a few more
months, we could lay out a program to assess MG's 24 offices around the world
and benchmark their compliance with risk policies + procedures.  Brent's
background and recent experience with Doorstep give him strong credentials
for doing the job.  I haven't discussed this with MG's management, but it
seems to be the right kind of activity for a new owner to undertake.  What
are your thoughts?

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  Sally Beck                           13/06/2000 19:57

To: Eric Gadd/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Weekly Update on MG Aquisition and Assimilation

I have heard through the grapevine that you produce a weekly status report on
the MG aquisition and assimilation.  Would you please include me on that
distribution list effective this week?   I believe that it is assumed that
Fernley Dyson will have day-to-day responsibility for this business once the
aquisition is completed.  However, in my role over Global Risk Management
Operations, I find myself fielding questions regarding our assessment of
operations and any issues surrounding assimilation.  Brent Price, who reports
to me and is on temporary assignment in the London office, has been keeping
me updated on progress to date.  His return soon to Houston, however, will
create a potential information gap that the weekly status report may help to
fill.

Thanks in advance to your attention to this.


volumes are still down - i have no clue on the merger. you hear something new each day

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Landry, Chad
Sent:	Monday, November 26, 2001 10:10 AM
To:	Lenhart, Matthew; Bass, Eric
Subject:	are trading

volumes down or has business picked up to normal activity?  do you think the merger will go through?

ckl


---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Drexelius/CES/ColumbiaGas on 12/27/99
08:07 AM ---------------------------

Marianne Stiles
12/22/99 04:00 PM

To: Phil Villagomez/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas
cc: Paul Drexelius/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Noel
Bartlo/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Joanne
Swogger/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas,
Frank Kronz/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Brian
Perrone/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Melissa
Flewellyn/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas, Morgan
Sharifi/CES/ColumbiaGas@ColumbiaGas
Subject: January 2000 AGT volumes

Here are the approximate January daily volumes for each of the gates.   Please
do not forget that January 1 and January 2 will be lower because of the
weekend/holiday.    I know you wanted an exact volume for 1/1 but I will not
have that for all of the Algonquin markets until Monday, 12/27.      We will
need a range from 3200 dth to 4200 dth per day.   This large swing is normal
for these types of markets due to weekends, weather, and customer situations.

 - agt012000.xls


---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Burke/Houston/Eott on 02/16/2000
01:28 PM ---------------------------

02/16/2000 12:39 PM
Kristi Dixon
Kristi Dixon
Kristi Dixon
02/16/2000 12:39 PM
02/16/2000 12:39 PM
To: Michael Burke/Houston/Eott@Eott
cc:

Subject: Article on the Spill

FYI Newspaper article on the spill yesterday.

EOTTFax
02/16/2000 10:49 AM
To: Kristi Dixon/Houston/Eott@Eott
cc:

Subject: A new fax has arrived from 903 295 4654

A new fax has arrived from 903 295 4654
------------------------------------------------------------
Time: 2/16/00 10:57:39 AM
Received from remote ID: 903 295 4654
Inbound user ID DIXONK, routing code 2894
Result: (0/0;0/0) Successful Receive
Page record: 1 - 1
Elapsed time: 00:46 on channel 0


Thanks for the quick response!


Bryan,

I do not have a comprehensive list, but the post ID for the options book as
of 03/30/2001 is 1095031.  Please let me know if I can I can be of any
further assistance.

Errol, X5-8274

Bryan Hull@ECT
04/03/2001 01:19 PM
To: Errol McLaughlin/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: GD and Price Options

Errol,

We are trying to make sure that everyone that is trading options with us off
line are aware that we have both GD and Price Options on EOL.  Do you have a
list of companies that are trading with us? If not a post ID would suffice.
I still have some queries that I can run from my risk days.  Thanks for your
help.

Bryan Hull
3-9195


Here are the rest of the picks:


Oneok Recap Report for December:

Any questions, contact Janet McDaniel at x 3-1936.


FYI

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 01/10/2000
02:54 PM ---------------------------

"Edna OConnell" <esai@ma.ultranet.com> on 01/10/2000 11:23:42 AM
Please respond to esai@ma.ultranet.com
To: "ednao@esaibos. com (E-mail)" <ednao@esaibos.com>
cc:  (bcc: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT)
Subject: New ESAI "Flow of Funds" Report

Dear Clients:

Attached is a new ESAI report that takes the analysis of trends in financial
markets one step further: into equity market valuations of energy companies.
We intend to issue this report monthly.

There is an enormous amount of information about money flows behind this
report. For the sake of brevity, we have presented only a selection of what
we evaluate to derive these new forecasts of energy index prices. Please
direct feedback to Ed Krapels at ekrapels@esaibos.com. "

Edna O'Connell
Office Manager
ESAI
301 Edgewater Place, Suite 108
Wakefield, MA 01880
(781) 245-2036
(781) 245-8706
ednao@esaibos.com

 - Jan 2000.pdf


Is that like "Most Favored Nation" status?  If so, don't I already have that?

From: Tana Jones on 06/09/2000 03:55 PM
To: John Suttle/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: as you requested...

I'm glad to hear that someone from Credit it showing up!  I heard we weren't
going to have a good turnout from you guys, so I expect those that do attend
will achieve "favored Credit person" status.

	John Suttle
	06/09/2000 03:42 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: as you requested...

I was saving my energy for Marie's party tonight.   You know how ice cream
takes it out of you.

From: Tana Jones on 06/09/2000 01:42 PM
To: John Suttle/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: as you requested...

Always my pleasure. ...I don't want to risk having you unhappy two days in a
row...by the way, where we you for the ice cream social?!

	John Suttle
	06/09/2000 01:30 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: as you requested...

Thanks Tana.

From: Tana Jones on 06/08/2000 02:50 PM
To: John Suttle/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: as you requested...


MAY,  LARRY ,

You have been selected to participate in Enron's Mid Year 2001 Performance Management process by providing performance feedback on the employee(s) listed below.  Your feedback plays an important role in our process, and your participation is critical to the success of Enron's Performance Management goals.

To complete requests for feedback, login to Enron's Performance Management System (PEP) at http://pep.enron.com and select Complete Feedback from the Main Menu.  If not previuosly received, your UserID and Password will follow in a separate message.

If you have any questions, please contact the Enron PEP Help Desk at:
Houston:  1.713.853.4777, Option 4 or email: perfmgmt@enron.com
London:  44.207.783.4040, Option 4 or email: pep.enquiries@enron.com

Thank you for your participation in this important process (you will receive this message each time you are selected as a reviewer).

Employee Name:
COUCH, CHARLES
GRIFFITH, JOHN
HUAN, XIAOJUN
QUIGLEY, HENRY
RIORDAN, SEAN


Ted/Paul:  Could you give me a call on Tuesday morning to discuss?  I think Mary Nell will try to call me as well.  I just want to determine how Houston can assist.  Thanks.  Sara

Sara Shackleton
Enron Wholesale Services
1400 Smith Street, EB3801a
Houston, TX  77002
Ph:  (713) 853-5620
Fax: (713) 646-3490


deal #565701 - one year deal out of dec -


As a follow up to our meeting, attached is the list of 37 counterparties with their associated limits for simulation purposes.

Regards,
Stephanie
3-9283
 -----Original Appointment-----
From: 	Rosado, Jennifer   On Behalf Of Shults, Bob
Sent:	Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:52 AM
To:	Shults, Bob; DL-EOL eCommerce Support; Brackett, Debbie R.; Mcginnis, Stephanie; Gossett, Jeffrey C.; White, Stacey W.; Theriot, Kim S.; Gorny, Vladimir; Hayden, Frank; Koehler, Anne C.; Jafry, Rahil; Carter, Carl (CORP)
Cc:	Forster, David; O'Donnell - UBS, Pat; Becker, Lorraine; Gray, Mary Griff; Denny, Jennifer; Engel, Tom; Moore, Kathy M.; Meredith, Kevin; Sweitzer, Tara; Lees, Lisa
Subject:	Updated: ECS05075:  Update on February 7th Trading Simulation
When:	Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:30 AM-11:30 AM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where:	ECS05075:  Lorraine Becker will email location


Gentlemen,

I met with Craig Young (MG US) last week, who is keen to progress metals
business with large US corporates (e.g. Anheuser Busch), on the following
basis:

o Assume ENA and US Corporate are existing parties to ISDA/Credit Support
Documents (the "Master").

o ENA and US Corporate would agree to expand range of OTC products to include
OTC metal derivatives under the Master.  The principals to the metals trades
would therefore be the US Corporate and ENA.  These trades would however be
"arranged" by MG London Inc. (an FCM) as "arranger" in the US for ENA.

o Enron Metals Limited (EML) from London would agree to provide metals prices
to ENA and/or MG London Inc. in the US, and in return receive a commission
from MG London Inc.

o ENA would back-to-back OTC metals derivatives with EML via an intra-group
ISDA Master.

Look forward to your views.

Thanks.
Justin


Start Date: 1/26/02; HourAhead hour: 8;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002012608.txt


Look at the last article .... any idea what the "rude awakening" might be?
----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 10/22/2000 07:30 PM -----

	Ann M Schmidt
	10/20/2000 07:58 AM

		 To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Meredith
Philipp/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary
Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Laura Schwartz/Corp/Enron@Enron, Eric
Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Enron Mentions

Business/Financial Desk; Section C
Study Finds That Many Large Companies Pay No Taxes
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
?
10/20/2000
The New York Times
Page 2, Column 1
c. 2000 New York Times Company
Goodyear, Texaco, Colgate-Palmolive, MCI WorldCom and eight other large
corporations earned more than $12.2 billion in profits in 1996 through 1998,
but none of them ended up owing corporate income taxes over that period,
according to a study released yesterday. Indeed, as a group, the companies
received $535 million in credits or refunds, the report found.
The study of 250 large publicly traded companies showed that 24 owed no tax
or received credits against past or future tax obligations in 1998, up from
13 in 1997 and 16 in 1996. The study also found that 71 of the 250 companies
paid taxes at less than half the official 35 percent corporate rate during
the three-year period.
The study was conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a
Washington research organization associated with Citizens for Tax Justice, a
nonprofit group supported in part by labor unions. The group argues that the
tax system favors the rich and politically connected.
Corporate profits overall soared 23.5 percent during the three-year period,
but corporate tax revenues grew just 7.7 percent, a disjunction that has
drawn intense interest from the Treasury Department and some members of
Congress who are concerned about the growing market for tax shelters and
their abuse.
In recent years, Congress has watered down the 1986 overhaul of the tax laws,
which lowered rates and eliminated most tax shelters, and was supposed to
simplify reporting. The recent changes have opened fresh opportunities for
corporations to cut their taxes, the study found.
''Corporate taxes are not rising along with profits because companies have
found all sorts of ways to get around the reforms in the 1986 tax act,'' said
Robert S. McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice. ''Companies
also have gotten a lot of help from Congress, especially in gutting the
minimum tax rules.''
Mr. McIntyre said that he and T. D. Coo Nguyen, the co-author, spent more
than two years examining financial statements the companies sent to
shareholders.
All but 18 of the companies studied are on the Fortune 500 list, and the
others are in the Fortune 1000. He said companies were excluded if they lost
money or their tax disclosures ''were crafted so that you could not figure
them out.''
At least two companies objected to the study's methodology.
Keith Price, a spokesman for Goodyear, said the study did not appear to
consider an accounting rule affecting its sale of a pipeline subsidiary in
1998. It made no objection to the 1996 and 1997 figures.
Michael N. Ambler, Texaco's chief tax counsel, said that his company had tax
disputes with the Internal Revenue Service that were unresolved after more
than a decade. If those disputes are settled with a refund, he said, that can
easily distort the figures for any one year. He said that even the three-year
study period was too short to give an accurate picture.
Timothy McCormally of the Tax Executives Institute, which represents
officials at large companies, told Bloomberg News that the companies named in
the report did nothing wrong. ''There is nothing in the report that suggests
that any of this results from any illegal or improper activity,'' he said.
The study by the Washington institute showed that the corporate tax burden
was falling in many cases because of the growing use of stock options, which
are an expense for tax purposes but do not count against profits reported to
shareholders.
Recent annual reports filed by Microsoft and Cisco Systems indicate that they
paid no federal income taxes in 1999 because stock options exercised by
employees wiped out profits for tax purposes.
The study found that General Electric, I.B.M., Pfizer, Intel and
Bristol-Myers Squibb also sharply reduced their tax rates because of stock
options without having to show reduced earnings to shareholders.
The most significant factor in the easing corporate tax burden, Mr. McIntyre
said, can be traced to actions in Congress, which relaxed the corporate
minimum tax in 1993 when the Democrats were in control of both the House and
Senate, and again in 1997, after the Republicans had taken over. Congress
made it easier for corporations to spread tax breaks and profits over many
years, including reaching back to past years to get tax breaks that could not
be used at the time.
In at least one of the three years studied, 41 of the 250 large companies
studied paid no federal income tax. Those 41 companies reported $25.8 billion
in profits to shareholders in the years they paid no taxes. If they had been
obligated to pay the full 35 percent corporate rate, the tax bill would have
been $9 billion, but the companies received $3.2 billion in refunds.
In total dollars, General Electric was the biggest beneficiary of tax breaks,
the study said, saving $6.9 billion in three years. The company paid $2.1
billion in income taxes on $25.8 billion in profits, for a tax rate of 8.1
percent.
The highest tax rate for the three years was paid by Winn-Dixie Stores, which
paid an average of 35.7 percent of its 1996 through 1998 profits in federal
income taxes. It was one of two companies that paid more than the 35 percent
statutory rate because of multiyear tax rules. The other was Paccar.

Chart: ''Profits Without Pain'' In a study of 250 large and profitable
companies, these 17 paid the least in corporate taxes -- or got the biggest
refunds -- as a percentage of profits from 1996 to 1998. Goodyear 1996-98
PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: $657 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS:
-$ 65 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -9.9 Texaco 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 3,447
TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 304 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE:
-8.8 Ryder 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 489 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID,
1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 30 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -6.2 El Paso Energy 1996-98
PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 818 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: -
36 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -4.4 MedPartners 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 184
TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 4 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE:
-2.1 Tenneco 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 731 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID,
1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 14 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -1.9 Colgate-Palmolive 1996-98
PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 777 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: -
14 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -1.7 MCI WorldCom 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 3,578
TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 61 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE:
-1.7 Corporate Express* 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 214 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED
OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 4 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -1.6 WestPoint Stevens
1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 339 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN
MILLIONS: - 3 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: -0.7 Kmart 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS:
978 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: - 2 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE:
-0.2 Enron 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 816 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID,
1996-98, IN MILLIONS: + 2 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: +0.2 Transamerica 1996-98
PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 2,199 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS:
+ 5 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: +0.2 Suiza Foods 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 295
TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: + 2 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE:
+0.8 Navistar 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 742 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID,
1996-98, IN MILLIONS: + 13 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: +1.8 McKesson 1996-98 PROFITS,
IN MILLIONS: 473 TOTAL TAX REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: + 10
EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: +2.1 Pfizer 1996-98 PROFITS, IN MILLIONS: 3,367 TOTAL TAX
REFUNDED OR PAID, 1996-98, IN MILLIONS: + 104 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE: +3.1
*Purchased by Buhrmann in October 1999. (Source: Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy)

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Business; Financial Desk
Legal Breaks Lower Some Corporate Tax Rates
?
10/20/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
Page C-3
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company
WASHINGTON -- Dozens of America's most profitable companies enjoyed tax-free
years during the 1990s largely because of legal tax breaks, an independent
study released Thursday found.
The report by the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found
that 250 companies paid an effective tax rate of 20.1% in 1998, down from
22.9% just two years before. The federal income tax rate for corporations is
supposed to be 35%.
Of the 250 companies studied, 41 enjoyed at least one year of no income taxes
or an actual rebate from the federal government, despite pretax profits of
$25.8 billion from 1996 to 1998.
If all 250 companies had paid the full 35% on $735 billion in pretax profits,
the study estimated the total income tax would have come to $257 billion. But
tax breaks put into law by Congress lowered those companies' tax bills by $98
billion over the three-year period.
Companies getting tax rebates in 1998 alone included Texaco Inc., Chevron
Corp., PepsiCo Inc., J.P. Morgan & Co., Enron Corp. and General Motors Corp.,
the report found.
The study's chief author, Robert S. McIntyre, said companies lower their
taxes through such breaks as depreciation write-offs, tax credits for
research and development and deductions they take when employees exercise
stock options.
The report also found that the petroleum industry paid the lowest tax rate
from 1996 to 1998, at 12.3%, followed by electronics at 13.1%, forest and
paper products at 13.9% and transportation at 14%. At the other end of the
spectrum, publishing and printing companies paid 31.6%, gas and electric
utilities paid 28.1% and retail and wholesale trade companies paid 27.6%.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Oct. 19, 2000, 10:23PM
Houston Chronicle
Arena boosters tout 3 benefits
Some question property/sales tax numbers, new development
By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2000 Houston Chronicle
Enron Field sparked the redevelopment of downtown's east side, boosters say,
and an arena would crown the revitalization of the long-neglected area.
A strongly pro-arena business organization, Central Houston Inc., released a
flurry of positive economic numbers to back its contention that Enron Field
is a boon to downtown as well as to city, county and school tax coffers, and
that the arena would be as well.
"There's no better way to measure the impact of sports facilities on downtown
than to look at the one we already have," said the organization's president,
Bob Eury, as he crooked a finger toward the ballpark.
Eury and other boosters outlined three economic benefits to Houston they say
are related to sports facilities: increased property tax revenues, a wealth
of new development in the area and a boost in sales tax collected.
But economic analysts questioned some of their conclusions.
When Enron Field was built, nine blocks were taken off the tax rolls at a
cost of about $284,000 in lost property taxes.
Eury said, though, that it was not a bad trade.
He noted that properties around the ballpark have leaped in value since the
Enron Field project began in the mid-1990s. In turn, the annual property tax
collected on land and buildings within four blocks of the ballpark is $2.4
million greater now than in 1995.
But Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt said those figures
are due in part to the boom in land values across downtown, including the
central business district, since 1995.
Bettencourt said he hoped to have an analysis finished today to determine
whether land values around Enron Field had increased at a greater rate than
land in the rest of downtown.
The boosters also highlighted more than $700 million worth of private
developments planned -- but not yet completed -- near the ballpark, including
the $90 million, 37-story Ballpark Place Tower across Crawford Street from
Enron Field.
"Without a doubt, if Enron Field was not there, Ballpark Place would not be
there," said John Holland, an executive vice president for the Trammel Crow
Co., which expects to break ground on the project in early 2001.
Because the arena would be built in an urban core, even academics who are
skeptical about the economic benefits of sports stadiums agreed that spin-off
development is likely nearby.
But independent economists who have studied such issues, including Brad
Humphreys, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland-Baltimore
County, say development near a stadium usually has a negative impact on
development and businesses in other parts of a city.
The focus must be on the entire market, Humphreys said, not just in the
vicinity of a sports facility.
"Public subsidization of stadiums and arenas isn't necessarily a bad thing,"
he said. "But when they sell them as economic engines, it's just absolutely
wrong. The research doesn't show that."
A recent study Humphreys co-authored, which appeared in the fall 1999 issue
of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, found that the presence of
professional sports teams in a market, on average, actually reduced the
per-capita income in those markets, compared with similar markets without
such teams.
Given Houston's strong economy, Eury said he does not believe downtown
development will detract from other areas of the city, as Humphreys' studies
have shown in other markets.
A third major economic benefit offered Thursday was that a new arena, with
the Houston Rockets and Houston Comets as tenants, would generate $13 million
a year in sales tax revenues.
About $2.7 million of that would go into local coffers, with the remainder
going to the state, according to the study performed for Eury's group by CSL
International, a consulting firm.
Yet even in the absence of a new arena and both teams, many economists say a
large portion of those expenditures would be spent in the area anyway. That
is known as a "substitution effect."
Instead of a family going to a game, it might go to the movies or local zoo.
And corporations are likely to sponsor other local events out of their
advertising budgets, the economists say.
The CSL study did not account for this substitution effect in calculating the
sales tax impact, said Bill Rhoda, the firm's director.

Study: Dozens of corporations pay little or no income tax
By CURT ANDERSON
AP Tax Writer

10/19/2000
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2000. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dozens of America's most profitable companies enjoyed
tax-free years during the 1990s largely because of legal tax breaks, an
independent study released Thursday found.
The report by the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found
that 250 companies paid an effective tax rate of 20.1 percent in 1998, down
from 22.9 percent just two years before. The federal income tax rate for
corporations is supposed to be 35 percent.
Of the 250 companies studied, 41 enjoyed at least one year of no income taxes
or an actual rebate from the federal government, despite pretax profits of
$25.8 billion from 1996-98.
If all 250 companies had paid the full 35 percent on $735 billion in pretax
profits, the study estimated the total income tax would have come to $257
billion. But tax breaks put into law by Congress lowered those companies' tax
bills by $98 billion over the three-year period.
Companies getting tax rebates in 1998 alone included Texaco, Chevron,
Pepsico, J.P. Morgan, Enron and General Motors, the report found.
The study's chief author, Robert S. McIntyre, said companies lower their
taxes through such breaks as depreciation write-offs, tax credits for
research and development and deductions they take when employees exercise
stock options.
"We hope our findings will encourage lawmakers to re-examine this important
area of taxation," McIntyre said.
The report also found that the petroleum industry paid the lowest tax rate
from 1996-98, at 12.3 percent, followed by electronics at 13.1 percent,
forest and paper products at 13.9 percent and transportation at 14 percent.
At the other end of the spectrum, publishing and printing companies paid 31.6
percent, gas and electric utilities paid 28.1 percent and retail and
wholesale trade companies paid 27.6 percent.
"Anyone who worries about our economy's long-term growth has to wonder why
the tax code is being used to favor some industries and some kinds of
investments over others, rather than letting market forces decide," McIntyre
said.
----
On the Net:
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy site: http://www.itepnet.org

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

US Rep Drafts Bill To Impose Windfall Tax On Pwr Companies.
By JASON LEOPOLD

10/19/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

OF DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- California's summer of soaring wholesale
electricity prices helped boost the stock price of many energy companies in
the third quarter.
But if U.S. Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., gets his way, those companies will be
forced to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars in profit to utilities,
customers and the government.
Filner introduced a bill in the House of Representatives last week that would
impose a windfall profit tax on wholesale power sold throughout the western
U.S.
The bill, which was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, may be
discussed in December or January, according to Filner, and if he gets enough
support by the mostly Republican caucus, companies like Enron Corp. (ENE),
Duke Energy North America (DUK), Southern Co. (SO). Reliant Energy (REI) and
Dynegy (DYN), would only be allowed to show a certain amount of profit and
anything over that amount would be taxed 100%.
Filner said the amount of profit hasn't been determined but his bill calls
for a baseline that would be a "just and reasonable" amount of profit.
The congressman's San Diego constituents were paying market-based electricity
rates in the summer which resulted in triple-digit utility bills. He said
generators are gouging California customers and need to be held responsible.
"This is not just a problem of supply and demand," Filner told Dow Jones
Newswires. "This is stealing. And we want our money back."
State and federal regulators are conducting separate investigations into
California's wholesale power crisis. The findings, expected to be complete in
about two weeks, are aimed at determining if generators or other key players
manipulated the state's wholesale energy market.
At least two major energy companies are being investigated by California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer. A high level source working on the probe with
the Attorney General said third-quarter earnings statements will play a major
role in finding out if generators manipulated the market.
Their investigation isn't turning up much evidence but earnings statements
are showing that profits are up significantly largely due to wholesale prices
in California, the source said.
At least one Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity, said the wholesale electricity market in California
will be in for a "rude awakening" when the agency completes its
investigation.
"There will be some serious structural changes to the market," the
commissioner said.
Representatives from energy companies told Dow Jones Newswires that higher
profits weren't the result of illegal activity or manipulating the market.
Energy Cos. Say Summer Crisis Boosted 3Q Earnings
On Wednesday, Duke Energy, which owns and operates power plants in
California, said in an earnings statement that third-quarter profit rose 74%,
due in part, to high wholesale prices in California in the summer. Enron and
several other companies reported similar third-quarter increases based on
California's summer of skyrocketing power prices.
The congressman doesn't want to limit the proposed windfall tax to
California, but where generators sell power in the western U.S.
But even Filner admits that forcing generators to refund part of their
profits isn't getting the early support it needs to become law.
"If the democrats were in charge I'd have this bill voted on already," Filner
said.
Filner said if the bill is passed some of the money would be refunded to
consumers and utilities, the victims, as he refers to them.
Meanwhile, he's also working on getting the House to pass a separate bill to
roll back electricity rates in the western U.S. to pre-deregulation levels
and he's trying to gather support for a wind power initiative.
Regardless of the outcome, the congressman is dead set on making noise.
"If nothing happens, I'm thinking about holding a press conference with the
San Diego District Attorney," he said. "We'll press criminal charges against
the energy companies." -By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
jason.leopold@dowjones.com

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


CES has a synthetic storage deal with Equitable Gas Company on Texas
Eastern.  CES gave Equitable 100,000 dth in April 1999 and Equitable is
giving CES the gas back in January 2000 in Tetco M2.  According to my new
best buddy Fred at Equitable, CES will pay Equitable $.65 /dth after the
January transaction is complete.

Here are my questions/comments;

1.  David - please look at the new deal I created for this exchange (deal
146788).  The existing deal (deal 138741) is set up as a pipeline exchange.
I believe the counterparty should be Equitable Gas Company which is the LDC.
If it looks OK to you, I will kill the old deal and add the volumes to the
new deal.  Please let me know ASAP.

2.  Linda/David - do we have CES's contract with Equitable?  I would like to
see a) what CES was paying Equitable for this deal and b) when the payment
was due.

3.  David/Stephanie - if the deal is structured the way Fred described it
above, where do we put the $.65 fee at?

4.  Linda - Fred has not received any assignment notices regarding CES
deals.  He doesn't know if he should bill CES or Enron North America.  Who
should he talk to about that??

Please forward this email to others that may need to see it.

Thanks


Please print and add to my Fuel Cell book.  Thanks.  Kay

ps please print a second copy for John however you spell Clawburg.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 10/19/2000 03:18
PM ---------------------------

Claudette Harvey@ECT
10/19/2000 01:59 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Stephen Plauche/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Scott Healy/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: CRRA Tax Structure Overview

Per your request.  Call me if you need anything else.

-claude


Thursday the 22nd works for me

- Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kaminski, Vince J
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:24 AM
To:	'"sbigalow" <sbigalow@email.msn.com>@ENRON'; Roberts, Mike A.
Subject:	RE: ENE

Hello:

What about Thu the following week?
I am going to Baylor on the 15th.

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"sbigalow" <sbigalow@email.msn.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 6:04 PM
To:	Roberts, Mike A.; Kaminski, Vince J
Subject:	Re: ENE

Hey,

11/15 sounds good, everybody pencil it in. We'll confirm as day gets nearer,
and if Mike wants to go somewhere that serves Spanish Rice, that is fine by
me also:)

Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberts, Mike A." <Mike.A.Roberts@ENRON.com>
To: "Kaminski, Vince J" <Vince.J.Kaminski@ENRON.com>;
<sbigalow@email.msn.com>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: ENE

Vince & Steve,

I'm available any time for dinner other than Mondays or Wednesdays
(taking Spanish at Rice)

Thursdays are best, then tuesdays next.

This week, though, taking off Thursday after work to visit my dad in
North Carolina, so gone Friday too.

Even fridays generally OK, though I'd need to bring Mary Jo!

Bottom Line:  How about next Thursday 11/15????

Also, the earlier the better........(office hours 5am-4pm)

looking forward to it......

--- Mike

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Kaminski, Vince J
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:26 PM
> To: '"sbigalow" <sbigalow@email.msn.com>@ENRON'
> Cc: Roberts, Mike A.
> Subject: RE: ENE
>
> Mike, Steve,
>
> Let's get together. What day would work for you?
>
> Vince
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "sbigalow" <sbigalow@email.msn.com>@ENRON
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:11 AM
> To: Vince Kaminski
> Subject: ENE
>
>
> Good Morning,
>
> If ENE closes higher than $11.85 today, it will  have formed a
> Kicker signal, a strong buy.
>
> Dinner?
>
>
> Steve

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


Attached please find the interview packet for the above-referenced person.
The interview will happen Thursday August 17, 2000.  Please print all three
documents for your hard copies.  If you have any questions, or conflicts of
schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sean Grady
58701


There should be no credit on a TVA/Cin spread.   The correlation between the 2 markets is 95% plus.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sacks, Edward
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 9:23 AM
To:	Hardy, Trey; Evans, Casey; Presto, Kevin M.; White, Stacey W.; Vinson, Donald Wayne; Sturm, Fletcher J.
Cc:	Bradford, William S.; Ngo, Tracy; Buy, Rick; Rohauer, Tanya; Reasoner, Monica; Brown, Kortney
Subject:	PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P.

Please note the following addition to the domestic credit reserve for October 2001:

CP:  PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P.
Deal No: 806688 & 806689
EOL No: 1972890 & 1972891
Deal Date:  10/5/2001
Deal Specifics:  Sale / Buy (Basis)
Term:  1/1/2005 thru 12/31/2005
Volume:  50 MW/h Peak
Delivery Points:  Cinergy / Into TVA
Trader:  Fletch Sturm
Credit Reserve Amount:  $8,000 (eight thousand US dollars)

CP:  PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P.
Deal No: 806685 & 806686
EOL No: 1972884 & 1972885
Deal Date:  10/5/2001
Deal Specifics:  Sale / Buy (Basis)
Term:  1/1/2004 thru 12/31/2004
Volume:  50 MW/h Peak
Delivery Points:  Cinergy / Into TVA
Trader:  Fletch Sturm
Credit Reserve Amount:  $8,000 (eight thousand US dollars)

Comments or questions, please reply.

Ed Sacks


Guys,

Please send me your personal contact info. I want to stay in touch. Maybe have a Spring Branch support group.

Phyllis Anzalone
7622 Bobbitt Lane
Ho, TX  77055

713-957-9979

panzalone@houston.rr.com


Hello, Everyone -

This notice confirms the RTO West clarification/review session this Friday, January 25, 2002, at the Kingstad Conference Center first floor meeting room.  The Kingstad Conference Center is located at 5933 NE Win Sivers Drive, about three miles east of the Portland Airport.  The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. PST and end around 2:00 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to "walk through" rough draft write-ups of the Scheduling Coordinator Agreement and Paying Agent Agreement.  We will also review draft revisions to the RTO West Bylaws and the draft revised Pricing Proposal.  Final draft revisions to Planning and Market Monitoring will be explained.  Questions and input will be taken on all these proposed documents.

The draft TOA will not be ready for the January 25th meeting.  If there is interest in holding a meeting to present and clarify the TOA, we will discuss options for this meeting with you on Friday.  At the January 25th meeting, we will also provide an update to the schedule for completing filing documents. (So far, RTO RRG days are still scheduled for 2/11 and 2/12/02.)

Preliminary drafts of the Scheduling Coordinator Agreement and Appendix and the Paying Agent Agreements were posted on the RTO West website at <http://www.rtowest.org/Stage2RRG_Upcoming.htm> .  Drafts of the Bylaws and the Pricing Proposal revisions will be posted by tomorrow.  We will send a notice to you when they are available on the website.

The topics that will be covered Friday are:
- Update on Schedule to Complete Filing Documents,
- Draft Scheduling Coordinator Agreement and Appendix,
- Draft Paying Agent Agreement,
- Draft Revisions to Pricing Proposal,
- Draft Revisions to RTO West Bylaws,
- Draft Final Revisions to Planning Proposal,
- Draft Final Revisions to Market Monitoring Proposal.

On behalf of Bud Krogh and the team,
Christine Elliott,
RTO West Coordinating Team
chrisrtowest@earthlink.net <mailto:chrisrtowest@earthlink.net>
503-262-9421


Jennifer,

I can rearrange some other meetings. Thursday, Oct 26 @ 3:00 works for me.

Vince

Jennifer Burns

10/24/2000 04:14 PM

To: Michele Nezi Marvin/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cindy Derecskey/Corp/Enron@Enron, Vince J
Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beth
Miertschin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christie Patrick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kristin
Gandy/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Meeting RE: Wharton Strategy

Lets try for Friday, October 27 @ 9:00AM, Please let me know if you are
available.  Thanks!
---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Burns/HOU/ECT on 10/24/2000
04:07 PM ---------------------------

Jennifer Burns

10/23/2000 11:08 AM

To: Michele Nezi Marvin/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sarah
Mulholland/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kristin
Gandy/NA/Enron@Enron, Beth Miertschin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christie
Patrick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J
Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Meeting RE: Wharton Strategy

Jeff Shankman would like to have a meeting RE: Wharton Strategy.  Please let
me know if you would be available Thursday, October 26 @ 3:00.  I will get
back with everyone to confirm a location.  Thanks!

Jennifer


The LIBOR and Treasury interest rate curves and the default probs for industrials and utilities have been updated as of 11/16/2001.  The file is saved in the following folder:	O:\Credit\$Models\Default Models

Please call me if you have any questions.

Cindy

Cindy Hudler
Enron Corporation
Risk Assessment & Control - Underwriting

1400 Smith St.
Houston, Tx 77002-7361

P: 713.853.6944
F: 713.646.3601
E: cindy.hudler@enron.com


Regarding the L/C format, I was wondering if we can simply take out the auto
renewal clause in all, given that we value the L/C at $0 once we are within
20 days from expiry.  Please reply.

Ed Sacks


On October 29, 2001, the NEPOOL Participants Committee submitted a filing
requesting the approval of proposed changes to Section 5.3.2(d) of Market Rule
& Procedure 5 that amend the formula used to calculate whether a Generator is
operating at its Desired Dispatch Point.

Please contact me if you need further information on this filing.

Susan Lindberg
713.853.0596


0

	Susan Rance/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/12/2001 11:49 AM

		 To: Brad Alford/NA/Enron@Enron, Lisa Best/ENRON@enronXgate, Bob
Carter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason
Chumley/ENRON@enronXgate, Christopher Coffman/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joseph
Deffner/ENRON@enronXgate, LaMetrice Dopson/ENRON@enronXgate, William
Keeney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Kerrigan/ENRON@enronXgate, David
Marshall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fran L Mayes/ENRON@enronXgate, Travis
McCullough/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tai
Nguyen/ENRON@enronXgate, Veronica Parra/ENRON@enronXgate, Mary
Perkins/ENRON@enronXgate, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean
Sargent/Contractor/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Felicia
Solis/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Nedre Strambler/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Sheila Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lewis Worthy/ENRON@enronXgate
		 cc:
		 Subject: February

  Could you please let me know the percentages/amounts of time you spent on
East Coast Power in February.

Mary Perkins - could you please forward the number of transactions and
accounts.

Jason Chumley, Tai Nguyen and Sean Sargent - could you please forward the
number of contractor hours and remote support hours.

It is important that we get this information ASAP so we can bill East Coast
Power for your time.

Thanks,

Susan Rance
Enron North America
susan.rance@enron.com
(713)345-3774


Good afternoon Professors:

I am the Administrative Coordinator for the Enron Corp. Research Group.
Yannis Tzamouranis  spoke with Vince Kaminski about meeting with you to
discuss the development of a program for the U of H.

I understand from your email that you will be available Wednesday, May
24th.  If this is correct, and if Professors McCauley and Reiter will also be
available that date, we would like to schedule a meeting at 4:00 pm on the
24th of May at Vince Kaminski's Enron office.

If this is not acceptable, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Shirley Crenshaw
Administrative Coordinator
Enron Corp. Research Group
713/853-5290
email:  Shirley.Crenshaw@enron.comI


Please print the email and attachment (click "view").  I need to learn how to
handle margins when printing.  Thanks.  Sara
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 07/27/2000 01:44 PM -----

	"Hunt, Lawrence" <lhunt@Sidley.com>
	Sent by: "Milazzo, Michelle" <mmilazzo@Sidley.com>
	07/27/2000 12:58 PM

		 To: "'Bruce, Robert'" <robert.bruce@enron.com>, "'Shackleton, Sara'"
<sara.shackleton@enron.com>
		 cc: "Nissen, William J." <wnissen@Sidley.com>
		 Subject: Commodities Materials

Bob and Sara -

 As we discussed, I enclose the cover page from the lengthy CFTC
policy paper relating to regulation of Ag Options.  This paper was never
approved by the full Commission and does not represent CFTC policy.  I also
enclose:

 (i) An outline of the application for designation as a contract
market (a recent example is the application of BrokerTec Futures Exchange
LLC, published at 65 F.R. 36667 (June 9, 2000));

 (ii) Excerpts from a report by the General Accounting Office
discussing issues relating to the reauthorization of the CFTC (May 1999).
(This represents much of the seed work for S. 2679 and deals with certain of
the issues we discussed yesterday.); and

 (iii) Introductory notes to CFTC revisions to its Rules relating
to agricultural trade options (December 6, 1999).

The exemption we discussed was for an entity called SwapClear, referred to
in the GAO report.  During one of our conversations, Bob referred to
multilateral transaction execution facilities.  The Commission has proposed
regulations on this subject.  They are reported at 65 F.R. 38985 (June 22,
2000) (CCH Commodity Futures Law Reporter paragraph 28,153).

Regards.

- Larry

 <<~att341.uni>>

 - ~att341.uni

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

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.


Alert Posted: 11:00 AM December 1, 2000: Demand Mismatch Order Notice
Effective Sunday, December 3, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., and until further notice,
AGLC is issuing a Demand Mismatch Order for ALL Primary Pools.
Based on the current supply levels and expected demand levels, AGLC's system
cannot manage the potential excess demand and the operational integrity of
the system will be threatened. Therefore, it is essential that your
interruptible customer's demand does not exceed the scheduled supply for your
interruptible market for each primary pool under the demand mismatch order.
Each shipper/pooler/marketer is responsible for contacting their
interruptible customers to curtail demand if necessary to meet this order.
Marketers/Poolers are responsible for maintaining interruptible customer
contact information. Any customer contact information in GOS is for AGLC
internal use and is not intended to be marketers/poolers point of contact for
curtailments.


A loss notification memo will be circulated to Jeff Skilling.

Additionally, Rick said that he will leave Jeff a voice mail, but decided that calling the Board would not be appropriate this time.

Vlady.


remember the Hydrocarbon lease GTC?  I need another one for :

Niemerg Gas Company
808 East Jefferson Avenue
Effingham, Il 62401
state of incorporation:Illinois
phone:217-342-4036
fax:217-235-0743
Tax Id 37-1390807

contact :Brent Holmes
Heller, Holmes & Associates, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
110 Broadway
P.O. Box 889
Matoon, Illinois 61938-0889
217-235-2700
fax: 217-235-0748

Sept 20-30,2000
NGPL meter 903152
pricing will be Gas Daily/daily indx NGPL Iowa/Illinois less $.03

I will confirm pricing before the contract goes out!!


I look forward to it!  I was talking to Genia and I also heard how lovely
your house looked...I can't wait to see yours too!

	Leslie Hansen
	06/09/2000 09:33 AM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: EOL / Credit / GCP Responses 6/8/00

Great!

Have a wonderful weekend -- hope all goes well with the move.  As I
mentioned, we'll be out of town this weekend, so Emma and I will try to stop
by on Monday to see the house and the kitties!

Leslie


Team,
Looks like things are finally coming home to roost here.  I would argue that
we (TW and Enron) should both consider getting our 5-minute sound bite in
here since we're being afforded the opportunity.  Obviously, our goal should
be to see the Commission adopt the Comprehensive Settlement.  Our focus point
during our presentation should be on not only the sufficiency of
infrastructure (not dealt with specfically in the Comprehensive Settlement)
but the idea that there must be a concomitant unbundling of the intrastate
transmission and a rational, equitable means to allocate capacity at receipt
points and an orderly assignment of firm rights to shippers
(primary/secondary).  Let's put together a short teleconference to work out
our strategy here and make sure we're on the agenda for May 22.

Will you guys send me a note back and let me know your availabilty Mon.,
Tues. or Wed.?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Scott, Susan
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:31 PM
To: Hass, Glen; Fawcett, Jeffery
Subject: FW: I9907003 Ruling re Notice of a Full Panel Hearing

 -----Original Message-----
From:  "Susanto, Gaby" <t94@cpuc.ca.gov>@ENRON
[mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Susanto+2C+20Gaby+22+20+3Ct94+40cpuc+2Eca+2Egov+3E+40ENR
ON@ENRON.com]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:57 PM
To: 'skatz@sempratrading.com'; 'kmccrea@sablaw.com';
'thompson@wrightlaw.com'; 'johnj@bcjlaw.com'; 'sscott3@enron.com';
'trdill@westernhubs.com'; 'ghinners@reliantenergy.com';
'tdickers@westerngas.com'; 'mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com';
'andy.bettwy@swgas.com'; 'johnwalley@swgas.com'; 'napedersen@jonesday.com';
'rpetti@ladwp.com'; 'eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us'; 'slins@ci.glendale.ca.us';
'bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us'; 'roger.pelote@williams.com';
'douglas.porter@sce.com'; 'gloria.ing@sce.com'; 'burkee@cts.com';
'jleslie@luce.com'; 'gsullivan@sempra.com'; 'jsteffen@iid.com';
'haorndorff@aeraenergy.com'; 'kbhensman@aeraenergy.com';
'mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com'; 'bfinkelstein@turn.org'; Farrar, Darwin;
McNamara, Michael D.; Gileau, Patrick L.; 'joseh@lif.org'; 'joseh@lif.org';
'chj@a-klaw.com'; 'ek@a-klaw.com'; 'evk1@pge.com'; 'epoole@adplaw.com';
'bcragg@gmssr.com'; 'chilen@llgm.com'; 'jmct@gmssr.com';
'jkarp@whitecase.com'; 'jkarp@whitecase.com'; 'lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com';
'rick.counihan@greenmountain.com'; 'mday@gmssr.com'; 'edwardoneill@dwt.com';
'grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us';
'raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us'; 'rochmanm@cubjpa.org';
'jcattermole@pcenergy.com'; 'igsinc@ix.netcom.com'; 'craigc@calpine.com';
'gtbl@dynegy.com'; 'joe.paul@dynegy.com'; 'kfyip@seiworldwide.com';
'davef@abag.ca.gov'; 'garyb@abag.ca.gov'; 'ceyap@earthlink.net';
'askaff@energy-law-group.com'; 'pjpowerlaw@aol.com';
'tomb@crossborderenergy.com'; 'jweil@aglet.org'; 'dcarroll@dbsr.com';
'ed@clfp.com'; 'jtachera@energy.state.ca.us'; 'gtbl@dynegy.com';
'iep@iepa.com'; 'lmh@eslawfirm.com'; 'kmills@cfbf.com';
'ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com'; 'alan_reid@pcp.ca'; 'rfoss@coral-energy.com';
'tom.roth@et.pge.com'; 'ronknecht@aol.com';
'furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil'; 'aod@newsdata.com';
'rgloistein@orrick.com'; 'salleyoo@dwt.com'; 'igsinc@ix.netcom.com';
'rbw@mrwassoc.com'; 'rczahar@aol.com'; 'stomashe@energy.state.ca.us';
'karen@klindh.com'; Stevens, Maria E.; 'jwr@cpuc.ca.gov'; Quan, Edwin; Wong,
John S.; Myers, Richard A.; Pocta, Robert M.; White, Rosalina; Sarvate,
Sarita; Horner, Trina; Beck, Valerie; 'mjaske@energy.state.ca.us';
'bwood@energy.state.ca.us'
Cc: Susanto, Gaby; Wong, John S.; Bilas, Richard A.
Subject: I9907003 Ruling re Notice of a Full Panel Hearing

 - CPUC01-#97463-v1-I9907003_Bilas_Ruling_.doc