Bill:
I will get back to you shortly.

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

	boldham@reliant.com
	06/05/2001 12:10 PM

		 To: Carol.St.Clair@enron.com
		 cc: Edward.Sacks@enron.com, janet-greene@reliantenergy.com
		 Subject: Re: Update

Carol:

I would prefer to go to them with all the  issues at one time.  If you have
any more issues you would like us to address, please forward and we can
approach sureties all at once.  If there are no more issues from you/ENRON
please advise and we will go to sureties now.

THX

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:     boldham@reliant.com
                                          cc:
janet-greene@reliantenergy.com, Edward.Sacks@enron.com
                    06/05/01 09:04        Subject:     Re: Update
                    AM

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@relia

                    nt.com               To:     carol.st.clair@enron.com

                                         cc:     jkgreene@reliant.com

                    06/04/2001           Subject:     Re: Update

                    03:35 PM

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


Meeting


plica (PLY-kuh) noun, plural plicae (PLI-see, -kee)

   1. A fold, especially of skin.

   2. Hair in dirty, matted form.

[From Medieval Latin, fold, from Latin plicare, to fold.]

   "He underwent knee surgery during the summer to remove a plica ... from
   his left knee."
   Tom Kensler, Sights Are Set on Sydney, The Denver Post, May 13, 1997.

This week's theme: Words with letters in reverse alphabetical order.

............................................................................
Every man in the world is better than someone else. And not as good as
someone else. -William Saroyan, writer (1908-1981)

Looking for a word or quotation previously featured in AWAD? They are all
archived at http://wordsmith.org/awad/archives.html . For the theme list,
see http://wordsmith.org/awad/themes.html . Alphabetical listing of the
words is available at http://wordsmith.org/awad/wordlist.html

Pronunciation:
http://wordsmith.org/words/plica.wav
http://wordsmith.org/words/plica.ram


Any chance of getting the confirms to say "Ashland Inc. through its Ashland
Specialty Chemicals Comapny division"?

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Tana Jones                           12/15/99 10:26 AM

To: Frank L Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Bob Shults/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Molly
Harris/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bob
Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Ashland Speciality Chemicals Company, a division of Ashland Inc.

Per my conversation with Frank, we are opening up the referenced counterparty
to trade financial under the division name  indicated above.


At our meeting in San Francisco yesterday a group of you asked we
re-publish our memorandum regarding the subpoena power of California
legislative committee. Here is a slightly edited version.

1. What is the basis of a  Legislative Committee's Subpoena Power?

Authority:   Government Code Section 9401, provides that "a subpoena
requiring the attendance of any witness before the Senate, Assembly, or a
committee may be issued by the President of the Senate, Speaker of the
Assembly, or the chairman of any committee before whom the attendance of the
witness is desired if permission has been secured from the rules committee
of the respective house."

Govt. Code Section 9402 provides that a subpoena is sufficient if it "(a)
states whether the proceeding is before the Senate, Assembly or a committee.
(b) is addressed to the witness [presumably the custodian of records when
documents are sought]. (c) requires the attendance of the witness at a time
and place certain and (d) is signed by the President of the Senate, Speaker
of the Assembly or chairman of the committee before whom attendance of the
witness is desired."

Contempt Power:  If the witness does not appear or refuses to testify or
"neglects or refuses ... to produce upon reasonable notice any material and
proper books, papers or document sin his possession or under his control, he
has committed a contempt."  Govt. Code Section 9405.   If the contempt is
committed while the Legislature is in session, Govt. Code Section 9407
provides that the committee shall report the contempt to the Senate or
Assembly "for such action as may be deemed necessary by the Senate or
Assembly."  If the Legislature is not in session, "the superior court in and
for the county in which any inquiry, investigation hearing or proceeding
[is] held ... may compel the ... production of books, papers, documents and
accounts, as required by the subpoena issued by the committee, on the filing
by the committee of a petition to the court asking that the witness be so
compelled."

Govt. Code Section 9409 provides that "any witness neglecting or refusing to
attend in obedience to subpoena may be arrested...."  It is unclear how this
provision would or could be applied to a subpoena issued to the custodian of
records of a non-resident company.

Motion to Quash Subpoena: California courts have held, under C.C.P. Section
1985, that a motion to quash is the procedurally appropriate method of
testing the validity of a subpoena duces tecum.  See e.g. People ex rel.
Dept. of Public Works v. Younger (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 575.  My research has
revealed no case in which a subpoena issued by a legislative committee has
been challenged by a motion to quash, but, as noted above, there appear to
be only a very few cases interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et seq.   Therefore,
it appears that a superior court may be able to grant a motion to quash a
subpoena issued by a legislative committee (assuming that we want to take
the risk of state court jurisdiction).

In one early case, the Court of Appeal held that the contempt order and
accompanying affidavit issued by the Court upon the request of a Senate
Committee were fatally defective.  Ex Parte McLain (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 274.
In McLain, the Senate Interim Committee on Social Welfare served upon Mr.
McLain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a corporation a subpoena
calling for the production of various books, papers and documents.  Mr.
McLain appeared before the committee but refused to answer questions or
produce the documents.  Upon representation of the Committee, the Superior
Court issued an order directing Mr. McLain to produce the documents.  Mr.
McLain again appeared before the Committee and again refused to produce the
documents at which point, an affidavit was filed in Superior Court stating:

"That, based upon evidence in its possession, the said Senate Interim
Committee has determined that each of the books, papers, and documents
specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to the matters now under
investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee, and the production of
such books, papers and documents is necessary in order to enable said Senate
Interim Committee properly to perform the duties imposed upon it and to
report to the Senate of the State of California pursuant to said Senate
Resolution No. 162." and "That each of the books, papers and documents
specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to the matters now under
investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee and that the production
of such books, papers and documents is necessary in order to enable said
Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the duties imposed upon it and
to report to the Senate of the State of California pursuant to said Senate
Resolution No. 162."

The Superior Court found Mr. McLain guilty of contempt and ordered him
committed to the sheriff until he produced the records.  The Court of
Appeals found that the order and affidavit were defective because "a witness
who is otherwise orderly and respectful cannot be adjudged guilty of
contempt unless the order affirmatively sets forth the materiality and
pertinency of the books and papers called for.  In cases of constructive
contempt, as is this, not only the order but also the affidavit upon which
it is based must sufficiently charge the alleged facts constituting the
offense."  McLain at 276.

This holding appears to be somewhat consistent with cases interpreting
C.C.P. 1985, which hold that the subpoena and affidavits must allege
material facts rather than conclusory statements.  See e.g. Grannis v. Board
of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551.

However, cases interpreting C.C.P. 1985 also require the subpoena to
demonstrate a level of specificity, materiality and relevance to be held
proper.  See e.g. Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 273
Cal.App.2d 61.  It is unclear, but arguable that subpoenas issued by
legislative committees will be held to this same standard.

2.  What is the likely impact of a legislative committee subpoena issued
against Enron for out-of-state Enron documents?

 There is little case law interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et seq. and the Govt.
Code reporters cross reference to the Code of Civil Procedure Sections on
issuance of subpoenas (C.C.P. 1985, et seq.).  Therefore, it is likely that
the provisions of both the Govt. Code and the C.C.P. will govern the
issuance and enforceability of a subpoena issued by a legislative committee.
Accordingly we use these provisions to analyze this question.

 (a)  Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 1985 et
seq.

C.C.P. 1989 is entitled "Residency requirements for attendance of witnesses"
and provides that "A witness, including a witness specified in subdivision
(b) of Section 1987, is not obliged to attend as a witness before any court,
judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness is a resident within
the state at the time of service."

However, there is a statutory limitation on the residency requirement
imposed by Section 1989.  Section 1987.3 provides "[w]hen a subpoena duces
tecum is served upon a custodian of records or other qualified witness as
provided in Article 4 (commencing with Section 1560) of Chapter 2 of
Division 11 of the Evidence Code, and his personal attendance is not
required by the terms of the subpoena, Section 1989 shall not apply."
(Evade. Code 1650 lays out the terms for compliance with a subpoena for
business records where the business is "neither a party nor the place where
any cause of action is alleged to have arisen.")

On commentator noted the following with respect to C.C.P. 1987.3:

"The rule limiting subpoenas to California "residents" (C.C.P. 1989) does
not apply to a subpoena duces tecum served on custodians of records unless
their personal attendance is required. See C.C.P. 1987.3; Amoco Chem. Co. v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 554, 561 fn.
9.  Thus, a nonresident custodian of business records may be required to
respond to a subpoena duces tecum served upon him or her while present in
California, by producing the records in accordance with Cal. Evid. Code 1560
(delivering copies of the records and accompanying affidavit to the court
clerk)... [However], C.C.P. 1987.3 probably applies only where the
nonresident custodian is employed by a business entity subject to California
jurisdiction. Otherwise, there would be no way for the court to enforce
compliance with a subpoena served on a nonresident.  See Amoco Chem. Co. v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, supra."

Werner, Fairbanks & Epstein, Rutter Group, California Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure & Trials at 1.57-58

Moreover, in one unpublished case, Allee v. King (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1081,
the court held that it lacked power to compel a nonresident defendant to
produce original out-of-state documents at trial.  In so holding, the court
stated that:

"even though King apparently voluntarily attended the trial, his presence
does not confer jurisdiction on the court to oblige him to deliver the
out-of-state documents.   Although section 1989 uses the word "witness" and
does not refer to documents, it has long been presumed under common law that
documents in other states are outside the court's territorial jurisdiction,
so that a court will allow the use of copies or other secondary evidence
instead of originals.  (See, e.g., Heinz v. Heinz (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 61,
66, 165 P.2d 967, and cases cited therein.)   The recognition that
out-of-state documents are not subject to the court's process is in
conformity with the general rule under common law that, absent a statute
properly conferring broader powers, the extent of a state's subpoena power
and its accompanying subpoena duces tecum power is coterminous with its
borders.  (See 97 C.J.S., Witnesses, S 17, p. 367, S 23, p. 375, S 25, p.
380;  81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, S 8, p. 32, S 14, p. 39.)

However, the Allee court notes that the "state-border" limitation on
subpoena power has not been extended to local branches of national
corporations who are subpoenaed to deliver documents which are out-of-state.
Therefore, even under Allee, if a subpoena was issued to an  Enron entity
within California that possessed responsive documents, that Enron entity may
be obligated to respond.  See Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165
Cal.App.3d 806.

Therefore, if a subpoena is issued which requires the attendance of an
out-of-state officer of Enron, Enron has a very good argument that that
witness is not obligated to attend under C.C.P. 1989.  It also seems
probable that, under Amoco and Allele cited above, if a subpoena is served
on an Enron custodian of records who is employed by a non-California Enron
entity, the subpoena may be invalid.  However, if a subpoena seeking the
production of documents is served on the custodian of records (or someone
similarly situated) who is employed by an Enron entity that possesses
responsive documents and is subject to personal jurisdiction in California,
that Enron entity most likely is obligated to produce the documents.  While
it is an open question, Enron can certainly argue that the custodian of
records employed by an Enron entity in California would only be required to
produce the Enron documents in the possession of the Enron California
entity.  (This question is addressed somewhat in the commentary on the
C.C.P. 2020 statutory scheme, see below, but is still open.)

 (b)  Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 2020 et
seq.

An additional threshold question regarding the territorial effect of this
subpoena concerns whether it is should be considered a deposition subpoena.
The question is:  If the legislative subpoena was treated as a "deposition
subpoena," would a court deciding the enforceability of a legislative
subpoena treat Enron as a "party" or as a "non-party"?

The rules governing the reach of discovery in California are obviously
different for the two.  The deposition of a party or party-affiliated
witness may be noticed (without a subpoena) for a place within 75 miles of
the witness' residence.  It is unclear how a court would resolve this issue.
After all, if a court was resolving the issue at all, an Enron entity will
have appeared before it. and would be a "party."  However, it seems
moderately more likely that the court would treat Enron's obligations under
the legislative committee subpoena as similar to its obligations if it was
served with a "non-party" subpoena.

There are three types of "deposition subpoena":  a "testimony only subpoena"
(requires only the attendance and testimony of the witness), a "business
records subpoena" (requires only the production of business records) and a
"records and testimony subpoena" (requires both -- also formerly called
subpoena duces tecum).  The second of these is the most relevant to Enron.

The attendance of an non party out-of-state witness or the production of
documents can be compelled only under the law of the place where the
deposition is to be taken.  C.C.P. 2026 (b)(2).  Specifically, C.C.P.
2026(b)(2) provides "If the deponent is not a party to the action or an
officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, a party serving a
deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures
required and available under the laws of the state, territory, or insular
possession where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to
attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document or tangible thing
for inspection, copying, and any related activity."

Some states issue subpoenas routinely, some require a showing of materiality
or relevancy, and some require a commission from the court where the action
is pending.    This question will depend on the law of the state when the
custodian of records resides.

Regarding the question of whether the service of a deposition subpoena on an
in-state custodian of records would compel the production of out-of-state
documents.  Weil & Brown, Rutter Group, California Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure Before Trial at 5:540.4 notes:

"It is unclear whether service of a "business records" subpoena on a
nonparty corporation in California compels production of its records located
outside the state. ... C.C.P. 2020(d) requires that the subpoena be directed
to the records "custodian" (or someone authorized to certify the records).
Whether "custodian" requires actual custody of the records is unclear. If it
does, serving an officer or agent in California would not compel production
of business records located elsewhere. The result is different where a
"records and testimony" subpoena is used. That procedure extends to records
in control of the subpoenaed party, not merely in his or her custody."

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com


Thank you everyone for my gift card to Foley's.  I will definelty have fun
using that.  You are all a great bunch to work for.

Thanks again!

Ina


Hi Carol.  Great to hear from you.  I hope all is going well.

Diana Higgins who is a manager (credit) in the metal area will be the
principal credit person.  I would say that Kaiser is a low grade credit and
the contract should be robust with early termination and collateral rights.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  St Clair, Carol
Sent: 25 May 2001 15:02
To: Nelson, Roderick; Simons, Paul
Cc: Shackleton, Sara
Subject: Kaiser
Importance: High

Rod and Paul:
I have checked the ISDA between Kaiser and ENA and it has our standard setoff
language which permits setoff of amounts owed by or to the Non-Defaulting
Party and its Affiliates against amounts owed by or to the Defaulting Party
under the ISDA and other agreements.  Please call me once you have located
the Metals agreement as Greg indicated to me in a voice mail that he needs an
answer this morning.

Rod,
If we get comfortable on the legal side with this arrangement, are there
other credit issues that need to be considered?

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


Ask Marvin or whoever looks at Tenn if they are interested in any Iroq / Tenn capacity.  The capacity goes from Tcpl/Iroq - Wadd to Iroq/Tenn - Wright, then from Iroq/Tenn - Wright to Mendon and Boston Gas citygate.


I will need to leave the office a little after 3 PM today and next
Wednesday.


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Lenhart, Matthew
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 10:48 AM
To:	Grigsby, Mike
Subject:	FW: TheStreet: Trusts Keeping Enron Off Balance

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Landry, Chad
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 10:27 AM
To:	Lenhart, Matthew; Bass, Eric; Plauche, Stephen
Subject:	FW: TheStreet: Trusts Keeping Enron Off Balance

hey plauch, still think it is impossible for this stock to take on a one-handle.  just read below.

ckl

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kiani-Aslani, John
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 8:33 AM
To:	Gonzalez, Andrea
Subject:	TheStreet: Trusts Keeping Enron Off Balance


Can I distribute to the business groups?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan
Sent: Tue 8/28/2001 1:13 PM
To: Dasovich, Jeff; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; 'jbennett@gmssr.com'
Cc:
Subject: PLEASE LOOK AT THIS

I prepared these bullet points for AReM based on an e-mail Dan Douglass sent questioning the constitutionality of the CPUC's action.  AReM's PR firm will turn this into a hand out.  Jeanne is getting back to me on the legal arguments.

<<8-28-01 CPUC Suspension Bullet Points.doc>>


Here is the attachment we included in the briefing book for Lay in
preparation for his meeting with Cheney.  In the meeting, Lay specifically
used the BPA marketing affiliate example (let's hope its right, Jeff).

Sarah


CALENDAR ENTRY:	REMINDER

Description:
	Russell in Sabinal

Date:		10/15/2000
Time:		8:00 AM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Stacey W White

Detailed Description:


ENRON TRAVEL CLUB
http://home.enron.com:84/travel/

Meeting Notice & Agenda

Tuesday, 6/12/01
EB 5C2 @ Noon

Lunch is provided so please RSVP to Margaret Doucette no later than
Monday at noon on June 11, 2001.


Vince,

Here are the topics that our London folks are interested in.

Have a good weekend.

Zimin

---------------------- Forwarded by Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT on 05/26/2000 02:41 PM
---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. - Europe

	From:  Anjam Ahmad                           05/26/2000 08:12 AM

To: Natasha Danilochkina/LON/ECT@ECT, Haakon Olafsson/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark
Jones/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: New Gas Models Preliminary Schedule for next week

Dear all,

Please could you confirm your availability for meetings next week as follows:-

Wednesday 31st May
Overview of UK Gas Products to be revalued
a) wet gas swing deals (Teeside delivery)
b) liquids extraction options
Time: 9.30am to 11.30am (1 1/2 hrs), SW1001
Zimin, Anjam, Natasha

Wednesday 31st May
Overview of UK Gas Products to be revalued
c) virtual storage (EnBank)
d) dry gas swing deals
Time: 3pm to 4.30pm (1 1/2 hrs), NE1002
Zimin, Anjam, Natasha

Wednesday 31st May
Simulation of UK Gas Forward curve
Time: 5pm to 6pm (1 hr), NE1002
Zimin, Anjam, Natasha, Haakon

Thursday 1st June
Model modifications to accomodate UK products
Time: 9.30am to 11.00am, NW1003
Zimin, Natasha, Anjam

Friday 2nd June
IT requirements for trading/rm model
a) booking/MTM
b) exposures and hedge ratios calculation
Time: 9.30am to 11am, NW1003
Zimin, Mark Jones, Natasha

Invitations to follow...

Thanks,

Anjam
x35383


Jerry,

Thanks.  I'll give it a look immediately, and will discuss the game plan with
Heather.

Congratulations on wrapping up the alliance and associated agreements.  Looks
like an interesting and exciting opportunity for both companies.

Kay


Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/07/2001 01:38 PM -----

	"US Publishing" <brice@restructuringtoday.com>
	06/07/2001 02:40 PM
	Please respond to brice

		 To: "RT Reader" <brice@restructuringtoday.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Restructuring Today, Thursday June 7, 2001

(see attached file:  rt010607.pdf)

Thank you,

Season Hawksley
US Publishing
800-486-8201
2002-298-8201
 - rt010607.pdf


Advice from Judy highlighted in black.

Trogg 522: you need to go to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/540744/ref=ba_tn_hm/103-8519063-9519048     we need advice.
jtownse1965: what is it
Trogg 522: badies r us
jtownse1965: ok ....what kind of advice
Trogg 522: see if we missed some important items
jtownse1965: ok...i'll go check it out
jtownse1965: where's baby stroller, car seat, pac-n-play, high chair
Trogg 522: I believe laurie has all of those.  but i'll make a not.
jtownse1965: you can get car seat that converts to stroller or vice versa
jtownse1965: baby walker
jtownse1965: sign up for two car seats...you need one for each car...or sign up for the one that you will need in 6months to a year
Trogg 522: I need to keep this email and send it to immer when Outlook comes back up.
Trogg 522: we really didn't have much of a clue when we were going thru the store.  we kept saying, "i dunno"
jtownse1965: baby swing....that's a lifesaver
jtownse1965: did that help
Trogg 522: yes it did.  i gonna cut this email and send it to immer.  she has a list of things that laurie wants to give us.
Trogg 522: you know, these expenses can add up pretty quick.  you should show that to jared and see what he thinks.
Trogg 522: i bet he has a very good idea of what you need for new borns rite now.
jtownse1965: i will...he stepped away....will when he gets back
Trogg 522: have you been chatting with dan and scott this morning?
jtownse1965: that's true...yes, chatting with dan ....keeps updating cash prices
jtownse1965: it's freezing up here
jtownse1965: baby boppee
Trogg 522: i can't do any work without outlook
jtownse1965: don't know what happened

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Immer, Ingrid" <Ingrid.Immer@Williams.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Monday, March 11, 2002 11:59 AM
To:	Germany, Chris
Subject:	RE: Boo

I got this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Germany, Chris [SMTP:Chris.Germany@enron.com]
> Sent:	Monday, March 11, 2002 11:27 AM
> To:	Immer, Ingrid
> Subject:	Boo
>
> Let me know if you get this.  Outlook is up but I don't have any email for
> today which is odd.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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.
> **********************************************************************
>


Hi campers.  Its that time of month again, I need all the transport
information for CES for March.


We need to work out a system here Kristen.  Why is it you are so freakin hard
to get in touch with?  I asked you how often you check email, but you've
never told me, once a day, week, what?  And this cell phone thing...Do you
have it with you all the time...is it on...if not, how often do you check
voicemail...how long after I leave a message should I expect to here from
you?  I'm generally impatient, which is why it kills me to wait to hear from
you, especially when I have not idea of what time frame to expect.

Anyway, I really need to make plans, otherwise I'm going to go to Utah with
Dave, or San Fran, or Puerto Rico.

Mat


---------------------- Forwarded by Rick Buy/HOU/ECT on 02/05/2001 03:40 PM
---------------------------

	From:  Sheila Walton                           02/01/2001 08:56 AM

To: Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:


For January 20,2002


Gentlemen -

Following the Dabhol dictate that "bad news is good news," Dabhol is getting
some good news this week.

As reported in the press, DPC did receive a two-page letter from MSEB
purporting to rescind the PPA with immediate effect because DPC materially
misrepresented the capabilities of the power plant (i.e., 6 hour actual
ramp-up time vs. 3 hour ramp-up schedule in the PPA).  However, the letter
goes on to state that MSEB is "agreeable to continue the present arrangement
of power and payment until disputes are resolved by the appropriate forum."
We are not entirely sure what this last part means and are asking MSEB for
clarification.  Obviously, this letter is quite a buttress to our
already-delivered PTN contending that MSEB has evidenced an intention not to
be bound by the PPA.

While MSEB's letter seems to state that they will still honor some aspects of
the PPA, the letter adds that "payments would be subject to adjustments on
the basis of determination of reasonable compensation and quantum meruit by a
competent authority."  We hear rumors that MSEB will approach the Maharasthra
Energy Regulatory Commission (MERC) for a "how much should we pay DPC"
determination.  If they do so and MERC accepts jurisdiction, this would help
our expropriation, political force majeure and default arguments.

DPC seems to have managed to avoid a construction contractor termination in
May by agreeing to extend the required completion date for Block B by 9
days.  While this action does not have long-term benefits to the project, I
believe that it was a considerable sign of good faith that DPC is trying to
give the lenders some time to assess whether they want to begin curing
project agreement defaults on an ongoing basis.

Bruce


those bad Dynegy seeds are infecting already.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Forney, John M.
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:26 AM
To:	Twiggs, Thane
Subject:	RE: ASAP please: ERCOT Questions OOMC & OOME

I kind of lost my temper a bit with Mark.   Probably wont sound good on tape,  but I told him that a monkey-man wouldnt interpret the protocols that way.
Its the Dynegy thang talking.

JMF

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Twiggs, Thane
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:24 AM
To:	Forney, John M.; Nicolay, Christi L.; Portz, David; Gilbert-smith, Doug
Cc:	Ryall, Jean
Subject:	RE: ASAP please: ERCOT Questions OOMC & OOME

I will put in a call.  Kent is always on the run so it may take awhile to run him down.  I will also do something in writing to get a "record".
TTT

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Forney, John M.
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:21 AM
To:	Twiggs, Thane; Nicolay, Christi L.; Portz, David; Gilbert-smith, Doug
Cc:	Ryall, Jean
Subject:	RE: ASAP please: ERCOT Questions OOMC & OOME

Mark Patterson, our Rep,  called today to ask me if everything was resolved to my satisfaction.    I relayed that I did talk to John Adams last night and he did agree to give us one hour notice with an OOME instruction.    This is great,  however,   Mark warned me that we were outside of the tariff because Ercot still maintains that OOMC means run.
He relayed that in the event of line meltdown,  etc.  we would be liable.     John Adams also said this last night.   We are officially on notice of potential QSE liability.

In my opinion we need to:
Call Ken Saathoff and see if he can resolve their confusion today, otherwise we need to file whatever is necessary, under the protocols,  to protest this ridiculous interpretation and to protect ourself from this "liability."
Officially request clarification in the protocols on this issue.

Thanks,
JForney

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Twiggs, Thane
Sent:	Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:01 AM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.; Yeung, Charles; Maurer, Luiz
Cc:	Ryall, Jean; Steffes, James D.; Portz, David; Forney, John M.; Gilbert-smith, Doug; Day, Smith L.
Subject:	RE: ASAP please: ERCOT Questions OOMC & OOME

Here are a few additional points:

I spoke with Ken Saathoff at ERCOT last week (he is the director of technical operations) and he agreed that an OOMC instruction is essentially a "be ready" instruction and an additional OOME or another type of unit specific instruction is necessary for the plant to deploy. He is John Adams boss, so there is a disconnect between the two levels.  In addition to Kent, I spoke to Mark Walker the senior corporate counsel regarding payment, or lack thereof and he suggested that the only method would be to dispute the settlement statement and use that process.  Going forward however, that is not an effective mechanism due to the delay in payment and the necessity to prove your cost structure.

In speaking with Forney a few minutes ago it sounds like he may have convinced John Adams, but I would be happy to call Kent Saathoff if you feel that would help.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Portz, David
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:12 PM
To:	Nicolay, Christi L.
Cc:	Gilbert-smith, Doug; Baughman, Edward D.; Miller, Jeffrey; Forney, John M.
Subject:	Ercot Questions OOMC & OOME

Forwarded as discussed.  Doug Gilbert Smith has asked that your group draft a complaint to the PUCT regarding this misinterpretation of the Protocols by the ERCOT ISO, which effectively requires a generator called on for the OOMC ancillary service to run its plant, and sidesteps the obligation to pay an OOME price component when the plant's output is utilized by ERCOT.  The OOMC compensation is currently negligible (and recovery of actual costs under Protocols Sec. 6.8.2.1(6) may take a long time), and the OOME compensation has various problems as well: (1) the more ERCOT calls on a plant for OOME, the the lesser the OOME price paid (Protocols Sec. 6.8.2.2 -- Heat Rate value decreases), and (2) plants directed to provide, say, 135MWs of OOMC/OOME, are not allowed to generate above 135 MWs in an interval (thus running the plant economically at a lower heat rate) to sell the excess in the marketplace. The Frontera plant, a customer of EPMI acting as QSE, is located such that ERCOT is and will be consistently telling the plant via its QSE to provide OOMC -- to produce energy going north on a line in South Texas. Doug says we should advocate to the PUC that plants in such a position should be Reliability Must Run ("RMR") and be paid at an adequate premium for their support of the system' reliability.

I noted to you as well that this is likely to be a dispute with ERCOT over the interpretation of the Protocols, conducted under Protocols Section 20, and we would appreciate any reg. group efforts toward preparation for iinitiating such dispute.  Frontera has indicated they will not provide OOMC tomorrow even if ERCOT tells us, their QSE that it should be dispatched. Thus we are caught in the middle.  The legitimate bases for not complying with an ERCOT dispatch instruction are stated in Protocols Section 5.4.4(2): "threat to safety, risk of bodily harm or damage to the equipment, or otherwise is not in compliance with these Protocols".  Though the Protocols Sections 1-22 seem to recognize as to other capacity- oriented ancillary service products that it is 'generating capacity available but not energy delivered to the grid', I have not seen this made clear as to OOMC.  The Operating Guides' definition of OOMC, page 21 seems to recognize this however, and Section 2B of the ERCOT Market Guide, p. 8 (Feb 22, 2001) recognizes the distinction between capacity and generated energy clearly in support of the position stated by John Forney below.

Sorry for the long e-mail -- I was trying to provide a statting point for your group.
  -----Original Message-----
From: 	Forney, John M.
Sent:	Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:27 PM
To:	Portz, David; Gilbert-smith, Doug
Subject:	Ercot Questions

David,
I need some help with an Ercot protocol interpretation:

Frontera has been issued  OOMC requests by the ISO on numerous occasions, starting September 14th.    This Out of Merit request is issued if no mkt bids exist to solve congestion, whether local or zonal.
The OOMC, as I understand it,  reserves capacity for Ercot and the premium is predetermined based on a formula mentioned in the protocols.   The formula is based on the replacement reserve clearing price,  which currently is zero.   This is because the replacement reserve market is non-existent.  An announcement on how the OOMC capacity payments will be calculated is due out this week,  per Mark Patterson.

The second component of this option is OOME.    This is a request for actual energy related to the OOMC option.   The strike price is calculated from a preset heat rate multiplied by the HSC daily price, as mentioned in the protocols.  So the OOMC/OOME ws designed to work like the ancillary services with a capacity award and an energy component.  I think that this is the spirit of the OOM's, as mentioned in Section 6 of the Protocols.

Here is the problem:
the head of Ercot Market Operations,  John Adams,  interprets the protocols to mean that OOMC requries the plant to be generating.     When Ercot dispatchers had issued an OOMC,  they quickly followed up to ask us why we were not generating into the grid.
We explained to them, on numerous occasions,  that we dont believe OOMC means run.   If they wanted us to run,  then they would need to issue an OOME for the actual energy component.    I asked my employees to clarify with Ercot whether we were being asked to run,  yes or no.    When instructed to run by Ercot,  we had to assume that we were settled based upon the OOME calc, as we were previously under OOMC orders.

I sent at least three e-mails to my Ercot rep,  Mark Patterson regarding this issue.   I finally caught him by phone and he relayed that he thought Ercot's  intrepretation was correct.    For all of the times that we ran,  at their request,  we werent going to be paid based on the OOME heat rate calc,  rather we were going to receive the balancing energy price ( a penalty for Resource Imbalance).   For example,  in the early morning hours we would receive as little as $1 for electricity that cost $27 to generate.   Mark also mentioned that when they said run,  they expected us to sell to someone else,  or just generate into the imbalance.    Mark told me "dont worry,  you can file to receive your generation expenses in the event that you lost money."

Here is my view:
OOMC does not mean run.  It means have the capacity available in the event Ercot calls,  much like replacement,  responsive reserve and non-spinning.
Ercot's interpretation is being decided by the Manager of Mkt Operations,  a group supposedly unconcerned with price.
If OOMC means to run,  then why would the protocols contemplate, or need OOME?  They would never have to pay OOME if we were already running into the imbalance.
OOMC is an option and the exercise is OOME.   This is basically the disagreement.    This could very well be a $500,000 issue for Frontera.
Why would anyone generate for $27 and dump to the imbalance mkt at $5 in hopes of filing for a "breakeven."   Ridiculous.

I spoke with Bill Kettlewell with Customer Relations and he had "no comment" on whether OOMC means to generate.  Mark Patterson now also has "no comment."
Bill and Mark said that we needed to file a dispute in order to receive closure on the OOM capacity payment.   I suspect that we will follow this same path when we file for OOME reimbursement vs.  the imbalance price we will receive.

I had instructed my employeess to refuse to turn on the plant   (in response to an OOMC) until we receive an OOME instruction.   This has compelled  Ercot to deploy an OOME request to us, because they need  to have us online to control local congestion.   Would this not be an omission that their view was incorrect?  Section 5.4.4 says that a QSE may fail to comply with an Ercot directive if it causes a safety concern, or ,  Ercot is not in compliance with the Protocols.  The latter is in effect.
Ercot is now telling us that they cannot instruct us, or give us an OOME deployment,  unless we are already runnnig.    I think that this is a software issue, not a protocol issue.
We worked out an interim compromise with Ercot until this issue can be settled.  Once we have been OOMC'd,  we will start to gen.   Once we reach full load,  we will request an OOME.   If they dont comply,  we will shut down the unit.    Ercot said that " it was entirely reasonable that we would  request to be compensated in the form of an OOME."
The Ercot dispatchers are complaining that OOME requires them to send an instruction every 15 minutes.   Is this why we are not getting the OOME instruction on a regular basis?

Finally,  I stressed to Ercot that I wasnt trying to manipulate prices, via OOME or force Ercot into a corner.    It just is not the right economic environment to generate for $27 and sell for $5.    Further,  operations personell at Ercot have frelayed their displeasure with me for "forcing them to OOME our plant."

Can I get an opinion on whether OOMC means to run?   If you agree with me,  what is our next step?  I need to move aggressively on this issue.

Thanks,

JForney
37160


Having failed to resolve either the budget or the energy issues, the
Legislature is likely to postpone its recess and work through the weekend, at
a minimum.
In sum, though many claim that the Legislature will "vote for something," it
still doesn't appear that the "something" will include a measure that will
keep Edison out of bankruptcy.
The Senate and Assembly remain extremely far apart in their approaches to
amending the Governor's original MOU (which is dead).
The ranks of politicians that view bankruptcy as the best alternative is
growing.

In the Senate:
SB18XX---Bill to de-link the bonds from the DWR Contracts
In the only bipartisan move to date, SB18XX passed out of two committees
yesterday, but has not yet been voted on by the full Senate.
The bill de-links payment of the bonds needed to backfill the state budget
from payment of DWR contracts.
The bill is being driven by increasing concerns over the volume and price of
the DWR contracts.
The DWR contracts are being held up as the reason California must suspend, or
end, Direct Access.
Republicans on the Assembly side are supportive of 18, but Hertzberg--the
Speaker--has joined with the Governor's people in the view that the bill
would impair the contracts, consititute a breach, and expose the State to
substantial damages.
As a result, when the bill passes the Senate and gets over to the Assembly,
its chances of passage there are low.
SB72XX---The Senate's MOU
The Senate's version of the MOU--SB72XX--limped out of its final committee
yesterday before going to a vote by the full Senate, but its chances of
passing the full Senate at this point are 50-50.
The problem is that many democrats believe they will be attacked for voting
for a bill that will likely drive Edison into bankruptcy, while many other
democrats fear it will look like they bailed out Edison----the courage and
leadership is awesome.

In the Assembly:
The Assembly two versions of the MOU---AB 82XX and AB 83 XX (now AB 50XX)
The Assembly is severely divided over how to address the energy issue.
The Speaker is having a very difficult time getting democrats to support his
own bill (82XX).
Many moderate democrats support a bipartisan bill developed by a democrat
(Rod Wright), who has broken ranks with Repbublicans, and Assembly
Republicans.
In the end, the Speaker's bill is likely to prevail.
Things are complicated by the fact that the Assembly is having a very
difficult time getting a budget passed.
As noted above, the Assembly democractic leadership opposes SB 18XX and is
trying to cobble together an alternative to 18.


Please send out 2 books to TECO.  Thanks
Ben


Fletch,
     I really appreciate whatever help you can give me in the job search.
Thanks,
Tomcat


Stephanie,

We will receive the signed copy of Gas Natural Mexico today, I''ll let you
know as soon as I receive it.
Also we need to send them executables copies for Comercializadora Metrogas,
they only have now a draft, but they can sign it very fast because it is
alrready aproved by they attorneys.

Paul Radous will prepare a credit worksheet for the new company, Gas Natural
Servicios, S.A. de C.V.

Regards,

Agustin Perez

	Stephanie Panus
	01/11/2001 08:59 AM

		 To: Agustin Perez/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: ISDA Gas Natural de Mexico

Agustin,
Wanted to check on the status of the Agreements in your below email from Dec.
22.

Thanks,
Stephanie

From: Agustin Perez on 12/22/2000 12:10 PM
To: Paul Radous/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Brent Hendry, Samantha Boyd/NA/Enron@Enron,
Stephanie Panus/NA/Enron@Enron, Jaime Williams, Agustin Perez
cc:

Subject: ISDA Gas Natural de Mexico

Good News,

The ISDA has been approved and will be signed when the CEO return from
holydays (Jan 8). They will sign the 2 ISDA's we sent for Gas Natural Mexico
and Comercializadora Metrogas, and also want to sign another for Gas Natural
Servicios.

They will send me the corporate documents for this company, I will forward
them as soon as I receive them.

Paul, please tell us if we can use the same format of ISDA as in
Comercializadora Metrogas, they are going to provide the same guaranty from
Gas Natural Mexico.

Regards,

Agustin Perez


The second phase of reconstruction on IH 45 between W. Dallas and Memorial
will begin Saturday, November 11, 2000, all northbound lanes will be closed
at 7 PM.  All northbound traffic will detour to US 59 North to IH-610 Loop.
Two northbound lanes will reopen Monday, November 13, 2000, at 5 AM.

  The Houston Avenue / Memorial Avenue exit and the entrance from Pease,
  St. Joseph's Parkway, and Walker  will be closed until further notice.
Anyone
  typically using these routes must find an alternate route.

The following routes are recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation

New Ramp Chartres at Runnels to IH 10 West

Louisiana North to IH 10 West on ramp

Allen Parkway to Studemont or Waugh to IH 10

West Gray to Montrose North (Studemont) to IH 10

Bagby (W. Dallas) to Montrose North (Studemont) to IH 10

San Jacinto to IH 10 East

North on main to IH 45

Travis to IH 45

The Downtown District is updating it's web site with detailed road closure
maps and suggested alternate routes.  This information is available at
http://www.downtownstreets.com. Please check this site regularly for updates
on street closures.


The ALJ has confirmed that Commissioner Wood has amended an order about PX
credit modifications to include an end to direct access and placed it on the
agenda.  We do not have access to the proposed order to verify the precise
language.  The order is NOT an order from Commissioner Bilas as the agenda
improperly suggests.  Parties seeking to retain direct access rights should
contact Pres. Lynch and Commission Brown in particular, as well as
Commissioner Duque and Commissioner Bilas.  There is some indication that
Commission Bilas may prepare an alternate omitting the ban on direct access.
Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Govenar [mailto:sgovenar@govadv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:42 PM
To: Mark Nobili; Mike Day; Bev Hansen; Aaron Thomas; Michael Rochman;
Julee Malinowski-Ball; Jeff Dasovich; Susan J Mara; Jackson Gualco;
Karen Mills; Dominic DiMare; Bill Booth; Sandra McCubbin; Matt Moretti;
Keith McCrea; Norm Plotkin; Barbara Barkovich; Dorothy Rothrock; Delaney
Hunter; Wes Larson; Vincent Stewart; gharrison@calstate.edu; Lance
Hastings; cra@calretailers.com; Will Brown; Richard Seguin; Dennis
Flatt; Roger Richter; Ken Pietrelli; Les Spahnn; Chuck Cole; Mike
Monagan; Tracy Fairchild; Dave Finigan
Subject: CPUC

The CPUC is going to consider eliminating direct access at its June 14th
meeting.  Please spread the word accordingly.


<<CEAexplanationfinal5-24-00.doc>>  <<EWING_026.PDF>>
 Here is the Ewing Bill and Ewing's statement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Weston, Ryan
To: 'rainslie@isda.org'; 'mtsmithson@wms-jen.com'
Sent: 5/25/00 6:50 PM
Subject: FW: H.R. 4541

please forward to Mary Whalen

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:  Weston, Ryan
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 6:25 PM
> To: 'Larry.Decker@do.treas.gov'; 'patrick.m.parkinson@frb.gov';
> 'CarterC@sec.gov'; 'bgreenwood@cftc.gov'; Walter_Lukken@agriculture.
> senate. gov (E-mail); Ebersole, Dave; Riley, John
> Subject: H.R. 4541
>
>  <<CEAexplanationfinal5-24-00.doc>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  <<EWING_026.PDF>>
>
>

 <<CEAexplanationfinal5-24-00.doc>>  <<EWING_026.PDF>>

 - CEAexplanationfinal5-24-00.doc
 - EWING_026.PDF


Hi Kate,
Deals #478168, 478944, 478945, 478946 are to be confirmed by either Greg
Wolfe or Christian Yoder.  We need to get the final copy of these confirm
letters so we can scan them into the system for our files.  Also, if the
finalized confirm has been sent to the counterparty we need to change the
status in the system.  These deals are still showing up on our "New" report
every morning and I need to do something with them.
Thanks for your help!
Kim


ATTENTION ANALYST ROTATING WITHIN THE NEXT 2 TO 3 MONTHS:

ENA West Origination is seeking an analyst or associate candidate for the San
Francisco office. The candidate would work under VP Dave Parquet on the Power
Development Team, helping to permit and develop power projects throughout
California.

Job Descriptions:   Perform project evaluation and structuring of potential
power development opportunities.  Carry out strategic planning and contract
negotiation and management, including construction and operations
management.  Perform financial pro-forma preparation and project
financing.

Analysts and associates are given many opportunities for independent
decision-making and creative thinking. The ideal candidate would have
extensive modeling experience, some knowledge of power markets, excellent
communication skills and a desire to relocate to California for one year.
The candidate can expect to gain strong project management skills through
working with customers, consultants, legal, tax and accounting teams.

Please note that the need is immediate, and only candidates able to relocate
quickly need apply.  Please contact Amy Fitzpatrick or myself at x39233.


No problem.  Just refresh my memory what your fax number is.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
To: <Susan.J.Mara@enron.com>; <jmball@ns.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Peace Press Conference Notes

Julee:  Thanks very much for the info.  Could you please add me to your
distribution so I can get these up to the minute dispatches?  Thanks a lot.
Also could you forward along the press release materials you mention at the
end of your note?  Thank you very much.

Best,
Jeff

Susan J Mara
To:     James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul
11/21/2000           Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Richard
09:46 AM             Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Mona L
Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Mary
Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron,
rcarroll@bracepatt.com
cc:
Subject:     Peace Press Conference
Notes

This is pretty much an all-out attack against the positions that we and the
generators have taken.
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 11/21/2000 07:43 AM -----

"Julee
Malinowski-Ba        To:     "William Hall"
<wfhall2@duke-energy.com>,
ll"                  "Trond Aschehoug"
<taschehoug@thermoecotek.com>,
<jmball@ns.ne        "Tony Wetzel"
<twetzel@thermoecotek.com>, "Tandy
t>                   McMannes" <mcmannes@aol.com>, "Sue
Mara"
<smara@enron.com>, "Steven Kelley"
11/20/2000           <steven@iepa.com>, "Steve Ponder"
01:38 PM             <steve_ponder@fpl.com>, "Roger
Pelote"
Please               <roger.pelote@williams.com>,
"Robert Lamkin"
respond to           <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>, "Paula
Soos"
"Julee               <paula_soos@ogden-energy.com>,
"Marty McFadden"
Malinowski-Ba        <marty_mcfadden@ogden-energy.com>,
"Lynn
ll"                  Lednicky" <lale@dynegy.com>, "Kent
Fickett"
<kfickett@usgen.com>, "Ken Hoffman"
<khoffman@caithnessenergy.com>,
"Jonathan
Weisgall" <jweisgall@aol.com>,
"John Stout"
<john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>,
"Joe Ronan"
<joer@calpine.com>, "Joe Greco"
<joe.greco@uaecorp.com>, "Jim
Willey"
<elliottsa@earthlink.net>, "Jack
Pigott"
<jackp@calpine.com>,
<iep@iepa.com>, "Hap Boyd"
<rboyd@enron.com>, "Greg Blue"
<gtbl@dynegy.com>,
"Frank DeRosa"
<fderosa@sanfrancisco.usgen.com>,
"Ed Tomeo" <ed.tomeo@uaecorp.com>,
"Duane Nelson"
<dnelsen@msn.com>, "Dean Gosselin"
<dean_gosselin@fpl.com>, "David
Parquet"
<dparque@ect.enron.com>, "David
Keane"
<dnke@dynegy.com>, "Curtis Kebler"

<curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Carolyn
Baker" <cabaker@duke-energy.com>,
"Bob Escalante"
<rescalante@riobravo-gm.com>, "Bob
Ellery"
<bellery@spi-ind.com>, "Bill Woods"
<billw@calpine.com>, "Bill Carlson"

<william_carlson@wastemanagement.com>, "Stephanie
Newell"
<stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>,
"Richard Hyde"
<rwhyde@duke-energy.com>,
"Kassandra Gough"
<kgough@calpine.com>
cc:     "Susan McCabe"
<sfmccabe@mindspring.com>,
"Scott Govenar"
<sgovenar@govadv.com>, "Ron Tom"
<thackbarth@govadv.com>, "Robert
Ross"
<robbiz@cwo.com>, "Phil Isenberg"
<Isenberg@HMOT.com>, "Mike Monagan"
<mrmonagan@aol.com>, "Maureen
OHaren"
<Oharen@HMOT.com>, "Marie Moretti"
<marie_moretti@msn.com>, "Kassandra
Gough"
<kgough@calpine.com>, "Hedy
Govenar"
<hgovenar@acom2.com>, "Delany
Hunter"
<dhunter@smithandkempton.com>, "Bev
Hansen"
<bhansen@lhom.com>, "Anne Kelly"
<kelly@hnks.com>, "Jenn Paulsen"
<paulsen@hmot.com>, "Jamie Parker"
<jparker@hmot.com>
Subject:     Peace Press Conference
Notes

Senator Steve Peace held a press conference today to discuss, as chair of
the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Budget proposal with contain $2
billion for a special reserve for energy initiatives.

He stated that he is not proposing any uses for this money, that it is
designed to "preserve the options for the Governor" and other policy makers
in dealing with California's energy woes.  However, he proceeded to outline
some possible options, including the state taking over the transmission
system, condemning power plants and the state running them, condemning just
the output of the states power plants, or having the state build power
plants.  Again, he is not proposing these, they are just options for the
Governor.

Other comments of interest:

- Generators are only willing to build power plants if they can get 14
cents
kw/hr.  If that's the case, the state can build them for cheaper.

- He noted that today the CEC will release some data that calls into
questions there is a supply problem.  Independent energy producers have
"fabricated the supply problem."

- Criticized generators for pushing for retail solutions, saying that
"nothing would be more disastrous than opening the retail market before the
wholesale market is controlled."

- "Generators are extorting the law" and "running roughshod over
California'
s environmental law" in a "well-orchestrated political agenda."

- Generators are in a "full-scale attack on the balance sheets" of the
investor-owned utilities.

- He also said that the IOUs have indicated that they would be willing to
get back into the generation business if the state finances it.

- Generators are asking FERC to keep prices artificially high.

- He still insists that rates are outright market manipulation, and that
generators were holding back thousands of megawatts of power this summer.
Cites today's higher prices as an example.

Please contact me or our office if you would like a copy of the press
release or the other supporting materials, including his letter to Lynch
that urges the CPUC to deny the IOUs cost pass-through request, and asks
the
CPUC to order the IOUs "to exhaust their legal remedies to obtain refunds
from all parties who were the beneficiaries of the proceeds of the unlawful
wholesale charges the IOUs incurred."

--end--

Julee Malinowski-Ball
Associate
Edson+Modisette
916-552-7070
Fax- 552-7075
jmball@ns.net


Hey Bobbi,

Here is a revised nomination sheet for March, and also, I know you'll be shocked, but I sent the contract to the lawyers for approval, so we should get it back shortly!

See ya


Sara/ Frank-
do you think we can get the draft of the CSA before you leave for your
offsite.. Frank- want to discuss you coming up to discuss ISDAs.. in the
interests of time, its probably best to do a video confo.. I am out next
week.. the following week??

From: Sara Shackleton@ECT on 04/26/2001 09:33 AM
To: Caroline Abramo/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Radous/Enron@EnronXGate, Frank
Sayre/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: hedge funds

Caroline:

You should have already seen the two ISDA's (Valentis, CD Holdings) emailed
yesterday evening per your instructions.  I am still waiting for you to send
information regarding inhouse/outside legal counsel for both parties.

The Schedule and Paragraph 13 sent to Valentis et al is very much like the
hedge fund template which legal is refining.  We are reviewing the first
draft and commenting.

FYI - I will not be in the office on Friday, April 27.  Also, the Enron legal
conference is next week and the lawyers will be in San Antonio from May 2
(afternoon) through May 4.  And finally, I will be on vacation during the
week of May 7 - May 11.  Please try to make plans (conference calls,
counterparty comments, etc.) accordingly.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.

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


Sorry, I forgot to answer your last question.  I think its fine to send the
documents out to Hanover.  Even if some of the blanks are not filled in, we
can get their lawyers looking at the structure.  DF

	From:  Michel Nelson                           02/11/2000 11:31 AM

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Charlie Graham/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Hanover / TW Compression Monetization

Drew - Do I need some kind of confidentiality agreement? An attorney present
to discuss at first meeting?

MKM - One questions Jim Gill had was how do we get around FERC requirements -
someone from Regulatory available to discuss at first meeting or.....?

Although we believe the operating agreement and other details are in order, I
hadn't just planned to send them as is to Hanover. Some counseling may be in
order here, as I'm moving into new territory for me......

---------------------- Forwarded by Michel Nelson/ET&S/Enron on 02/11/2000
11:27 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Michel Nelson                           02/11/2000 11:11 AM

To: Charlie Graham/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Hanover / TW Compression Monetization

Charlie -

Talked to Jim Gill with Hanover

jgill@hanover-co.com

Hanover Co
12001 N Houston Rosslyn
Houston
TX
77086

phone 281 405 5174

Per your previous conversation:
1. send equipment list - engine /comp models plus aux equipment

2. face to face meeting - Houston Feb 23 or 24 ( monetization team? )

* discuss equipment - operations (swing or continuous)
* jurisdictional / FERC issues

3. 3+- day station tour with Hanover VP of Ops

*site review
* very basic due diligence

4. re-group to:

*discuss issues
*financials
*agreement

Comments / questions......

Mike

---------------------- Forwarded by Michel Nelson/ET&S/Enron on 02/11/2000
10:58 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Charlie Graham                           02/10/2000 04:43 PM

To: Michel Nelson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Hanover!

Mike,

Talked to Jim Gill at 4:30 pm.  They are very interested.  He proposed the
following steps:

1)  Send him an equipment list.  I think the Description and Location
Schedule 1.1 from the P&S Agreement would more than suffice.

2)  He would like to visit the stations with the Hanover V.P. of Operations
and one other person.  (He indicated 3 total.)  A quasi due diligence look at
the condition of the facilities.  He would like access to records etc. during
his visit.

3)  We could set down and talk "financials" after that.

He did not seemed surprised that I did not have good station plot plans to
supplement the equipment list.  I will get a package together tomorrow.
[Forgot to get his address. dah!]

I conjectured that you would want to discuss this with him further tomorrow.
He said he would be in all day.

Charlie


we won both games, of course.  i was 3-6 with a double off the fence - and
you missed it!  One guy on our team hit a home run in back-back at bats.

Shanna Husser@ENRON
03/09/2000 07:25 AM
To: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Good morning!!  How was your little games?  Did ya'll win?  Any homeruns
hit?  I was in bed for 9:45 last night- and I am still tired this morning-
what is wrong with me?  Anyhow- hope you have a good day- call me later when
you get a chance.

Shanna


Have my annual exam at 10 on Monday.  Will come in, leave about 9 and be back sometime after lunch - I assume.


You're welcome.  I had a good time also.  We should play again sometime when
it's not so damn cold.  Looks like you were right about OU.  I really thought
they would lose to KState.

DG

Jackson Logan
12/04/2000 08:56 AM
To: Darron C Giron/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: Golf

Thanks again for the invite to the golf tournament.  I had a good time.

Adios,

JDLIII


A few more...

 - pauserefreshes.jpg
 - niceartlady.jpg
 - noparking.jpg
 - ouch.jpg
 - bad2thebone.jpg
 - raceincentive.jpg
 - rockclimber.jpg
 - sorryflowers.jpg
 - touristattraction.jpg
 - whichwaytogo.jpg


Ina,

 Where can we put Barry T.?

Phillip

---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 11/14/2000
02:32 PM ---------------------------

Barry Tycholiz
11/13/2000 08:06 AM
To: Ina Rangel/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: New Employee on 32

I will be relocating to 32 effective Dec. 4.  Can you have me set up with all
the required equipment including, PC ( 2 Flat screens), Telephone, and cell
phone. Talk to Phillip regarding where to set my seat up for right now.

Thanks in advance. .

Barry

If there are any questions... Give me a call.  ( 403-) 245-3340.


Attached for your review are Transwestern's comments to be filed tomorrow on the CPUC's Proposed Decision in the SoCal GIR proceeding.  Please review and comment to either Greg Porter or myself by the end of today.  Thanks gh


IntercontinentalExchange
                                                                                Firm Power Price Bulletin
                                                                                For Power Delivered on Monday, November  05, 2001
                                                                                (Trade Date of Friday, November  02, 2001)
Click here to access index history .
                                                                                * volume represents sell-side only *

Hub	High	Low	Wtd Avg Index	Change ($)	Vol (Mwh)
Cinergy	         $25.75	         $23.50	         $25.03	+   4.85	         106,400
Comed	         $24.00	         $21.50	         $22.88	+   3.50	           6,400
Entergy	         $26.50	         $25.05	         $25.89	+    .26	          10,400
Nepool	         $39.75	         $38.00	         $39.01	+   4.80	          12,800
Palo Verde	         $33.90	         $32.75	         $33.33	+   2.72	           4,000
PJM-West	         $25.00	         $24.45	         $24.65	+   1.60	          66,400
SP-15	         $34.25	         $32.50	         $33.21	+    .65	           2,400
TVA	         $26.75	         $25.00	         $25.86	+   4.60	          12,800

                                                                                Includes all trades done from 6 AM to 11 AM Central Prevailing Time on the trade date specified for financially firm power delivered during the on-peak hours (6 AM - 10 PM CPT for Eastern hubs / 6 AM - 10 PM Pacific Prevailing Time for Western hubs) on the delivery date(s) specified.
                                                                                IntercontinentalExchange is the world's most liquid trading platform for over-the-counter energy and metals.  Active markets include North American power and natural gas, global crude and refined oil products, and precious metals.  Traded instruments include forwards, swaps, and options.
In order to receive the proprietary information contained in this email, you acknowledge and agree that you shall not further disseminate the IntercontinentalExchange Market Data contained herein to any person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.    Furthermore, you acknowledge that (1) IntercontinentalExchange has exclusive and valuable property rights in this data; (2) IntercontinentalExchange's data is being made available to you only for your own business or personal activities; and (3) you cannot communicate the data, in any form, to any other person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.
This data is provided to you free of charge.  IntercontinentalExchange reserves the right to cancel this service at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
You agree that IntercontinentalExchange does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the data.
To become an Exchange Participant or inquire about the indices, please contact sales@intcx.com .
To unsubscribe from this service, click here unsubscribe .
                                                                                ?Copyright IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2001, All Rights Reserved.


Doug Nichols, Robin Tompkins and Dave Aamodt of PGE have asked if they can be
added to the California Crisis conference call list.  Their E-mail addresses
are: Douglas_Nichols@pgn.com, David_aamodt@pgn.com, robin_tompkins@pgn.com


Additional info on TA1 Segment attached.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Darnell
Mobile: 602.432.3353
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 - TA1codes_de_I17.pdf
 - TA1codes_de_I18.pdf
 - TA1segment_SE_TA1.pdf


From Midland

go west on I-20
take the first Monahans exit (should be Business 20 exit)
go thru town, thru the one stop light
4 blocks past the light is a Kent Tire Center on the left

TW office is behind the Tire Center

address: 109 South Gail Street
phone: 915-943-3297

Kevin Hyatt's pager 888-582-7421


Glad to be aboard! When are we meeting? I am on campus Monday-Weds.

Christine

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

> Christine:
>
> Sorry I haven't replied sooner.  Crazy day.  Consider yourself the 5th
> member of our team---but remember, no warranties included.
>
> Best,
> Jeff

--
Christine Piesco
Industrials Account Manager
Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 506-3640
Fax: (650) 633-3753
christine.piesco@oracle.com

 - christine.piesco.vcf


Thanks, Ken.  I'm focused on the letter, so it would be very helpful if you
could draft some brief message points and email to me and Karen.  Then the
three of us can bounce them around a  bit before distributing to the larger
group for comment.  Thanks again.

Best,
Jeff

	"Ken Smith" <ken@kdscommunications.com>
	07/10/2001 02:55 PM
	Please respond to "Ken Smith"

		 To: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
		 cc: "Karen Denne" <kdenne@enron.com>
		 Subject: Messages for Dunn hearing

Jeff, if I can be of any help in developing the messages please let me know.
I'll be around all afternoon.

Ken Smith
KDS Communications
ken@kdscommunications.com
(916) 920-2488


fuck you

8aya1r@msn.com on 04/15/2001 07:41:06 AM
Please respond to korydegan4034@publicist.com
To:	fb753z@msn.com
cc:
Subject:	Need help with your bills this month?                                                   [swbij]

 Are you behind in bills?
 Late on a payment?

 Let us help you get out of debt NOW!

 If you are interested, we invite you to request free
 information at the end of this form.

 What we can do to help YOU!

 * Stop harrassment by creditors.
 * Reduce your principal balance up to 50%
 * Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment
 * Improve your credit rating
 * Lower your monthly payments by 40% - 60%

 Things to keep in mind:

 * There is no need to own property
 * There is no need to own any equity
 * This is not a loan

 This is a program that has helped thousands just like YOU!

 If you are interested, we invite you to read our free
 information please provide the following information:

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Full Name:
 Address:
 City:
 State:
 Zip Code:
 Home Phone:
 Work Phone:
 Best Time to Call:
 E-Mail Address:
 Estimated Debt Size:
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 (All information is kept securely and never
  provided to any third party sources)

 To unsubscribe please hit reply and send a message with
 remove in the subject.

This request is totally risk free.
No obligation or costs are incurred.


you should look into this.  not that there are necessarily violations, but
there have to at least be questions.  i used to get a curve report that
showed curve graphs on a volume bar chart.  have you looked at anything like
that lately?  you can find problems with a pretty quick scan.

From: John J Lavorato/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/04/2001 08:35 AM
To: Vladimir Gorny/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rick Buy/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject: FW: Gas Curve Validation April 2001

This person hasn't found a violation in a year.  I find that hard to believe.
 -----Original Message-----
From:  Nguyen, Jennifer
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 11:24 AM
To: Gorny, Vladimir; Gossett, Jeffrey C.; Hall, Bob M; Lavorato, John;
Reeves, Leslie
Subject: Gas Curve Validation April 2001


Dear Mike,

Thanks for your insight.  In the past few months we have established a
detailed approach to doorstep which includes interfacing with BRM.  Through
my calls the past week, I've been trying to update you so we can determine
how best to coordinate the Enron Europe work, as well as get an understanding
of what resources you can supply for this global initiative.

My next step is to contact some of the people on the list you gave me to
determine their skill set and what locations/commodities they'd be best to
work on.

I'll send you an updated schedule once I've finalized this.

Thanks

Shona

Mike Jordan@ECT
10/11/2000 09:37 AM
To: Shawn Kilchrist/NA/Enron@Enron, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Transparently controlling the wholesale trading businesses - an
internal approach to internal audit

Shawn / Shona

We have talked round this issue for some time so I thought I would try to
take a brief stab at documenting what my preferred approach is (we will need
to do a great deal of talking before we would circulate widely):-

Aims
Accountability for internal controls must rest with the commercial support
teams and absolutely with the leaders of those teams.
A culture of control and operational risk assessment requires extensive
on-going communication and a structure of measurement and tracking.
Any independent process of review such as Doorstep and BRM should fully
leverage the work engaged by staff in the line and indeed should be focused
by it
All elements of implementing, completing and reviewing internal control
should generate defined output
We focus independently the review efforts for trading controls and
origination controls (we have defined the control structure for trading
offices, agency offices and origination offices and we must police our
labelling for each office)
The output from Enron's perspective is appropriate risk issue lists to be
discussed at control/governance meetings (eg at Sally/Ted/Fernley's level and
at the audit committee level) - the important issue here is that every list
must be extracted from an agreed database of issues - different lists have
different amounts of filtering applied - judgementally by senior/experienced
staff
The output from AA's perspective is their internal controls audit opinion
based upon our database and our review and management process of it

Trading Process - monthly
Routine judgemental self assessment on areas within the trading transaction
cycle - rating made by business controller is red, amber, green - with trend
indicator of static, improving or declining - see attachment 2 for full
listing
Monthly metrics collected for key standards set for risk management - see
attachment 1 (you will notice that this is a summarised version of attachment
2 - and as a senior controller I would expect the metrics to underpin but not
solely drive the judgement within the self assessment) - Shona, this is the
work that Mike Moscoso is leading
Periodic review meeting between controller and commercial lead to discuss
operational risk and areas of concern (red and amber) with agreement of
action plans for such areas
Monthly review by controller/senior controller of database where all high
(red) and medium (amber) risk issues are recorded.  Milestones for action
plans revisited, reconfirmed or amended
Monthly meeting between remote office staff and controllers to identify if
the risk rating for any remote offices has changed
All new information on issues raised by self assessment, doorstep review or
BRM completion populated into database
Database utilised globally to report to various levels of governance and
decision on whether original BRM and doorstep plans require amendment

Process - Yearly Planning
Checkpoint taken of
current operational environment (say end Oct)
proposed new offices for coming year or proposed changes to activity in
office, and
IT development plans for next year
Prioritisation made for doorstep - which offices require a visit and what
depth does report need to go to.  Note the doorstep review would be an end to
end review for entire business unit and therefore is the independent review
of the existing self assessment and would leverage the work by focusing the
review effort on areas of concern, the actions plans in place and concluding
on the 'mitigation of operational risk to an acceptable level'
Prioritisation made for BRM - which functions, NOT BUSINESS UNITS, require
external independent review - highly leveraging the above self assessment and
doorstep processes (could AA signoff simply by auditing our own internal
governance process?) - most likely reviews completed on functions that
assessed as concerns across multiple business - such as FX exposure
management, cash management, credit exposure management, IT change management
controls/process

Where are we NOW - if we all thought to do this immediately

We do not have bottom up operational risk assessment for all businesses - I
am suggesting that we demand that all business controllers at the Houston
offsite do this? 23rd Oct
The above would validate a high level operational risk summary that we as
senior controllers could put together for the audit committee - last week Oct
We agree on a robust tracking process - throw out one of the BRM and Doorstep
databases - November
Given AA have never historically risk rated their issues we should repopulate
the database from scratch - November
Review Doorstep plan to check that our risk rating for business units and
remote offices means that we have resource focused correctly - do we need to
visit all? - November
Review all of the above and blend into risk based approach for BRM planning -
end November to end December !!

Wow - lets chat about this

Mike

Attachment 1

Attachment 2 - the areas where a judgement should be proactively made by each
business unit controller -

Business oversight
System development project and change management
People management - coaching and skills/headcount gaps
Model Review
Stress testing and business risk identification
Operational capacity assessment signoff
Error management

Control Cycle
Risk Management Control
Recognition of risk origination
Monitoring of trading activities - limit checking, trader mandates
Specific transaction analysis - DASH, CACS etc
Transaction capture - deal form analysis and risk management system input
Logistics support - delivery position analysis, incoming and outgoing invoice
maintenance, post deal execution contract management
Portfolio edits - required amendments to previously transacted risk/contracts
Market risk/position signoff - both transaction specific and portfolio
management
DPR production and signoff
Limit excession reporting
Market risk feeds to GRMS - review VAR applicability (backtesting?)
Credit risk review - liaison with RAC over provisioning for credit charges
Price input checking and verification
Reserving and income recognition issues
Weekly Executive Summary
Monthly Revenue Summary

Documentation
Documentation generation
Re-review of contract loading in risk management system
Affirmation chasing
Broker information reconciliation

Trade Accounting
General Ledger account ownership
Balance sheet to CPR reconciliation
Accounts receivable maintenance/monitoring
Accounts payable maintenance/monitoring
Monthly management accounts by profit centre/business segment
Inter company/inter entity reconciliation differences
Legal entity balance sheet analysis for Fin Ops

Settlements
Outgoing invoice generation
Incoming invoice reconciliation
Exchange statements reconciliation
OTC brokerage charges reconciliation and processing
Nostro reconciliations
Cash management liaison


Please note the following fax numbers for personnel at Interstate Gas
Services, Inc. (IGS).

Fax No. 925-243-0357 should be used for the following employees:

Mark Baldwin
Larry Robinson
Gwen Soong

Fax No. 92-243-0349 should be used for the following employees:

Joy Young
Suzanne McFadden
Brenda Buxa
Johnnie Painter

Thank you!


Suz,

Please print four sets of originals of each of the documents you faxed this
am (name in footers).

Thanks,

Kay


Bill,

I will be happy to follow up on this.  But I think we at least need to
consider the ramifications of entering into brokerage agreements with brokers
who accept non-cash credit from their customers.  If they are willing to
offer credit to Enron, they are bound to do so with others.  Enron's
funds/accounts will be pooled with all other customers in the event  of a
financial crisis at the broker.  To the extent the broker has granted credit
to unworthy trading partners, Enron could have exposure if those partners
default, thus causing this financial distress at the broker.

I don't wish to overblow this concern (i.e., focus excessively on low
probability events), but I think we should at least discuss it a few minutes
before we proceed.

	From:  William S Bradford @ ECT                           07/28/2000 07:31 PM

To: Paul Radous/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Margin leverage and Enron Guarantee

Paul,

Can you work with Sara on this?

Bill

---------------------- Forwarded by William S Bradford/HOU/ECT on 07/28/2000
07:31 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Sheila Glover                           07/28/2000 01:23 PM

To: William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeff Kinneman/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Greene/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gary
Hickerson/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Margin leverage and Enron Guarantee

Bill and Sara,
We have been talking with Goldman Sachs, one of ECT Investment's prime
brokers,  about ways to reduce our margin requirement and gain greater
leverage.  Goldman suggested that we may want to consider putting an Enron
Guaranttee in place.

We also have a prime broker agreement with Morgan Stanley.  Per the
documentation that I have... I do not see a guarantte with Morgan Stanley.

1) Can you confirm that no guarantee exists with either Goldman or Morgan?
2) Any comments regarding a Goldman guarantee by Enron Corp for ECT
Investments Inc.?

Thanks, Sheila


Please note, if there is anyone not included on this list that you feel that
could benefit from this meeting, please extend the invitation and be sure to
let me know the attendees names!  Thanks!

Kim Weldon
08/01/2000 10:36 AM
To: Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lauri A Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J
Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pat Clynes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rita Wynne/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elsa
Villarreal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Danny Conner/NA/Enron@Enron, Lisa Hesse/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Trisha Hughes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jill T Zivley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Jo
Johnson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian M Riley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary M Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Steve Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yvette G
Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary M Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura
Harder/Corp/Enron@Enron, Xochitl-Alexis Velasco/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Mtg. Request - Discuss King Ranch System

Please plan to attend a lunch meeting to discuss the King Ranch System this
Thursday, August 3rd.

                   Thursday - August 3rd
              Conf. Room - EB 21C2
  11:30 AM - 1:00 PM
            (Lunch will be provided)

Please confirm with me by Wednesday, mid-morning so I get an accurate head
count for ordering lunch.

Thanks so much!

Kim Weldon
x 33221


FYI

Vince
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 04/18/2000
08:55 AM ---------------------------

"Vadim Pokhlebkin" <vpokhleb@ideaus.com> on 04/18/2000 08:38:21 AM
To: <Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>, <vkamins@enron.com>, <erms@bloomberg.net>
cc:
Subject: IDEA: any feedback?

Dear Vince,

How did your meeting with the traders go yesterday?  If you heard any
feedback about our research from them, please let me know whom I may contact
to save you from forwarding our reports around every day.  I look forward to
your reply.

As usual, attached are today's issues of our daily morning faxes:
1. Financial Markets Today - FX majors and key bond markets' analyses.
2. Fixed Income Today - US treasuries, agencies, and corporates' analyses.

I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Vadim Pokhlebkin
Account Manager
vpokhlebkin@ideaglobal.com
tel. 1 (212) 571 4332
fax  1 (212) 571 4334

IDEAglobal.com
140 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10005, USA

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
IDEAglobal.com. This email, its content and any files transmitted with it
are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged
and/or confidential. Access by any other party is unauthorized without the
express written permission of the sender. If you have received this email in
error you may not copy or use the contents, attachments or information in
any way. Please destroy it and contact the sender via the IDEAglobal.com
switchboard in one of the following three offices: New York +1 212 571 4332;
London +44 171 430 2888; Singapore +65 332 0700

 - FMT0418A.pdf
 - FIT1804A.pdf


thanks for all your work.

Richter

-----Original Message-----
From: Dasovich, Jeff
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:20 AM
To: Richter, Jeff
Subject: RE: California Treasurers Calls on Lynch to Immediately Set DA Suspension Date Back to July 1

Could be a soon as the next week or two.  We'll make sure that you're up to date on the latest.

Best,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Richter, Jeff
Sent: Mon 10/22/2001 9:12 AM
To: Dasovich, Jeff
Cc:
Subject: RE: California Treasurers Calls on Lynch to Immediately Set DA Suspension Date Back to July 1

Jeff,

In what time frame are these decisions looking at being made?  keep me posted on the July 1st roll back since it would have the biggest implications for EWS/EES existing positions.

Thank you,
Jeff Richter

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:   Friday, October 19, 2001 5:02 PM
To:     Dasovich, Jeff; Kean, Steven J.; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul; Mara, Susan; Calger, Christopher F.; Tycholiz, Barry; Richter, Jeff; Belden, Tim; Comnes, Alan; Swain, Steve; Sharp, Vicki; Blachman, Jeremy; Dietrich, Janet; Delainey, David; Leff, Dan; Hughes, Evan; Herod, Brenda F.; Parquet, David; Frazier, Lamar; Denne, Karen; O'Neil, Murray P.; Huddleson, Diann

Cc:     Alamo, Joseph
Subject:        California Treasurers Calls on Lynch to Immediately Set DA Suspension Date Back to July 1

The state treasurer sent a letter this afternoon to Loretta Lynch.
The treasurer claims in the letter that, by extending DA  through Sept. 20th, the PUC could have shifted more than $8 billion to small customers.
He urges Lynch to immediately roll back the date to July 1.
We have started working with large customers to refute the letter.
If you would like a copy of the letter, please send your fax number to Joseph Alamo.

Best,
Jeff


Lamar  -

There is alot of noise in the media to find some customers who will state for the public record that they will be harmed by the retroactive suspension of DA.  At one point, you were going to get some customers' names & contact info to pass along to the media.  Any luck?  Karen Denne with PR is getting quite a few phone calls from California media sources.

The strategy has to be to downplay Enron and have the customer pitch "their pain" by this action of the CPUC.  Give me or Karen a call.

Jim


FYI

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 03/17/2000
10:01 AM ---------------------------

"Vadim Pokhlebkin" <vpokhleb@ideaus.com> on 03/17/2000 09:51:53 AM
To: <vkamins@enron.com>
cc: <erms@bloomberg.net>
Subject: Today's IDEA

Dear Mr. Kaminski,

Attached, there are 2 new samples of our daily market research: today's
issue of the morning faxes Fixed Income Today and Financial Markets Today.
We also have intraday market coverage, on Bloomberg: IDEA>GO, Reuters: IDUS,
and Bridge/Telerate.

If the info looks useful, we'd like to arrange a free 30-day trial for you
and your colleagues.  For your reference, please find our price list
attached.  I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Vadim Pokhlebkin
Account Manager
vpokhlebkin@ideaglobal.com
tel. + 1 212 571 4332
fax  + 1 212 571 4334

IDEAglobal.com
140 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10005, USA

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
IDEAglobal.com. This email, its content and any files transmitted with it
are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged
and/or confidential. Access by any other party is unauthorized without the
express written permission of the sender. If you have received this email in
error you may not copy or use the contents, attachments or information in
any way. Please destroy it and contact the sender via the IDEAglobal.com
switchboard in one of the following three offices: New York +1 212 571 4332;
London +44 171 430 2888; Singapore +65 332 0700

 - FIT0317a.pdf
 - Fmt0317n.PDF
 - onesheet.doc


Please call me (34772).   Where did you obtain your information?

Hunter


Yes - I've done some more digging and wold like to meet with you and Gerald Nemec to discuss next steps.

When are you available today.

Brian

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Zisman, Stuart
Sent:	Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:56 AM
To:	Redmond, Brian
Subject:

Does it make sense to try to get together to talk about Bridgeline?  I am not sure if you tried to contact Jean but from what I understand, I suspect that she is not willing to help.  Maybe, we gather everyone else that knows anything about the deal, put them all in a room and extract as much info as possible.  Then, we can try to summarize the state of affairs and recommend various courses of action.  Your thoughts.

Stuart


January 29, 2002

NESA MEMBERS:

Attached is our latest and greatest brown bag being held February 20, 2002.
Everyone that registers for this event by February 8, 2002, will be
automatically put into a drawing for Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo
tickets.  YEE-HAW!

Hope to see you there!

Lana Moore
Director of Education
NESA
(713) 856-6525

 <<Storage Economics.doc>>


---------------------- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 05/05/2000
04:11 PM ---------------------------

Carol St Clair
04/26/2000 04:41 PM
To: Rod Nelson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Deutsche Bank

Rod:
Here are their credit issues:

1. In the cross-default language that want to add language that basically
says that even if a cross-default occurs, unless the Non-Defaulting
determines in good faith that performance by the Defaulting Party of its
obligations under the Master is "endangered", then no cross default is
triggered.

2. In Credit Event Upon Merger we had commented that instaed of the
"materially weaker" standard we wanted to specify that it meant being rated
below BBB- by S&P.  Do you feel strongly about this?  Alos, we usually have
language that says that if an event like merger occurs and the transferee
provides collateral to the other party in an amount that is satisfactory to
such party, then a Credit Event Upon Merger is not triggered.  They did not
want to add this carve-out.  Are you okay with this?

3. They want a separate Event of Default that gets triggered if a MAC (below
BBB-) occurs.  We requested that it be out in the collateral threshold
language.

4. They are saying that for "operational" purposes, they cannot agree to
"netting".

5. They want as a category of Eligible Collateral governmental securities
with a maturity of less than 1 year, valued at 98%.

6. In the CSA, if a dispute occurs with respect to either the calculation of
Exposure or the calculation of the value of any colateral in connection with
a party's request either for the transfer or return of collateral, normally
the following procedures apply:

a. the disputing party notifies the other party of the nature of the dispute
by the close of business on the day following the day that the collateral
request was made.

b. the undisputed amount is transferred to the party making the request

c. the parties attempt to resolve the dispute by the "Resolution Time" and if
a resolution is not reached, a recalculation of the Exposure is made and
market quotations have to be obtained.

We normally say that the Resolution Time is 3 Business Days after the dispute
notice is given.  DB wants to shorten this period to 1 Business Day after the
dispute notice is given which gives the parties less time to resolve the
dispute on their own.  What do you think?

7. If a party holds cash as collateral, we normally say that interest earned
is transferred on the first day of the month.  They want to change first to
last.

Let me know what you think.  I was hoping that some of these you could
resolve with your counterpart at DB.

Carol


when i am married i want a girlfriend


When El Paso gets exercised for replacement  reserves by the CAISO and they
play the 10 minute ramping games.  Don't call EPE to ramp down their
generation, if possible run an imbalance and receive the dec prices.  I have
cleared this with EPE and John Forney.  If something happens to change this
situation drop me a line.

Paul


<<Letter Agmt Enron Turbines Delta Power.DOC>>

Kay:

Attached is the execution draft of the ENA/PPL Letter Agreement.   Let me
know if you need anything else.  Thanks.

Carolyn M. Campbell
King & Spalding
713-276-7307 (phone)
713-751-3280 (fax)
ccampbell@kslaw.com <mailto:ccampbell@kslaw.com>

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.

 - Letter Agmt Enron Turbines Delta Power.DOC


Ok Vince- I will stay up tonight and call Vuthy in London with this news.
I'll be right back to you (probably tomarrow-or send you an email tonight).
Thanks Vince,
Jeff

Jeff,

 My associates are leaving for London tonight (Monday).
 They can still interview Howard on Tuesday afternoon.

 Vince

*  Get free, secure online email at http://www.ziplip.com/  *


ENA will bid CIG Gas Daily +.02 for the Lost Creek Fuel Volume ( 500 - 1000)

Thanks,
Theresa Staab


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Frantzeskakis, Kyriakos
Sent:	Friday, August 10, 2001 10:26 AM
To:	Dupont, Anita; Barkley, Tom; Bennett, Steve; Bharati, Rakesh; Chilkina, Elena; Cope, Eric; Crenshaw, Shirley; Cunningham, Lance; De, Rabi; Deng, Kenneth; Dhar, Amitava; Feng, Youyi; Garza, Christina; Gonzales, Alexander R.; Green, Shane; Grigorov, Anguel; Halliburton, Tom; Hrgovcic, Joseph; Huang, Alex; Issler, Paulo; Johnson, Heather A.; Kaminski, Vince J; Kao, Candice; Kiatsupaibul, Seksan; Kim, Jinbaek; Koepke, Gwyn; Kohli, Sandeep; Krishnarao, Pinnamaneni; Lee, Bob; Lew, Jaesoo; Lin, Martin; Lu, Zimin; Marquez, Jose; Mehendale, Bhalachandra; Mellacheruvu, Praveen; Moore, Kevin G.; Mujica, Mitra; Narongwanich, Wichai; Neale, Nelson; Parkhill, Kenneth; Parks, III, Russell; Pernoud, Christopher; Raymond, Maureen; Roberts, Mike A.; Sezgen, Osman; Shanbhogue, Vasant; Smith, William; Sokolov, Jason; Stevens, Adam; Sud, Pravas; Supatgiat, Chonawee; Tamarchenko, Sofya; Tamarchenko, Tanya; Walton, Leann; Wooddy, Sarah; Xia, Zhendong; Yaman, Sevil; Zadorozhny, Roman; Zimmerman, Dayne
Subject:	Farewell

Dear Colleagues,

Today is my last day at Enron and I would like to say how much I appreciate your making my time such an exciting experience. I have learned a lot during the summer and I consider myself honored for having the opportunity to work with you.

My permanent email address is kf2@andrew.cmu.edu. Please stay in touch.

May the Force be with you,

Kyriakos