it boggles the mind
----- Forwarded by Shawna Flynn/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000 01:23 PM -----

	Marcus Nettelton@ENRON
	11/30/2000 08:49 AM

		 To: Shawna Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Confidentiality
Agreements

What do you think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron on 11/30/2000
08:47 AM ---------------------------
From: Alan Aronowitz@ECT on 11/29/2000 06:40 PM
To: Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Confidentiality
Agreements

Thanks for your replies. One area that has concerned me is the possibility of
a claim by our CA counterparty that we developed an idea using in part their
information, when in fact we independently developed the concept.  have seen
some CA's that expressly address this as an exception to the definition of
Confidential Information. Also, how should we address the point Mark raised
about the development of ideas jointly while in discussions with the
counterparty. I
Let's get together to talk further about this next week when Mark G. gets
back from Canada.

I'll set up the meeting.

Alan

	Marcus Nettelton@ENRON
	11/29/2000 05:40 PM

		 To: Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Confidentiality
Agreements

Not quite sure what you mean by "information developed" from a value or
exploitation perspective, or understand the exposure you believe we have
under our existing, well drafted confidentiality agreements, to which I take
no credit whatsoever, unfortunately.

We should not be using the information disclosed by a counterparty for any
purpose other than to evaluate and negotiate any possible transaction with
that counterparty. To use it for any other purpose would be in breach of the
confidentiality agreement. Since we are discussing the information and
disclosing it to each other it is caught by the confidentiality undertakings.

If we develop any  information independently without the benefit of any
confidential information received from the disclosing counterparty, then of
course we can claim it as ours, before expiry of the term of the
confidentiality agreement, and protect it accordingly and the counterparty
would have to establish that we did not develop it independently without the
benefit of their confidential information.

During the period of the confidentiality agreement, ownership of information
that we developed using a counterparty's confidential information is not an
issue, since we can only use it for the purposes set out in the relevant
confidentiality agreement. If we want to use it for any other purpose, during
the term of the confidentiality agreement, we will need to reach agreement
with the counterparty as to any rights for exploitation in a substantive
agreement, recognising that we may will be mixing intellectual property
rights.

Regards

Marcus

Mark Greenberg
11/27/2000 04:46 PM
To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Confidentiality
Agreements

Alan -

I agree that we need to make some revisions and, having read Marcus'
comments, I agree also that broad language covers the general concepts.  I
believe ownership of information developed during discussions will be the hot
area, especially where we are discussing projects with companies while we
developed parallel projects.  These situations make Enron an easy target.

Though the general language of the agreement covers this generally, enhanced
language should be considered.

Please let me know if you want to pursue this further.

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

	Alan Aronowitz@ECT
	11/27/2000 02:55 PM

		 To: Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Confidentiality
Agreements

I have been thinking that we should enhance our Confidentiality Agreement
forms to address IP issues to protect Enron's interests. Do you concur that
we should do something? If so what modifications should be made? Peter Mims,
the VE lawyer at the offsite last Octobe, might be a good person to work with
on this project.

Advise me of your thoughts.

Alan


sure--it's on its way...

Alma Martinez@ENRON
12/28/2000 01:49 PM
To: Jeffrey A Shankman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re:

Can you send a runner to my location?   I'd like to start reading.  Work is
slow.


probability   * payout =
1 heads         .5  0 = 0
   tails  2 heads        .25  1  = .25
      tails  3 heads     .125  2 = .25
       tails  4 heads   .0625  4 = .25
         tails  5 heads .03125  8 = .25

"Eva Pao" <epao@mba2002.hbs.edu> on 05/13/2001 03:23:47 PM
Please respond to <epao@mba2002.hbs.edu>
To: <John.Arnold@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: waiting

which game is that?

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Arnold@enron.com [mailto:John.Arnold@enron.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 5:16 PM
To: epao@mba2002.hbs.edu
Subject: Re: waiting

Expected value of game = 1/2 * 0 + 1/4 * 1 + 1/8 *2 + 1/16 *4 +1/32 *
8+....
                   = 0        +.25       +.25      +.25      +.25      +...
                   = infinity

"Eva Pao" <epao@mba2002.hbs.edu> on 05/13/2001 03:11:46 PM

Please respond to <epao@mba2002.hbs.edu>

To:   <John.Arnold@enron.com>
cc:
Subject:  waiting

-----Original Message-----
From: John.Arnold@enron.com [mailto:John.Arnold@enron.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 4:37 PM
To: epao@mba2002.hbs.edu
Subject: Re: Extra credit

rules to a game:
You flip a coin. If you get tails you win 0.  if you get heads, i give you
$1.  Keep flipping until you get a tails, at which point you walk away with
the money.  however, each heads you get after the first you double your
money.  So if you flip heads 3 times and then tails, you get $4.  What's
you bid/offer on playing this game?  (would you pay $.5 to play? $1? $2?
what you charge me play against you?)


Please see attached.

 - EL01-55.1


I couldn't agree with you more.  Mike missed the point of our phone call this
week.  It was not to discuss the fine points of doorstep process or
etiquette!  The point was ownership of an integration process and deadlines
that were missed.  And how telling that when asked bluntly about his comfort
level with controls for US operations that Mike's response was a deferral to
Marcelo.  I have a one-hour conference call set up with Mike tomorrow.  This
is one of the things that we will discuss.  --Sally
---------------------- Forwarded by Sally Beck/HOU/ECT on 11/09/2000 05:56 PM
---------------------------

From:  Cassandra Schultz @ ENRON
               11/09/2000 02:50 PM

To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: Jordan's comments on Doorstep meeting

From Ted...
---------------------- Forwarded by Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron on 11/09/2000
02:47 PM ---------------------------

From:  Ted Murphy @ ECT
      11/09/2000 05:52 AM

To: Cassandra Schultz/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Doorstep meeting

Cassandra,
I think Michael's issue is just one for you and Shona to worry about and try
to simultaneously come up with a way to diffuse without bastardizing the
process. .  I continue to say the we need to maintain the theme that speed
and "gut reaction" is preferable to consensus and prosecutable evidence,  I
feel so strongly about this that I would consider removing my team from
involvement if politically correct, grammatically sound and properly
researched reports that do not say anything or are stale or are full of
ambiguity are the end result (see the internal audit report on
Helsinki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!).   I think the solution is make it clear that these reports are not to
be used for prosecution but frank discussion.
I am right about this.
Please forward this to Shona/Sally/Mike or anyone else at your discretion
(this is a compromise between Evil Ted and Zen Ted)

Ted


Well, guys sorry it has taken me so long to get this out.  But attached is
	the list of functions that we could designate certain assistants to be
	primary and secondary knowledge base.

	Please review and let me know of changes and additions you would like to see
	by Tuesday, July 17th.  Then I will recap for the Wednesday meeting.

	Thanks. Lynn


I left Vance a voice mail message yesterday but he was out sick.  He called
me back and said there shouldn't be any flow at meter 9707 and there wasn't a
deal in place with United Oil & Minerals.

Bob
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT on 10/03/2000 01:15
PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Robert Cotten                           10/03/2000 11:39 AM

To: Vance L Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Aimee Lannou/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Meter 9707

Vance,

Did you find out anything about the purchase from United Oil & Minerals at
meter 9707?

Bob

---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT on 10/03/2000 11:34
AM ---------------------------
Aimee Lannou   10/03/2000 11:26 AM

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Meter 9707

FYI - there is flow for 10/2 as well.

AL

Daren J Farmer
10/02/2000 02:23 PM
To: Aimee Lannou/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Meter 9707

I rolled this deal for day one in October only.

Bob - Please check with Vance on this deal.  Has it terminated or should it
roll for October.  I don't think that Vance nom'd anything.

D

Aimee Lannou   10/02/2000 10:49 AM

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Cotten/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Meter 9707

Daren - Meter 9707 has flow for Oct. 1 (1.459mmbtu).  Deal # 125786 was used
for Sept. 2000.  Could you please extend the deal or have a new one
created?    Thanks.

AL


Do you have the dial-in number to listen to the FERC meeting?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Novosel, Sarah
Sent:	Friday, November 16, 2001 2:43 PM
To:	Presto, Kevin M.; Davis, Mark Dana; Broderick, Paul J.; Herndon, Rogers; Will, Lloyd; Belden, Tim; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Nicolay, Christi L.; Robertson, Linda; Nord, Sue; Shelk, John; Fromer, Howard; Allegretti, Daniel; Hoatson, Tom; Alvarez, Ray; Mara, Susan; Comnes, Alan; May, Tom; Letzerich, Palmer; Lindberg, Susan
Subject:	FERC's November 20 Agenda

The following proceedings that we've been following for some time are on FERC's agenda for Tuesday, November 20.

AEP's Three Year Update of its Market Based Rates

As you may recall, in August, 2000, AEP filed its triennial market based rates review with FERC.  On September 21, 2000 and again on October 20, 2000, EPMI protested that filing, arguing that AEP has market power in transmission so it should not be permitted to continue charging market based rates for wholesale power sales.  Now, 15 months later, FERC is planning to act on the filing.

"Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations"

This proceeding may be linked to the AEP proceeding, although the two are listed separately on FERC's agenda.  While we are not certain what FERC intends to do in this docket, they could be opening up a new investigation into all market based rate authorizations, including non-utility generators and power marketers.  We will monitor this closely and let you know about the proceeding as soon as we learn about it on Tuesday.

Bangor Hydro vs. ISO NE

Bangor Hydro filed a complaint against ISO NE on June 15, 2001 arguing that, due to a design flaw in the electronic dispatch, the ISO should reset the Energy Clearing Prices that were impacted by this design flaw from December 9, 2001 through the end of March.  The ISO opposes Bangor's complaint, stating that it cannot reset prices pursuant to Market Rule 15 unless there was a specific, identifiable error and the ISO posted notice of the error within a certain time period after the error is detected.

New York ISO Extension of Automated Mitigation Procedures

The NYISO filed to extend its AMP until October 31, 2002.  Many parties oppose the extension, others support it.

New England ISO ICAP Proceeding

The Commission issued an order on August 28 regarding the ICAP deficiency charge.  Several parties sought rehearing.  The proceeding on the agenda may be the Commission's order on those rehearing requests.

ConEd's In City Mitigation

ConEd filed to extend the in-city mitigation procedures through October 31, 2002.  Several parties protested, others support it.

Maine PUC v. ISO NE; UI v. ISO NE; Bangor Hydro v. ISO NE

Several entities (Maine PUC, UI, and Bangor Hydro) filed complaints against ISO NE in August, 2000 arguing that the ISO should restate the $6,000 Energy Clearing Price that occurred on May 8, 2000.  18 months later, it looks like FERC may be ready to act on these complaints.

HQ Energy v. NYISO

HQ filed a compliant against the NYISO on December 12, 2000 arguing that the ISO erroneously restated the energy market clearing price for May 8, 2000.  The Commission may be ready to act on this complaint as well.

Because the New England complaints and HQ complaint all relate to the high energy prices that occurred on May 8, 2000, and whether the ISOs should have restated those prices, it is likely that the Commission will rule the same way in each of the proceedings (either that the ISO should have reset the prices or shouldn't have).

Reliant and Mirant v. CAISO

On October 18, 2001, Reliant and Mirant filed a complaint against the ISO arguing that the ISO is giving preferential treatment to the DWR and CERS and is not following the OOM tariff provisions.  EPMI submitted comments in support of the complaint.  The case is on the Commission's agenda for Tuesday.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/24/2000
01:10 PM ---------------------------

"Martin Jermakyan" <martin@electrapartners.com> on 04/24/2000 09:59:38 AM
Please respond to "Martin Jermakyan" <martin@electrapartners.com>
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: My resume

Dear Vince,

Attached please find an updated resume of mine.

I have been continuing my research in the area of pricing, risk management
and asset management of power industry.  It seems to me that the framework I
have been working on does allow addressing some fundamental issues and
allows describing the salient features of power markets.  I feel a brief
info may inform you what have I been up to.

Conceptually speaking, my approach relies on the understudying that the
absence of cash and carry implies non-hedgibility of the most fundamental
building blocks of power market - forward contracts of hourly duration.
This clearly demands a risk premium embedded in power prices.  I have been
able to develop a machinery to capture this risk premium, and calculate its
impact on pricing of other products.  In particular, the method allows
consistent generation of hourly forward curve (per each geographic region),
hence generation of forward curves of longer duration.  It provides us not
only with forward curves, but also their physical (not risk-neutral)
distribution.  It also allows one to analyze the sensitivity of the forward
curve with respect to the volumetric risk.  As a fundamental  input ,  I
consider the ratio of properly compounded generation output (load) and the
corresponding maximum available generation supply.  The first one is well
observable and forecastable due to its stationarity.  The second one  is
defined by the first one and the generation and transmission profile of the
region.  Much of the required information is in the public domain.

The market price of risk incorporated in the model depends on this ratio and
the calendar time.  This time dependence of the market price of risk allows
capturing of the dynamics of the returns per unit risk over time, and its
dependence on the ratio mentioned above reflects the intuition and the
reality that closer the demand to the maximum available supply higher
compensation do the investors expect.

I have also realized that the transmission related factors may be
incorporated into this framework in a very consistent and robust manner.

This approach also allows quantification of the margins as a stochastic
process dependent on the volumetric factors, among other things.  It allows
posing and solving the problem of maximization of the margins while keeping
their variance under control in a very elegant and robust way.

I have developed the first version of mathematical tools and prototype
software reflecting all these issues.  My inability to complete this program
has been resulted from the severe instability, lack of access and the cash
flow problems I have experienced in the last few years.  I have also
understood that programs of this magnitude cannot be finished from the
"grandpa's garage."

Nevertheless, I think I have developed a very systematic and robust
understanding and methodology, and at least, I have convinced myself that
this approach leads to a comprehensive system.

With all this said, I don't want to make an impression of a stiff person,
who has his agenda and under any circumstances is willing to push it
forward.  I have always been very flexible, and in my consulting experience,
I have always accommodated the needs and wishes on my clients.  In my short
period of employment with Altra I have been very ethical, I have played by
the rules, I have done whatever I have been asked to do, and have been a
team player.  The reasons they have asked me to resign have nothing to do
with me personally.  They have been respectful to me, they have valued me as
capable person, but have found that given the direction of the company
(which has become self-evident with the consequent developments), "further
Altra goes, further I will be frustrated with where they go."  It was almost
formulated that it is better for me to separate from Altra as soon as I can.
As an evidence of appreciation, they have continued paying me as of today,
something that they have not done for some others, but it is coming to its
end, too.  I am bringing this up just to reiterate that my separation from
Altra has had nothing to do with me or my entrepreneurial working style vs.
corporate style, etc.  I have no doubts that I can function equally well in
either environment.

I wish that your presentation goes well with your new superior, and that my
joining Enron becomes a possibility.

Regards,
Martin

 - martin.doc


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	Sally update mtg

Date:		9/20/2000
Time:		9:00 AM - 10:00 AM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Outlook Migration Team

Detailed Description:


Start Date: 12/23/01; HourAhead hour: 18;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2001122318.txt


Hello All -- Attached is a memo highlighting the issue areas covered by staff at the ICC meeting in Chicago yesterday.  If you have any questions feel free to call.  It was strange to hear Tom Kennedy say that staff supports reasonable hedging practices and forward contract purchases while sitting next to Zuraski who opposed recovery of same in the PGLC fixed price docket.  Incidentally, Tom Kennedy noted several times that hedging will not necessarily reduce prices but will stabilize them.


Iroquois is offering to market ENA's capacity for $1.00 (see attachements at the bottom of this email).  Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Robin Zaleski" <robin_zaleski@iroquois.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Monday, January 28, 2002 1:49 PM
To:	Germany, Chris
Subject:	[Fwd: [Fwd: Enron noms]]

Chris

I checked our tariff and with our in house council and there is nothing that
precludes us from assisting you with marketing this capacity.  In fact, our
tariff provides for it in Section 28.15 of the General Terms & Conditions
(Transporter & Shipper negotiate a "marketing fee" for Transporter to
actively market capacity on behalf of Shipper).  So as not to set a
precedent of doing it for free, I've attached a letter agreement for a token
$1 marketing fee.  What is the protocol (and likelihood) of having something
like this signed?

Once the capacity is offered and a replacement shipper is found, all three
parties would sign a permanent release agreement, a pro forma of which is
also attached.  Basically it outlines who the parties are, what agreements
are in place, and takes all the liability (and right of first refusal) off
of you and puts it on the Replacement Shipper.  Enron has signed a similar
agreement in the past regarding the majority of volumes on the same contract
when it released them to ProGas in 1997.

Please call me to discuss and/or if you need the relevant tariff page faxed
to you.

robin

--

Robin Zaleski
Market Services Coordinator
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
p] 203-925-7274
f] 203-929-9501
e] robin_zaleski@iroquois.com

Robin Zaleski wrote:

> Chris
>
> Since you are not using the smaller contract at all, and it is a true
> Enron contract (as opposed to capacity release), you can release that one
> as well, to anyone.  We may be able to help you find a home for it.  The
> liability right now is about $27,000 a month.
>
> Call me to discuss.
>
> robin
>
> Robin Zaleski wrote:
>
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > Pursuant to our conversation, the last nom activity was:
> >
> > 1250-05 (2,017 Dth/d):
> > "jcollins" zeroed out the nom on 12/04/01 for the 12/05/01 gas day and
> > forward
> >
> > 1250-08 (35,679 Dth/d):
> > "jcollins" zeroed out the nom on 12/04/01 for the 12/05/01 gas day and
> > forward
> >
> > I forgot to give you Ivy's number when we spoke.  Call her at
> > 203-944-7020 and she will walk you through the capacity release process
> > on Iroquois OnLine.
> >
> > take care
> >
> > r
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robin Zaleski
> > Market Services Coordinator
> > Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
> > p] 203-925-7274
> > f] 203-929-9501
> > e] robin_zaleski@iroquois.com

 - Enron_mktg_fee.doc
 - Enron_perm_release.doc


----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 10/25/2000 07:36 AM -----

	"DOE-NARUC Summit Team" <ibarreto@caem.org>
	10/25/2000 07:12 AM
	Please respond to ibarreto

		 To: "North American Summit Stakeholder" <ibarreto@caem.org>
		 cc:
		 Subject: DOE-NARUC North American Summit on Harmonizing Business Practices
in Energy Restructuring: Early Registration Deadline

DOE and NARUC are hosting the North American Summit on Harmonizing Business
Practices in Energy Restructuring on November 29 to December 1 in Dallas.
More information is available at http://www.energymarkets.org.

Just a quick note to remind you that the early registration discount
deadline is Friday, October 27.  To register, go to
http://www.naruc.org/Meetings/NA_Summit/registration.htm.

Please forward this email to colleagues who may be interested in this event.

 - winmail.dat


Once again it is our intention to have the $21MM count toward the Budget.
What is not firmly established is the total budget amount. We are removing
the contingency which reduces the budget but that is offset by some fuel oil
expense and F/X expense which is increasing.  Please plan for you and Laine
to be available Monday AM to make sure we are all on the same page once this
all settles.

Richard A Lammers
12/15/2000 05:14 PM
To: Felipe Ospina/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tracee Bersani@ECT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cuiaba Lender Package

lets fight for the reduction in cash anyway

Felipe Ospina
12/15/2000 06:59 PM
To: Richard A Lammers/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Tracee Bersani@ECT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Cuiaba Lender Package

Ok. However, I dont see a reduction from cash from operations in the models
that were sent to the lenders in August by Roberto. I dont remember either
Robert or Roberto mentioning this assumptions at that time either. Thanks.

Richard A Lammers
12/15/2000 04:56 PM
To: Felipe Ospina/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tracee Bersani@ECT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cuiaba Lender Package

Wait for Rob and send  to shell simultaneouse with the banks

Felipe Ospina
12/15/2000 06:46 PM
To: Richard A Lammers/SA/Enron@Enron
cc: Tracee Bersani@ECT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Cuiaba Lender Package

I included cash from operations in the Project Cost Tab in the Consolidated
Model to match the reconciliation file that Tracee has which will be shown to
the lenders. If everyone agrees I can send to Shell so they can start
reviewing, but what Tracee told me was that she and Rob and want to sign off
first and they are still reviewing the models.

Richard A Lammers
12/15/2000 04:36 PM
To: Felipe Ospina/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: Tracee Bersani@ECT, Christiaan
Huizer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Laine A
Powell/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Rob G Gay/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Cuiaba Lender Package

hy are we excludung cash from the lender model.Did we not do this last time.I
think shell required this. We also need to put on these models that this is
Enron's latest update and send to shell simultaneaously or get shell's
approval first( which ain't going to happen quick)


I will attend.
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 05/16/2001 03:22 PM -----

	Julia Murray@ENRON
	Sent by: Carolyn George@ENRON
	05/15/2001 03:59 PM

		 To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandi M Braband/HOU/ECT@ECT, Teresa G
Bushman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barton Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter del Vecchio/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacy E
Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shawna Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barbara N Gray/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Wayne Gresham/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie
Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Anne
C Koehler/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Lyons/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Travis McCullough/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet H
Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT, Julia Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Portz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth
Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lance
Schuler-Legal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carol St
Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lou Stoler/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sheila
Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Viverito/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ann Elizabeth White/HOU/ECT@ECT, Donna
Lowry/Enron@EnronXGate, Susan Bailey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberlee A
Bennick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Genia FitzGerald/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nony Flores/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Linda R Guinn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ed B Hearn III/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary J
Heinitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Deb Korkmas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laurie
Mayer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matt Maxwell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Ogden/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kay
Young/HOU/ECT@ECT, Merrill W Haas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Greenberg/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Robert Bruce/NA/Enron@Enron, Samantha Boyd/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary
Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Angela Davis/NA/Enron@Enron, Stephanie
Panus/NA/Enron@Enron, Marcus Nettelton/NA/Enron@ENRON, Brent
Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Michelle Blaine/ENRON@enronXgate, Gail
Brownfeld/ENRON@enronXgate, Dominic Carolan/Enron@EnronXGate, Eddy
Daniels/NA/Enron@Enron, Andrew Edison/NA/Enron@Enron, Roseann
Engeldorf/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert H George/NA/Enron@Enron, Cheryl
Nelson/NA/Enron@Enron, Cheryl Lindeman/ENRON@enronXgate, Carlos
Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, Randy Young/NA/Enron@Enron, Kathleen
Carnahan/NA/Enron@Enron, Diane Goode/NA/Enron@Enron, Nancy
Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Ned E
Crady/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Francisco Pinto
Leite/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Coralina
Rivera/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Daniel R
Rogers/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Frank
Sayre/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Martha
Braddy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Sarah
Bruck/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, William S
Bradford/Enron@EnronXGate, Debbie R Brackett/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom
Moran/Enron@EnronXGate, Wendi LeBrocq/Enron@EnronXGate, Nidia
Mendoza/ENRON@enronXgate, Veronica Espinoza/Enron@EnronXGate, Ken
Curry/Enron@EnronXGate, Carol North/Enron@EnronXGate, Aparna
Rajaram/Enron@EnronXGate
		 cc:
		 Subject: Letter of Credit Seminar - May 23, 2001

 Please mark your calendars.  Emory Ireland and Martin Weinstein of Foley &
Lardner will be conducting a presentation regarding the nuts and bolts of
Letters of Credit on Wednesday, May 23, 2001 from 8:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in
EB5C2.  Please RSVP to Carolyn George at ext. 33439 or
carolyn.george@enron.com if you plan to attend.

Thank you,

Julia Heintz Murray
Enron Wholesale Services
Enron Industrial Markets LLC
1400 Smith Street, EB3838
Houston, TX  77002
(713) 853-4794
Fax:  (713) 646-3393
julia.murray@enron.com


It's more talent than I can remember.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:11 PM
To: Nancy.Sellers@RobertMondavi.com; eldon@interx.net
Subject:

Thanks again for a truly fun New Year's.  I had a great time, and it was
fun spending it with you two.  When I think of all that talent, together in
one house---astounding!  Really fun.  Thanks.


I ran a redline from the last version I had electronically.

I've forwarded the current version to Herman for his review and approval.
Due to some of the changes, Enron may need some revisions as well.

Kay


- 12_31_01ON.xls


Bill:
Thanks for the information.  I need to take a closer look at Janet's
language, particularly the "null and void" language to make sure that it
covers all possible events of default under the Master Agreement.  As to the
Texas law issue, our ability to get comfortable from a legal standpoint will
in large part be dictated by this issue.  Is there anyway to get more
certainty on this with the sureties?  I understand that you don't want to go
to them multiple times but this is a key issue for us.  Let me know what you
think.

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

	boldham@reliant.com
	06/04/2001 03:35 PM

		 To: carol.st.clair@enron.com
		 cc: jkgreene@reliant.com
		 Subject: Re: Update

Carol:

The attached two e-mails are in response to your inquiry of 6-1-01.  If you
have any questions, let me know.

Bill Oldham
Director, Insurance Risk Management
Reliant Energy Incorporated
Telephone No.713/207-3131
FAX No. 713/207-3251
email:    bill-oldham@reliantenergy.com
----
----- Forwarded by Bill Oldham/ADM/HouInd on 06/04/01 10:19 AM -----

                    Michael_Herrod@a
                    rs.aon.com              To:     boldham@reliant.com
                                            cc:     Dan_Burton@ars.aon.com,
John_Rathmell@ars.aon.com,
                    06/04/01 09:59          Kevin_Sparks@ars.aon.com,
Margaret_Buboltz@ars.aon.com,
                    AM                      Margaret_Gibson@ars.aon.com
                                            Subject:     Re: Update

In my opinion, the wording suggested by Janet Green should be acceptable.
We
will have to have this wording formally approved by the surety companies
prior
to issuance.  I would like to avoid approaching the sureties until all
questions
have been addressed and all changes have been made.  In regards the bonds
being
subject to Texas law, I do not see that as being a problem.  We will
address
that with the sureties along with other potential changes.

In response to previous email, neither Dan nor I know of an attorney that
would
be willing or able to write an opinion in regards the applicability of the
Appleton Law.  As discussed during the meeting, this law has nothing to do
with
the viability of an exisitng surety bond.  If a surety issued a bond that
was
later found to be in violation of Appleton, they would be fined by the
State of
New York.  It does not make the bond invalid.  MJH

----- Forwarded by Bill Oldham/ADM/HouInd on 06/04/01 07:32 AM -----

                    Janet K Greene
                                         To:     Bill
Oldham/ADM/HouInd@HouInd
                    06/03/01 05:23       cc:
                    PM                   Subject:     Re: Update(Document
link:
Bill Oldham)

What if we said:  "if the
Principal shall promptly and faithfully perform its obligations under the
Confirm, which is a part of and governed by the Master Agreement, then this
obligation shall be null and void"

With respect to her second point, what if we again said "an Event of
Default has occurred under the Confirm, which is a part of and governed by
the Master Agreement"?

I think she is trying to clarify in the language that the bond can be
called for an Event of Default under the Master Agreement, which could have
nothing to do with the Confirm - - - which is factually correct.

Janet K. Greene
Reliant Resources, Inc.
1111 Louisiana, Suite 4300
Houston, TX 77002
713-207-5732
fax: 713-207-0141
jkgreene@reliant.com

                    Bill Oldham
                                         To:     Carol.St.Clair@enron.com
                    06/01/01 09:27       cc:     Edward.Sacks@enron.com,
janet-greene@reliantenergy.com,
                    AM                   Wendy.Conwell@enron.com, Bill T
Hamilton/TTG/HouInd@HouInd, William
                                         Waller/ADM/HouInd@HouInd, Rex
Clevenger/ADM/HouInd@HouInd
                                         Subject:     Re: Update(Document
link:
Janet K Greene)

Carol:

Thankyou for the attached.  I believe the governing law for each issuing
surety will be the law where the surety is domiciled, but let me do some
checking and confirm this.  Also, will get back to you on your comments Re
the language in our recommended bond form...probably Monday or Tuesday next
week.  Thanks for your continued efforts in this matter.

Bill Oldham
Director, Insurance Risk Management
Reliant Energy Incorporated
Telephone No.713/207-3131
FAX No. 713/207-3251
email:    bill-oldham@reliantenergy.com

                    Carol.St.Clair
                    @enron.com            To:
bill-oldham@reliantenergy.com
                                          cc:
janet-greene@reliantenergy.com, Edward.Sacks@enron.com,
                    06/01/01 09:02        Wendy.Conwell@enron.com
                    AM                    Subject:     Update

Bill:
I spoke with our outside counsel yesterday and we have some more follow up
work that we need to do on our side.  One issue that may be of some
importance to us in our analysis is determining what the governing law of
the surety bond will be for each issuer, and more importantly, whether we
can have the bonds governed by Texas law.  Can you answer this for me?

Also, with respect to the form of the bond itself, as we mentioned at the
meeting, the language in the third paragraph which states that "if the
Principal shall promptly and faithfully provide the Firm energy as defined
in the Confirm, hen this obligation shall be null and void," does not work
for us.  Has anyone come up with alternative language?  Finally, with
respect to the Notice of Claim, we would like for the certification to say
something like, "an Event of Default has occurred under the Master
Agreement" rather than tie it to a specific default under the Confirmation.
Does that work for the sureties?

I look forward to hearing from you.

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


One of your friends sent this email through our website.
Friend's name: Angela  Barnett
Friend's IP address: 192.152.140.9
Date and Time: 11/11/00 7:36:16 AM EST
See the bottom of this message to report abuse.

Hi,

Angela  Barnett would like you to see this Web page:

http://www.daily-blessings.com/bless136p.htm

this is nice

================================================
Angela  Barnett also included this note:

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

Win a Billion Dollars!
Win a Billion Dollars!
Win a Billion Dollars!
Win a Billion Dollars!

go to:
http://mailbits.net/grab/taf.asp
Win a Billion Dollars !!!

____
***IMPORTANT NOTE***

This is a free service provided by MailBits.com.
Compared to regular email, this is a better way to
recommend a website to your friends. That's because
information about the sender of the message is included
to prevent and catch abuse of the system.

To report abuse of this service: abuse-taf@mailbits.com


Benjamin:

>My name is Ben Rogers and I am currently applying to
The Texas Business School.
I am coming to visit the
school on Friday, Feb. 18th and was wondering if you had time to talk to
me about the Energy/Corporate Finance Program.

I would be pleased to meet with you in the morning hours of Fri.

Ehud Ronn

==============================================
     Ehud I. Ronn
     Department of Finance
     College and Graduate School of Business
     University of Texas at Austin
     Austin, TX. 78712-1179
     Voice:  (512) 471-5853
      FAX:   (512) 471-5073
      Internet:  eronn@mail.utexas.edu
=================================================


Chris Kornmann
828 Waring Avenue
Bronx, NY 10467
spitandimage@earthlink.net

To Mr. Ken Lay,

I'm writing to urge you to donate the millions of dollars you made from selling Enron stock before the company declared bankruptcy to funds, such as Enron Employee Transition Fund and REACH, that benefit the company's employees, who lost their retirement savings, and provide relief to low-income consumers in California, who can't afford to pay their energy bills.  Enron and you made millions out of the pocketbooks of California consumers and from the efforts of your employees.

Indeed, while you netted well over a $100 million, many of Enron's employees were financially devastated when the company declared bankruptcy and their retirement plans were wiped out.  And Enron made an astronomical profit during the California energy crisis last year.  As a result, there are thousands of consumers who are unable to pay their basic energy bills and the largest utility in the state is bankrupt.

The New York Times reported that you sold $101 million worth of Enron stock while aggressively urging the company's employees to keep buying it.  Please donate this money to the funds set up to help repair the lives of those Americans hurt by Enron's underhanded dealings.

Sincerely,

Chris Kornmann


FYI...

GCP has received the 30 New Clickpaper Counterparty setup requests.
The estimated time of the input completion is 5pm, 03/01/01.

In the future, advance warning would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks !!

Samuel x3-9890
(GCP_Enron Networks)

From: Aparna Rajaram/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/28/2001 02:24 PM
To: Camille Gerard/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary G Gosnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Samuel
Schott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Adnan Patel/ENRON@enronXgate, Tanya
Rohauer/ENRON@enronXgate, Paul Radous/ENRON@enronXgate, Tom
Moran/ENRON@enronXgate, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Frank L Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ken Curry/ENRON@enronXgate, Nicole
Hunter/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: ClickPaper approvals, 2-28-01

Please see attached.

Regards,

Aparna Rajaram
ext. 5-4563


Topic for John on Monday - for me to tell him what's going on in Europe, particularly the UK.

R

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	McCormack, Tracie
Sent:	Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:39 AM
To:	Hillis, Kimberly
Subject:	RE: Richard Lewis Visist May 14th

9-10am is great for Richard.  Does John have his own office?  If not, would you book them a room for an hour or so.

Richard didn't mentioned a topic for the meeting, I think it's just a general catch-up.

Do let me know the room number, or the location of John's office.

Many thanks Kim,

Tracie


Start Date: 1/8/02; HourAhead hour: 10;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  Variances detected.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002010810.txt

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 10 / Preferred: 187.97 / Final: 187.94)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: SDG1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 1/8/02
  SC_ID: ENRJ


I agree with the rates below.

From: Joan Quick/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/16/2001 08:30 PM
To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Tricia Spence/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: trco rate changes

per mariner, zn 1 thru 3 rates have changed, effective april.  could you
please confirm the below....

zone 1:
TRANSPORT = 	$0.0642
FUEL % =	0.350%

zone 2:
TRANSPORT = 	$0.0680
FUEL % =	0.420%

zone 3:
TRANSPORT = 	$0.0774
FUEL % =	0.440%

thanks


Chris,

I am having trouble accessing the in-house 6-10 day weather comparison on the fundy's site. Can you make sure I have access to the whole site?

Thanx

Chris Dorland


Start Date: 10/17/01; HourAhead hour: 24;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  Variances detected.
Variances detected in Energy Import/Export schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2001101724.txt

Error retrieving HourAhead price data - process continuing...
---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 24 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/17/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_SRP
  ENGY_TYPE: FIRM


Dear all,

Attached is Anjam's reasoning and final version of the UK PPI PLLU model.

The UK Inflation Book's main exposure is to two PPI indexes - the PLLU and
the DZCV through year 2010. Both are PPI Output indexes with very comparable
baskets. The only significant difference between the two is the presence of
energy in the PLLU (7.6%). The model in use escalates the two indexes by the
same factors. However, with the energy price fluctuations in recent years
different models for the two indexes would reflect better the nature of their
drivers. Anjam concentrated on the PLLU index first and he will shortly
construct one for the DZCV based on the same methodology, but without the
Brent Crude curve.

The new model achieves the two main objectives of the PPI curve: it is
significantly more robust and stable than the existing one, and it is
considerably less sensitive to the input coefficients. This will result in us
having more confidence in our monthly P&L as well as less fluctuations.

Best regards,

Martina
x34327

Anjam Ahmad
10/03/2000 11:59
To: Martina Angelova/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: New Update on PPI Model for Inflation Book

Dear all,

I followed up on the suggestions of happening babe at the conference call as
follows:-

1) USE LESS DATA

Unfortunately, kicking out only 1990 makes the overall equation a lot less
robust, in fact dramatically so, and so eliminates the possibility of using
less data.  The model tested was the RPI(month+15) & Deviations from
long-term average for Brent Crude.  The r-squared and F-statistic collapsed
by eliminating the first 12 months of data.

2) DEVIATIONS IN CRUDE VARIABLE

Shifting the crude explanatory variable backwards and forward by 3 and 6
months did not alter the model goodness-of-fit parameters dramatically and so
my suggestion is that we stick with the following model:

PLLU[t] = a.RPI[t] + b.RPI[t+15] + c.BrentCrudeDeviations[t] + Constant

3) TESTING MODEL WITH SINE WAVE

To gauge the response of the model to wildly-varying RPI forward curve, a
sine wave of period 3 years for RPI was input into the PPI model.  The result
was as expected; PPI pre-empts the moves in RPI by about 8 months.  The
magnitude of the oscillations is also reduced.  This shows that if we had
more detail in our RPI forward curve, then the PPI model would reflect those
peaks and humps adequately.

CONCLUSION

I therefore propose that we use the model that incorporates RPI, RPI[t+15]
and deviations of Brent Crude from long-term average.  The new model is
plotted below in burgundy and can be compared to the old PPI which is
depicted in blue.

Please note that all this analysis only applies to PLLU, and that a separate
study will be needed for the DZCV PPI index.

Regards,

Anjam
x35383

---------------------- Forwarded by Anjam Ahmad/LON/ECT on 09/03/2000 16:52
---------------------------

Anjam Ahmad
08/03/2000 14:03
To: Martina Angelova/LON/ECT@ECT, Harry Arora/HOU/ECT@ECT, Maureen
Raymond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT@ECT, Farouk Lalji/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Trena McFarland/LON/ECT@ECT, Dale Surbey/LON/ECT@ECT, Stinson
Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leandro
Ibasco/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Update on PPI Model for Inflation Book

Dear all,

We thought it might be useful to incorporate Brent crude as an explanatory
variable for PPI; it was found that deviations of Dated Brent Crude from the
long-term average of $18.80 was the best form of the variable to use (for
predictions the Brent forward curve produced by the Global Products Group is
used).  The three new equations developed were:-

PLLU(t) = a.RPI(t) + b.RPI(t+N) + c.(DatedBrentCrude - 18.8) + constant,
where N is 14,15 or 16
[REDDISH CURVES]
r-squared approx 0.49
F-stat approx 32

The chart below shows what our projected PLLU curve would be given this
equation, and also the three best relations from before which were based upon
current and future RPI:

PLLU(t) = a.RPI(t) + b.RPI(t+N) + constant, where N is 14,15 or 16
[GREENISH CURVES]
r-squared approx 0.47
F-stat approx 45

COMPARISON OF MODELS
As you can see, the two equations differ in the very short-term and very
long-term; the inclusion of deviations of Brent Crude leads to short-term
predictions of 3.0% to 3.2% over the next six months.  The greenish curves
predict PLLU in the range of 2.5% to 2.8% over the next six months.

The curves are then very similar until 2009, when the models including crude
break-away to the upside, relative to the falling RPI curve.  The model based
purely on RPI hugs the RPI curve much more closely in the longer term.  This
is only important to the extent that we have large positions beyond 2009
(which we don't).

SUGGESTION
What could be useful now is a differently-specified model designed to
forecast only the next 3 months, using auto-regressive or auto-regressive
error terms.  This model would be far more accurate in the near-term, and we
could include this information onto the front of this long-term model.  This
may be useful, despite the fact that most of our exposure is in future time
buckets.

BACK-TESTING

All the models give similar visual and statistical performance over the data
sample used (based mainly on 1990s "new paradigm" economy).

Hopefully we can discuss these and other points later in the tele-conference;
your ideas on this would be appreciated.

Regards,

Anjam
x35383


Start Date: 4/24/01; HourAhead hour: 18;  No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Generation schedule.
Variances detected in SC Trades schedule.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001042418.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 18 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EES
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  UNIT_ID: BADLND_7_PL1X2

---- SC Trades Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblInt_Interchange.
     Details: (Hour: 18 / Preferred: -575.00 / Final: -574.97)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: EPMI
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  TRADING_SC: NES1
  PNT_OF_INTRC: SP15
  SCHED_TYPE: ENGY
  PURCH_SALE: 1
  DEAL_NO: 1

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 18 / Preferred: 125.69 / Final: 125.38)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: SDG1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/24/01
  SC_ID: EPMI


Attached is the information you have requested.

Thanks,
Brad Jones


Attached is the above referenced document.

Angela D. Davis
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith, Suite 3842
Houston, Texas 77002
Tele. (713) 345-8347
Fax:  (713) 646-3393
e-mail:  angela.davis@enron.com


Jeff,

Following up on yesterday's conversation, SBX1 31 did contain some expedited
review provisions for CPUC and DWR decisions and was chaptered into law on
May 10.  The first special session ended on or about May 15 which means the
expedited provisions take effect on or about August 15.  The intent of the
budget language was to have that take effect even sooner.

Scott


I will be coming back on this flight.  Please disregard my request to go
directly to Las Vegas.  I will need a flight to Las Vegas on the following
Friday and returning Sunday morning.

Thanks,
Mike


Hope you are well!  I had a wonderful vacation in L.A.  I never made it to
either the Norton Simon or the Getty; I'll just have to plan another trip to
the west coast.

In connection with your recent review of our standard ISDA Schedule, Credit
Support Annex and legal opinion (the "Documents"), could you please advise as
the whether additional provisions are required or advisable in any of the
Documents when our counterparty is an Argentine public utility, municipality
or other type of regulated entity.  In the U.S., we use the ISDA
Multicurrency - Cross Border boilerplate and incorporate most of the ISDA
municipal language and some of our own into the Schedule for municipals and
governmental entities.  However, for public utilities which are general
corporates (and not governmentally owned), we take a different approach and
incorporate language which might trigger an "Additional Termination Event"
for "regulatory type developments" (e.g., orders issued by a public utility
commission) which would cause or might cause our master agreement to become
void or unenforceable or similar swap agreements to become void or
unenforceable.  For example:

"The filing of a motion, pleading, application or other similar action in any
proceeding or action by Party B, a commission, regulatory agency or other
entity having jurisdiction over Party B, in respect of Party B, or in respect
of any other similarly situated entity organized under the laws of the
state(s) in which Party B is located or regulated, to the effect that
performance under this Agreement or one or more Transactions hereunder or
similar agreements is unlawful or that this Agreement or one or more
Transactions hereunder or similar agreements are void or voidable."

By fax, I will send you our Municipal Schedule.

Please advise as to changes in both the (i) Schedule and (ii) legal opinion
for both (a) public utilities (corporates, non-governmental) and governmental
entities (municipals, public agencies, governmental utilities, etc.).  Please
call if you have any questions.  Regards.  Sara


Attached are clean and blacklined versions of the revised Capacity and Energy
Agreement.  Please be advised that this draft is still undergoing internal
review at Enron.   The bracketed items are areas that are still open.  Thank
you.

 - CLN10.DOC
 - RED10.DOC


WHERE are my macadamias?  Did you break the scales at the doctor?  Do you
know how funny I am?  I'm finally leaving for the evening, and I'm so psyched
to go home and play fetch with myself with the glow in the dark ball!  Have a
great weekend if I don't talk to you during the hour I'll be here in the
morn....

Hugs to Emma


Attached is a letter indicating that Imperial Irrigation District did not file any testimony under seal on November 6, 2001 in the California Refund proceeding (FERC Docket No. EL00-95-045).

JRS

 - EL00-95-045 IID Protective Order Ltr to ALJ.doc


if they demand this on thursday, i'm going to put their nat gas operation out of business.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Wesner-Soong, Sarah
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:49 PM
To:	Arnold, John
Subject:	RE: $25 million loan from EDf

Yes, we can wait until Thursday.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Arnold, John
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:46 PM
To:	Wesner-Soong, Sarah
Subject:	RE: $25 million loan from EDf

we have until thursday i believe

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Wesner-Soong, Sarah
Sent:	Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:07 PM
To:	Arnold, John
Subject:	$25 million loan from EDf

We are going to repay their loan tomorrow based on the notice we received from them that they were cancelling their line to us as of 11/5/2001.


---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 03/14/2000 08:48 AM
---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "Andrea Settanni" <asettanni@bracepatt.com>
03/14/2000 08:25 AM

To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Seasonal Rates

Mary-

Pursuant to your request, I reviewed FERC orders discussing seasonal rates.
Based on what I found, Dan was right, it does not seem that seasonal rates
are prohibited.  If proposed, however, seasonal rates must be cost
justified.  I did not come across any particular discussion of what kinds of
proof are necessary (you had asked about the time period for actual sales and
elasticity of demand).  I have included a few paragraphs below from FERC
orders that discuss seasonal rates, which may be useful to you.  Please let
us know if you would like us to look into this any further.  Andrea

Related to 205/206

ALJ-DEC, 35 FERC ?63,076, Union Electric Company, Docket No. ER84-560-000,
(June 04, 1986)
[65,264]

 It might be noted that UE could have established a seasonal/time-of-day rate
with cost justification or by explaining its departure from cost-based rates.
In Commonwealth Edison, the Presiding Judge rejected a higher seasonal demand
charge for the summer because it was not cost justified. He also held,
however, that where the rate design is not intended to reflect costs, the
applicant "must justify the departure from cost-based rates. 18 C.F.R. o35.
13(b)(4)(iii)." 15 FERC ?63,048, at p. 65,229 (1981).

UE made a valiant effort to comply. It attempted to relate the off-peak costs
to on-peak by its 50 percent discount argument and reference to its Exhibits
UE-28 and UE-19. These exhibits amply justify the on-peak costs but offer no
cost support for the off-peak discount. This discount is chosen as a matter
of judgment. A similar proposal was rejected by the Presiding Judge in
Commonwealth Edison. Id.

Although the argument of a "free ride" deserves consideration, based on the
record we have here and in the absence of a detailed cost justification, UE's
off-peak demand charge is rejected.

 REVERSED - see next paragraph

COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 40 FERC ?61,046, Union Electric Company, Docket No.
ER84-560-000, (July 20, 1987)

Union's proposal to assess a capacity charge for off-peak service under
specified circumstances (when a customer's off-peak demand exceeds twice its
highest measured peak demand) not only reflects the fact that customers use
the company's production and transmission plant off-peak and capacity-related
costs are incurred during those times, but also recognizes the equity
consideration created by the existence of the peak shaving option to certain
customers. Upon consideration of the evidence presented and the merits of the
arguments raised by the parties, we reverse the judge's ruling and allow the
off-peak billing demand provision. Although we are approving Union's use of
an off-peak billing demand provision, the Commission nevertheless believes
that a strong incentive continues to exist for customers to peak shave and,
thus, realize cost savings. Furthermore, although we adopt Union's approach
as reasonable within the context of this case, this is not to say that only
such an approach is appropriate or that this approach is preferred.

COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 11 FERC ?61,083, Florida Power Corporation, Docket No.
ER80-206, (Apr. 25, 1980)
urging rejection of FPC's proposed rate increase.

On February 12, 1980, the Public Service Commission of the State of Florida
filed a letter noting the absence of proposals relating to peak load pricing
(time-of-day and seasonal rate differentials) in FPC's submittal. 5 The
Public Service Commission urged our review of the issues of time-of-day and
seasonal pricing in this proceeding.

We note that the questions of time-of-day and seasonal pricing are proper
subjects for the hearing ordered below if any party chooses to pursue them,
including the Florida Commission should it petition to intervene late in this
proceeding.

COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 6 FERC ?61,292, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No.
ER79-182, (Mar. 30, 1979)
[61,695]

Our review of Commonwealth's filing indicates that the proposed rates have
not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. Therefore, we shall accept the
proposed rates for filing and suspend those rates for five months, to become
effective, subject to refund, on September 1, 1979.

We note with interest that the proposed rates are designed on a time-of-day
and seasonal basis. The Commission has encouraged the use of innovative rate
design as a way of more closely matching rates to costs and thereby
minimizing misallocation of resources as well as reducing waste, inequity and
discrimination. 4 We therefore direct the Presiding Administrative Law Judge
to insure that the parties fully address the issues raised related to the
cost support for the time-of-day and seasonal rate design.

FED-REGS, FERCSR ?13,963, FPA, Regulations 18 CFR Sec. 35.13 Filing of
changes in rate schedules.

[11,299]

shall fully support all such data and shall explain the rationale and the
specific application proposed.

(vii) Based upon information reported in Statements BB and BC, the utility
shall list selected months that are normally the months of greatest
significance in determining the need of the utility for power supply
capability throughout the year. All twelve months may be selected, if
appropriate. In its selection, the utility shall take into account any
effects of local weather seasons and, particularly, the extent to which peak
demands may tend to be similar in magnitude in two or more months of a
weather season. The utility shall explain the reasons for the selections and
describe the significance for the selections of seasonal variations in the
weather.

REG-PREAMBLE, FERCSR ?31,044, Inquiry Concerning the Commission's Merger
Policy Under the Federal Power Act: Policy Statement, Order No. 592, December
18, 1996, Docket No. RM96-6-000, 18 CFR 2, 61 FR 68595 PART 01 OF 02.
1. Identify the relevant products

The first step is to identify one or more products sold by the merging
entities. Products may be grouped together when they are good substitutes for
each other from the buyer's perspective. If two products are not good
substitutes, an entity with market power can raise the price of one product
and buyers would have a limited ability to shift their purchases to other
products. In the past, the Commission has analyzed three products: non-firm
energy, short-term capacity (firm energy), and long-term capacity. 75 These
remain reasonable products under the prevailing institutional arrangements,
and applicants should recognize such products in their analysis. Other
product definitions may also be acceptable. For example, the lack of on-site
buyer storage creates products differentiated by time. Thus, peak and
off-peak energy (seasonal and daily) may be distinct products.

ALJ-DEC, 15 FERC ?63,048, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. ER79-182
and ER80-106, (June 03, 1981) PART 02 OF 02.

 It is Commission policy that rate design reflect cost incurrence, Idaho
Power Co., Opinion No. 13, issued May 4, 1978, mimeo at 26; Minnesota Power
and Light Co., Opinion No. 12, issued April 14, 1978, mimeo at 24-5.

[65,229]

In both cases, the Commission rejected rate design features where there was
no evidence in the record showing that the rate design features reflected
cost incurrence, id. In its order setting this proceeding for hearing, the
Commission took note of Edison's proposed seasonal differential and
specifically directed that the parties fully address the issues related to
the cost support for the seasonal rate design, Commission Order issued March
30, 1979, mimeo at 4-5. On October 9, 1980, the parties were directed by the
Presiding Judge to identify in their initial briefs the portions of the
record that relate to cost support for the seasonal differential.

The requirement that Edison provide cost support for its seasonal
differential, as discussed supra, is also set forth in the Commission's
filing requirements for rate schedules: if the rate design is intended to
reflect costs, the applicant must show how it reflects costs; if the rate
design is not intended to reflect costs, the applicant must justify the
departure from costbased rates, 18 CFR o35.13(b)(4)(iii) Statement P.
Edison's seasonal differential is intended to lessen the costs imposed upon
it by its prominent summer peak. Edison reasons that, since it must build
capacity to meet its prominent summer peak, charging more in the summer would
give customers an incentive to control their summer demands and, therefore,
Edison's cost of adding capacity would be reduced (Tr. 169). Accordingly,
Edison must show how its seasonal differential reflects the costs imposed on
it by summer demand, under the Commission's filing requirements in 18 CFR o35.
13(b)(4)(iii) Statement P. Further, even PURPA Section 111(d)(4) relied upon
by Edison states that rates "shall be on a seasonal basis which reflects the
costs of providing service to such class of consumers at different seasons of
the year to the extent that such costs vary seasonally for such utility."
(Emphasis added.)

Further, support for relying on marginal rather than average costs comes from
the Commission itself. In its order of March 30, 1979 setting this cause for
hearing, mimeo at 4, 5, the Commission, in commenting on time of day and
seasonal rates, mentioned that it encourage innovative rate design to match
more closely rates to costs. In this regard, the Commission cited its Order
No. 537, supra at 4, which specifically suggests use of pricing mechanisms
based on marginal cost principles

[65,236]

for jurisdictional wholesale sales. Under the circumstances in this case,
where the sale of economy energy is related to Edison's costs in adding or
eliminating additional excess capacity, it is appropriate to establish the
price for economy transactions on marginal costs. This provides a more close
matching of the rate to the cost than would a rate design based on average
costs. Accordingly, Winnetka's position on pricing of economy energy will not
be adopted.

 AFFIRMED and REVERSED - see next paragraph

COMM-OPINION-ORDER, 23 FERC ?61,219, Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos.
ER79-182-000 and ER80-106-000, (May 12, 1983)
Turning to Commonwealth's exceptions, we find that the judge correctly
rejected the seasonal differential. Even if we accept the company's
interpretation of PURPA, it still has not cited any record evidence
whatsoever of a difference in costs between summer and nonsummer months.
Without at least some showing of a cost difference, it is impossible to make
a judgment on the reasonableness of the company's 15.25% proposal. We
therefore uphold the judge on this point.

We reverse the judge's adoption of a price set at 110% of the utility's
incremental costs, however, and approve the type-B split-savings method
proposed by Commonwealth. Under this method, economy transactions are
arranged for a 12-hour or similar period at a fixed price based on cost
estimates at the time of the agreement. If the utility's incremental costs
rise to the point that continued supply would become burdensome, the utility
may terminate supply. We find this method superior to that proposed by staff
in that implementation is greatly simplified. Cost determinations need not be
made as frequently.

Related to PMAs

REG-PREAMBLE, FERCSR ?36,710, Procedures for Public Participation in Power
and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, December 31, 1980, 10 CFR
903, 45 FR 86976
[36,741]

Historically, many PURPA-type standards have been used in designing wholesale
rates for the sale of Federal hydroelectric power. PMAs analyze costs to
establish revenue requirements and consider this information in designing
rates. Declining block rates for energy were once used by the PMAs but
subsequently were found inappropriate and eliminated from rate schedules.
Many of the PMAs for years have been effectively using various forms of load
management measures in their rate schedules, such as scheduling limitations,
loadshaping, capacity and energy overrun charges, etc. BPA has had a history
of using seasonal rates for wholesale firm capacity and energy and also
offered its direct service industrial customers interruptible rates some time
ago. Southwestern has had interruptible capacity rates in effect since 1957.
These examples demonstrate the willingness of the PMAs to implement
PURPA-type standards where applicable.

Many of these PURPA-type standards, when applied appropriately in the design
of PMA rates, can serve to implement the purposes of PURPA by encouraging
conservation of energy, efficient use of resources and facilities, and
equitable rates. The public participation process will provide an opportunity
to examine these and other appropriate concepts.

The PMAs will continue to review and revise their power marketing practices
on a system-by-system basis to serve the PURPA objectives. The Assistant
Secretary for Resource Applications, working with the Administrators of the
power administrations, and after receiving public comment, will consider the
adoption of rate design guidelines, similar in form to the guidelines in RA
6120.2 on financial accounting and ratemaking, which will reflect the
experience gained by the PMAs in their system-by-system approach to rate
design.

Related to PURPA

FED-LAW, FERCSR ?5021, PURPA, SEC. 111. CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION
RESPECTING CERTAIN RATEMAKING STANDARDS.

 (4) Seasonal rates.--The rates charged by an electric utility for providing
electric service to each class of electric consumers shall be on a seasonal
basis which reflects the costs of providing service to such class of
consumers at different seasons of the year to the extent that such costs vary
seasonally for such utility.

FED-REG-NOTICE, FERCSR ?37,503, DOE Responsibilities Under Title I of PURPA

(4) Seasonal rates shall be established where costs vary by season;

PROP-REG-PREAMBLE, FERCSR 1988-1998 ?32,457, Administrative Determination of
Full Avoided Costs, Sales of Power to Qualifying Facilities, and
Inter-connection Facilities, March 16, 1988, Docket No. RM88-6-000, 53 FR
9331, 55 FR 31882

Pricing flexibility may take several different forms. For instance, a
contract could provide QFs with a price floor applicable to all the power
supplied to the utility, but still provide for higher variable unit prices
reflecting daily or seasonal periods. The price floor would provide the
revenue stream necessary for the QF to secure financial support while

[32,174]

the price variability would induce the QF to maximize deliveries in peak-load
periods when the utility values additional supplies most. Of course, the
price floor should not exceed the minimum value of the utility's avoided
cost. Similarly, a contract could provide for a two part price--a fixed
payment for capacity and an energy price for power delivered. The QF would be
assured a minimum revenue stream based on the value of its capacity. The
variable energy component would allow the utility to dispatch the QF capacity
only when it was economic. Whatever the pattern of contract payments, rates
for purchases from QFs should always reflect how well the characteristics of
the suppliers' power match the purchasing utility's need. This will ensure
that the QF will make most production decisions on the basis of rates
reflecting avoided costs (rather than the guaranteed average rate) and, at
the same time, will receive revenues sufficient to attract investors.

To avoid problems such as those associated with take-or-pay contracts in the
natural gas industry, the Commission wishes to stress the danger of including
forecasted fuel costs in the fixed rate structure of long-term contracts,
especially in combination with the specification of minimum purchase
quantities. The Commission also encourages the use of time-of-day and
seasonal rates in flexible pricing structures for long-term contracts.

REG-PREAMBLE, FERCSR 1977-1981 ?30,128, Small Power Production and
Cogeneration Facilities; Regulations Implementing Section 210 of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Order No. 69, February 25, 1980,
Docket No. RM79-55, 18 CFR 292, 45 FR 12214, 45 FR ...

Rather than specifying that exact time-of-day or seasonal rates for purchases
are required, however, the Commission believes that the selection of a
methodology is best left to the State regulatory authorities and nonregulated
electric utilities charged with the implementation of these provisions.


The two new pub codes that need to be addded to TAGG are:

1.     GDP-WYOMING
2.     GDP-KERN/OPAL

Thanks.


Thanks for the vote!  DF

Lee Huber
02/23/2001 05:18 PM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Weekly Report for Feb 20

1. MOPS.  Suggested that the MOPS rehearing be brought to Madden's
attention.  As a result we are looking at filing a motion to expedite.  Spent
much of the week reviewing the MOPS proceeding up to date, reading pleadings
and cases. Drafted a motion to expedite which has been circulated for
comment.  While it is not very compelling for expedition, it is a way to get
the proceeding brought to FERC's attention.  Apparently, there is a push to
clean up old dockets.  Also it brought to my attention that Northern, in this
proceeding, proposed to sell to Enron Gulf Coast Gathering, which I had
forgotten.  so that if we find another purchaser, the filing will have to be
amended. Also the Enron affiliate made the filing for the declaratory order.
Kim Wilkie and  were talking about MOPS and what needs to be done while she
is out on maternity leave.  We were talking about the waiver and ROFR
agreements which John Goodpasture is getting executed.  We need to review
whatever was done, if anything, at the time of the original filing to sell to
the affiliate. Also take a look at the current ones to see if they would be
broad enough to cover  not only Northern but a subsequent sale by Northern
afilliate, if we should want to handle the sale of MOPS in that manner.
  2.  Attended the South End Task Force Meeting Tuesday morning.  It was a
long meeting and quite productive. It was a brain dump by the south end
commercial guys for Shelley and Mike and a man named Mike Gadd who called in
from London who will work with Danny McCarty on asset deals.  It was decided
to go ahead and start presenting potential deals to various Companies who we
think would be interested in the various south end assets.  For exampleBob
burleson is going to present a deal for some Permian assets to SPS.  SPS will
have to divest certain power plants but still would like to maintain some
control.   SPS may be interested in purchasing the pipelines form Northern
and TW that currently serve the plants.  SPS would operate the line as an
intrastate Hinshaw.  We think these asets are a good candidate to get Stans
approval since they are not useful to get gas to California and the COS is
$18 and incremental revenue is $2-3.  I will be involved in putting the
proposal together starting with confidentiality agreements.
Shelley believes that we should actively package and seek out potential
interested buyers.  For example, approach Duke about the Hugoton area because
Duke has a huge helium plant there. Also talk to El Paso because of its
recent acqusition of CIG and ANR   and  interest in getting Rocky Moutain gas
to Cailf.  Also seek out those interested in the Beaver assets and go make a
pitch.
I am reading the existing contracts we have with Oneok as well as GPM/Duke to
determine any adverse terms and conditions which could hinder a sale.
Another meeting is scheduled for the week of March 4 to go over the SPS deal
with Stan.
 3 FERC Audit CWIP.  Continue working with Gary Zahn and Michelle Winckowski
on a futher FERC inquiry on the Sublette work order.  Will prepare a response
next week.

Next week continue work on the above items.
By the way  good luck with getting Mike's job if you want it.  We would be
happy to have you here!!


Per EPE lending agreement  -

We'll be short 50 mw on peak at Palo - 25 mw under STWBOM, 25 mw under STSW - at a price of $49. Buy to fill this real time. Reduce El Paso purchase prices to $4. Sell back to El Paso at $0. Here are the day-ahead deals....

732687 - STWBOM buys EPE
	 25 mw @ $49

732692 - STWBOM sells STSW
	 25 mw @ $49

732696 - STSW buys EPE
	 25 mw @ $49

Also, STWBOM is short 25 mw on peak in SP15 at a day-ahead price of $44.27. (STCALI is short 100 mw off-peak, SP15, at day-ahead price of $31.02.)

Please enter all purchases using the same book name used in the day-ahead sale. If STCA is short, STCA needs to buy the energy to fill that. I am still running into errors regarding this procedure. Let me know if you have questions.

Thanks,
Kate


-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, Michelle
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:31 PM
To: Zivic, Robyn
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Fw: Enron Announces Plans to Merge with Dynegy]

Subject:        Re: Enron Announces Plans to Merge with Dynegy

I have done a lot of thinking these past few days and have decided to share my thoughts with you and the board of directors. I mean, after all, FACTS are friendly....Right?!

I have had the utmost respect for Enron and the board for all of my 23 years - thru mergers and name changes and cuts and all the ups and downs. Let me just stop beating around the bush, and just get down to the bottom line here.

I, like everyone else out here have some questions and comments for you. I want you to get down to our terms and answer these in layman's terms - we understand pistons & crankshafts and nuts & bolts, so please keep all of you acronyms out of it.

Where in the world did you get the questions for the MergerQ&A?
Someone has messed around with our retirement, our livelyhood and our families!
Do you really think we give a flip about what Enron field is named?
Do you really think we care if the Enron body shop stays open?
Do you really think we care about the United Way right now???
NO! We have been cheated out of money here! Have you ever put a pencil to it? - Probably not, since your wages total in the $MM figure!

Let's just do that, let's figure out what a measley 1000 shares calculates to before and what it will be upon the merge!

1000 X $80+ = $80,000+ - early 2001
1000 X $40 = $40,000 - mid 2001
1000 X .2685 = 268.5 X let's say... $40 = $10,740 - next year
Ouch! And that is a comparison to our stock - NOT  our stock OPTIONS!

I and everyone else out here want to be compensated for what has happened - you had guys bailing out with $30+MM. They will be sitting high on the hog and we have people looking at a measley $15,000 plus the thought of losing their jobs with the merger.

How ironic that the Code of Ethics is sent out immediately after your merger e-mail! Does the board of directors EVER read that document??? We read it MANY times a year!! Perhaps you should practice what you all preach!

Have you had a stranger walk up to you on the street and ask "What have YOU done to the stock?"
Well, that is happening out here! What have we done to deserve this treatment? Nothing, but cut ourselves down to the meanest, leanest teams around only to have something like this slapped in our faces.

I am ashamed, embarrassed, and MAD.

1. What happened?
2. Who did it?
3. We want compensation

What should I say now? Hmmm....
GO DYNEGY

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

I imagine that you guys are seeing a lot of this stuff?  gene


Stephanie:  Please see me about a "draft ISDA municipal format".  Let's talk
as soon as you have a minute and prioritize.  Thanks.  Sara

Sara Shackleton
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3801a
Houston, Texas  77002
713-853-5620 (phone)
713-646-3490 (fax)
sara.shackleton@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 02/15/2001 10:46 AM -----

	Stewart Rosman
	02/09/2001 12:02 PM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: ISDA/Financial Trades for Washington State PUD's and Muni's

Sara -

Jeff Fuller is interested in pursuing ISDA's with a number of his other
customers after a successful experience with Merced Irrigation District.  He
would like a generic ISDA to start with and hopes to negotiate four ISDA's in
the near future.  The purpose of the ISDA will be to hedge their price risk
once they get a piece of slice (this is a BPA plan to allocate slices of
their system to customers).  Feel free to call me if you have any questions
at 503-464-3810.

Stewart
---------------------- Forwarded by Stewart Rosman/HOU/ECT on 02/09/2001
10:45 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  Jeff Fuller <JFuller@prmllp.com>                           02/09/2001
08:06 AM

To: "'Stewart Rosman'" <Stewart.Rosman@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: ISDA/Financial Trades for Washington State PUD's and Muni's

Stewart,

PRM has 4 utility clients (Benton PUD, Franklin PUD, Grays Harbor PUD and
City of Richland) that will be purchasing BPA's Slice product beginning
October 1, 2001.  I want to get the process started to get ISDA's in place
between Enron and these utilities.  We are currently in the beginning stages
of discussing financial trades with their legal counsel.  Fortunately for
Enron, I think we can have one attorney represent all 4 of PRM's clients.
(FYI, that attorney will be Doug Rosenberg at Preston Gates & Ellis in
Seattle.)

To get started, I'd like Enron to forward to me copies of the ISDA agreement
that you would propose as the starting point for discussions.  I also ask
that you send me a list/examples of any other documentation Enron will
require (e.g., legal opinion, board resolution, etc.).  Please send just one
set of documentation at this point.  I want to get the basic legal review
process underway before you prepare four different sets of documents.  I'd
also like to request that when we get to the point of having Enron's
attorney walk through the ISDA with our attorney, that Enron use Sara
Shackleton.  Sara was great to work with when we went through this for
Merced, and I think she'd be extremely helpful once again as we venture into
new territory with these 4 utilities.

Thanks for your help.

Jeff


I'm ok with the change.  Just curious, but Courtney doesn't get any  time
value of money recognition on his prepayment?  Also, the prepayment gives us
a cash, but not earnings, benefit, right?  Thanks.  DF

James Centilli
08/01/2000 02:53 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: TW Letter

Susan

Bob Chandler and I request some changes inorder to detail the upfront
payment.  If you do not have any problems with the document, please advise
and we will notify Gerald to create executables.

Thanks,
James

---------------------- Forwarded by James Centilli/ET&S/Enron on 08/01/2000
02:49 PM ---------------------------

Gerald Nemec@ECT
08/01/2000 09:25 AM
To: James Centilli/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Courtney

Subject: TW Letter

Attached is the letter.  I am forwarding per Mark's request.  Let me know if
you have any comments.  If everything looks good, let me know and I will
create executables.  Thanks.


i have kept in touch with Gildea and Brechbuhl.  i didn't really know Eckberg
very well.  Powell is now an FCC commissioner, though i haven't kept in touch
with him either.  i don't know if you remember james conforti, but i recently
saw gildea and brechbuhl at his wedding in february.  give me a call when you
get a chance.  my extension is 35220.

greg


Attached is the draft letter in  .doc (Word) format, as indicated in the
previous email.  Thanks,  Rae

 - req for comments for DOE meeting.doc


Oh yeah, and by the way here are the rankings . . .

http://louisianastate.rivals.com/default.asp?sid=40&p=58&sp=1
---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Bass/HOU/ECT on 01/03/2001 04:06 PM
---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Eric Bass                           01/03/2001 04:06 PM

To: Timothy Blanchard/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryan Hull/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chad
Landry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: FW: Big commitment

Wilkerson is the number 3 prospect in the country at lineman behind Johnathon
Scott a commitment of guess who - Texas.

http://louisianastate.rivals.com/default.asp?sid=40&p=3&sp=1&pl=-13604
                      Wilkerson
http://longhornlink.rivals.com/default.asp?sid=798&p=3&sp=1&pl=-12695
                           Scott

To: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryan
Hull/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chad Landry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FW: Big commitment

Raiding Texas baby!
---------------------- Forwarded by Timothy Blanchard/HOU/EES on 01/03/2001
03:44 PM ---------------------------

David Fontana
01/03/2001 03:42 PM
To: Timothy Blanchard/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: FW: Big commitment

Go Tigers!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------- Forwarded by David Fontana/HOU/EES on 01/03/2001 03:42
PM ---------------------------

ZamettoM@gtlaw.com on 01/03/2001 03:36:50 PM
To: David.Fontana@enron.com, Alex_Dmytraczenko@radian.com,
Mark_Locke2@es.adp.com
cc:
Subject: FW: Big commitment

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cullen [mailto:scullen@dwyercambre.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:22 PM
To: Turner (E-mail); Bras (E-mail); Mark Zametto (E-mail)
Subject: Big commitment

We got a huge commitment today from big Ben Wilkerson, center out of
Hemphill, TX.  He is rated by Rivals as the #1 lineman prospect in the
country, and it is very rare for a center to rate so high on their list.
They keep rolling in; Marcus Spears is expected to announce on Friday.

This e-mail contains information that is confidential/privileged or both.
This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named on this e-mail transmission.  Any disclosure, copying, distribution or
use of this information by any person other than the intended recipient is
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy
immediatley and contact sender.


COOL!  I didn't know you guys were that far down the road on this project.
Congratulations and best wishes for further success!  DF

"Tony Clark" <ajc@infohwy.com> on 03/20/2001 09:25:35 AM
To: <edward.l.hill@us.arthurandersen.com>, <dfossum@enron.com>,
<dhill@bspmlaw.com>, <kraemerr@natfuel.com>, <tbateman@andrews-kurth.com>,
<wnicoletti@rcn.com>, <chuck_kingsswell-smith@mail.bankone.com>,
<dickf@qstr.com>
cc:

Subject: Press release on SG Resorces

?
?
Regards,
?
Tony Clark
 - prs rls 3-12-01.doc


Any news on looking at the NiSource storage stuff?  Have we gotten the packet
from Chase or whichever investment banker guys you talked to?  I heard again
from a non-Enron source that "Enron is looking at the MHP assets" so it must
be true!  Thanks.   DF


Please join Ed Chang, Lexis attorney for Lexis.com Updates and International
Law presentations on Thursday, 4/20.   Both sessions will be held at EB47C2.
   Lexis will provide lunch and refreshment.   Can't make to the group
meetings?  You may call Tammy Berg/ Lexis at (281) 370-6324 or email her
tammy.berg@lexis-nexis.com to schedule one-on-one session.

   Lexis.com Updates:   11:30 AM - 1:00 PM
   International Law :    1:30 PM - 3:00 PM

R.S.V.P. to Sylvia Hu x 36775 or email by Noon, Wed. 4/19.

Thanks,
Sylvia Hu
Corporate and Law Information Services


COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
                        NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
                                  JUNE 08, 2001

Notice ID: 2787
5 - NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

SUBJECT: CAPACITY UPDATE EFFECTIVE FOR SATURDAY, JUNE 9 THROUGH SUNDAY, JUNE
10, 2001

                CHANGES ARE INDICATED WITH AN *

Effective Saturday, June 9, 2001 through Sunday, June 10, 2001, capacities will
be as follows:

Excess MDWQ              Available +
ISS Withdrawals          Available
SIT Withdrawals          Available
Imbalance Drawdowns      Available
PAL Lends/Unparks        Available

Excess MDIQ              Available +
ISS Injections           Available
SIT Injections           Available
Imbalance Paybacks       Available
PAL Parks/Loan Paybacks  Available

+ Call Gas Control 24 hours in advance at (304) 357-2606 to request approval.

Receipt capacity will be as follows:

TENNESSEE:

Brinker (B12)            20,000
Broad Run (B9)          450,000
Cambridge (B10)          20,000
Dungannon (B11)          50,000
Highland (B17)           25,000
Milford (B18)            15,000
North Greenwood (B22)         0
Unionville (B15)         50,000

TEXAS EASTERN:

Delmont (C16)                 0
Eagle (C22)              30,000
Hooker (C9)              50,000
Pennsburg (C23)          50,000
Windridge (C12)          50,000

NATIONAL FUEL:

Independence (M1)        10,000
Ellwood City (L1)        10,000

TRANSCO:

Downingtown (E3)          5,000
Emporia I (E13)          80,000 *
Rockville (E2)           65,000
Dranesville (E1)         60,000

ALGONQUIN:

Ramapo (R1)              50,000

ANR:

Paulding/Cecil          105,000
(F1, A2)

LEBANON AGGREGATE       195,000
(A4, F2, C4, D3)

TOLEDO AGGREGATE        225,000
(A3, F4, 734462)

COLUMBIA GULF:
(801)

TCO-Leach             2,218,000

Internal point non-firm capacity will be as follows:

Lanham                No Restrictions

Delivery capacity (non-firm) will be as follows:

TRANSCO:

Martins Creek (MA 21)    25,000
Young Woman's Creek      15,000
   (MA 36)

ALGONQUIN:

Hanover (MA 22)         166,000

EQUITRANS:

Fallen Timber (MA 35)    35,000
(MLI K1)

Waynesburg-Rhinehart     30,000
(MA 26) (MLI K2)

OPT-30 will be available in all market areas.
OPT-60 will be available in all market areas.

Market Area delivery capacity (non-firm) will be as follows:

Operating Area 1
     Market Area 33       No Restrictions
     Market Area 34       No Restrictions

Operating Area 2
     Market Area 20       No Restrictions

Operating Area 3
     Market Area 15       No Restrictions
     Market Area 16       No Restrictions
     Market Area 17       No Restrictions
     Market Area 18       No Restrictions
     Market Area 19       No Restrictions

Operating Area 4
     Market Area 21       No Restrictions
     Market Area 22       No Restrictions
     Market Area 23       No Restrictions
     Market Area 24       No Restrictions
     Market Area 25       No Restrictions
     Market Area 29       No Restrictions

Operating Area 5
     Market Area 02       No Restrictions
     Market Area 07       No Restrictions

Operating Area 6
     Market Area 10       No Restrictions
     Market Area 11       No Restrictions
     Market Area 12       No Restrictions
     Market Area 13       No Restrictions
     Market Area 14       No Restrictions

Operating Area 7
     Market Area 01       No Restrictions
     Market Area 03       No Restrictions
     Market Area 04       No Restrictions
     Market Area 05       No Restrictions
     Market Area 06       No Restrictions
     Market Area 08       No Restrictions
     Market Area 09       No Restrictions

Operating Area 8
     Market Area 26       No Restrictions
     Market Area 27       No Restrictions
     Market Area 32       No Restrictions
     Market Area 35       No Restrictions
     Market Area 36       No Restrictions
     Market Area 38       No Restrictions
     Market Area 39       No Restrictions
     Market Area 40       No Restrictions

Operating Area 10
     Market Area 28       No Restrictions
     Market Area 30       No Restrictions
     Market Area 31       No Restrictions

If you have any questions, please contact your Account
Representative.


Does this make sense to you?

Stacey
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayden, Frank
Sent:	Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:20 PM
To:	White, Stacey W.; Will, Lloyd
Subject:	Ancillaries

I'm trying to get ancillaries into VAR.  Do you agree with synopsis?
Thanks
Frank

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lew, Jaesoo
Sent:	Tuesday, October 16, 2001 4:17 PM
To:	Hayden, Frank
Cc:	Tamarchenko, Tanya; Bharati, Rakesh; Jia, Winston
Subject:	RE: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

Hi Frank.

Rakesh and I talked with Narshima Mistra, ancillary trader at EES.  The ancillary curve exists almost every power curve and it's more related to the capacity availability rather than market prices. Obviously it's indirectly related to prices since cost of generation, which is one important factor of constraints in the capacity of generation.  So EES has a table of ancillary service price % to generation cost.(Below)  I think this table can be used to simulate the ancillary prices by mapping to regional curves after the modification based on the market prices.  The problem is the illiquidity of this market. The price is reported once in a month as average point, so the RAC should identify the risk in this market, e.g. is it reasonable to get the daily value at risk.  Once again, as long as the daily prices of the ancillary is given, the implementation will be available by doing analysis on the data and making table like below to use in mapping curves.

Jaesoo

MID - All values are expressed as a percentage of the cost of generation.
	WD1	WD2	WD3	WD4	WD5	WD6	WE1	WE2	WE3	WE4	WE5	WE6
JAN	1.78%	1.37%	0.90%	1.42%	1.35%	1.34%	1.40%	1.03%	1.23%	1.62%	1.28%	1.35%
FEB	1.98	1.40	0.92	1.36	1.20	1.18	2.01	1.25	1.18	1.40	1.42	1.60
MAR	3.12	2.77	3.00	4.45	3.71	2.83	1.80	1.25	2.15	3.08	4.26	2.88
APR	5.45	4.56	5.80	6.47	5.72	3.50	2.72	2.81	3.85	3.90	6.55	4.37
MAY	3.18	2.95	7.54	4.36	3.02	4.56	3.07	2.03	4.63	2.05	2.80	4.17
JUN	2.69	2.65	4.06	2.64	2.83	3.44	1.96	1.87	3.03	0.91	0.84	3.23
JUL	2.22	2.83	2.42	1.74	1.95	2.54	1.72	1.61	4.50	3.03	2.73	5.81
AUG	1.53	1.83	2.59	1.85	2.09	2.33	1.43	0.74	1.87	0.54	0.79	2.30
SEP	1.14	0.75	1.78	1.28	1.36	2.66	1.45	1.09	2.03	0.58	0.63	2.29
OCT	0.71	0.70	1.24	2.09	1.65	1.81	1.07	0.89	0.92	0.97	0.88	1.31
NOV	1.11	0.86	1.18	1.78	2.03	2.18	0.75	0.77	1.07	1.05	1.24	1.02
DEC	2.70	2.36	2.35	3.43	2.42	2.82	2.27	1.66	1.51	1.95	2.07	1.65

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tamarchenko, Tanya
Sent:	Friday, October 12, 2001 11:25 AM
To:	Hayden, Frank; Lew, Jaesoo
Cc:	Bharati, Rakesh
Subject:	RE: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

Frank,
the ancillary curves data are not liquid so we can not assign them as primary curves presently.
Using jumps would be appropriate for them.

Jaesoo plans to talk to the trader and come up with more concrete suggestions.

How urgent is it to start calculating VAR on them?

Tanya

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hayden, Frank
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:05 PM
To:	Tamarchenko, Tanya
Subject:	FW: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

Your thoughts

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Victorio, Tom
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:01 PM
To:	Hayden, Frank; Adams, Matthew
Cc:	McIntyre, Burton; Trevino, Susan
Subject:	FW: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

Frank, Matthew -- we could use some suggestion -- we were asked to set up the ancillary power curves below for West Power. Can you please provide guidance on how these curves should be set up in RiskTrac (primary? jump? etc.). Thanks in advance.
- Tom

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Trevino, Susan
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:40 PM
To:	Victorio, Tom; McIntyre, Burton
Subject:	FW: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Postlethwaite, John
Sent:	Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:47 PM
To:	Trevino, Susan
Subject:	FW: New Curves - REVISED AGAIN

Susan, I am so sorry I am doing this. The more I looked at the request again, the more I thought that I should be as specific as possible with it so we can get it right the first time. Any questions let me know.

John

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Postlethwaite, John
Sent:	Monday, October 01, 2001 3:55 PM
To:	Trevino, Susan
Subject:	New Curves

Susan, Please note the name changes to the curves highlighted in Yellow.

John

 << File: new curve request.xls >>


I got Goldberg's comments this morning on the term sheet with the Rockets.
there are a number of technical comments which we will make.  There are
about four substantive comments that we are working on and will review with
Tracey Ellison.  Two of the comments relate to you.  Goldberg wants to limit
seats to a maximum of 20 per Partner, not 300 total, because he said you
said at the meeting that each Partner would have a maximum of 20 seats.  I
didn't recall that any such statement by you was meant to limit the 300
seats but was merely an indication of about how many each Partner would
have.  Goldberg admitted the 300 seats was on the sheet handed out at the
meeting.  I can't believe Goldberg is continuing to haggle on this issue.  I
think we should say that the maximum of 300 seats is what the Partners
approved and be done with it.

The other issue is the amount of the referendum funding.  Goldberg said he
understood that the Rockets would match what the "Partners" would put up.
Alternatively he wants the right for the Rockets to raise part of their $1.5
million from others and get credit for it.  I'm not sure whether the Rockets
would interfere with you raising your balance of the $1.5 million.  In any
case I need your input on this issue both for the Rockets term sheet and
determining how much we need to get advanced on the loan from the Sports
Authority.

John S. Watson
Vinson & Elkins LLP
1001 Fannin
2300 First City Tower
Houston, TX 77002-6760
Voice: 713/758-2556
Fax: 713/615-5236
Email: jwatson@velaw.com

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:
Contains attorney-client communications
and/or attorney work product


During the period of November 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002, Enron will be
the natural gas supplier for IP's Waverly, VA facility. Please call me at
901-763-6342 if you have any questions.