Systems Trading Update
5-30-01

This update may be incomplete - I had to  leave at 12:30 CST to go to the dentist.

Emini  Daytrader (The Advisor) - Emini & S&P 500 Daytrading -  Went  Long at 1262.75, hit the 4 point target, remaining contracts exited near  breakeven.

Bond Daytrader  - Went Short (3)at 99-18 - HIT 2 of 3 target  +14

Aggressor  - S&P 500 / Emini - Went Long at  1265.25
Level 1 -7.25
Level 2 -7.25
Level 3 -7.25
Level 4 -7.25
Level 5 -7.25

SP Select  - Emin/S&P 500 Daytrading - Went SHORT on the open at  1262.50
Level 1 +9
Level 2
Level 3

Pure Greed  - S&P/emini Daytrading (MECHANICAL)- Went Long at 1264.75
Level 1    -7.5
Level  2    -7.5
Level  3    -7.5

Pure Greed -  S&P/emini Daytrading (Discretionary) - Went Long at  1264.75
Level 1     -2
Level 2     -3.25
Level 3     -3.25

DoubleEdge  - S&P/Emini Daytrading - Did not trade  today

New System - New System - New  System***
PowerDaytrade - S&P/Emini  Daytrading -

 ***By the current LEADER on the  World Cup Championship of Trading

For more information on  PowerDaytrade - go to http://www.thetradingauthority.com/powertrade.htm   or contact Todd Brown at  877-278-0037

Position Trader
Wheat - July - Went SHORT at  266.25
Cotton - July - Went SHORT at  40.45

Gold - June - Stopped out at 270.20 (Long from 288.00)      -$1780.00
Pork Bellies - August - Short at 75.50, Stopped out at  79.85    -$1740.00

Muni Bonds - June - ROLLED to Sep @101-27 (June) and  100-19 (Sep)
+$687.50

Current Open  Positions

Corn - July - Short (3) from 201 /  Last
Bean Oil - July - Short (3) from 15.02 / Last
Cocoa - July - Short from 9.74 / Last
Lean Hogs - June - Short from 68.75 / Last
Muni Bonds - Sep - Short from 100-17/ Last
Natural Gas - July - Short at 396.00 / Last
Dollar Index - June - Long from 118.50 / Last
Wheat - July - Short from 266.25 /  Last
Cotton - July - Short from 40.45 / Last

***SEPTEMBER is the front-month is Bonds, Ten Years, Muni Bonds,  and most of the interest rate instruments.

Next week the currencies will be going  from the June to the SEPTEMBER contract.

 www.thetradingauthority.com

Please call or email me if you have  any questions.

Matt Nelson
Senior Trader
The Price Futures  Group
C.B.O.T.
141 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 1340A
Chicago, IL  60604mnelson@pricegroup.com
800-834-7879
312-648-2856
FAX:  312-588-0343

Commodity trading involves risk and is not for all  investors.  Past performance is NOT indicative of future results.   Only invest risk capital.


_________________________________________________________________

            B R E A K F A S T   W I T H   T H E   F O O L
                    Thursday, October 19, 2000

benjamin.rogers@enron.com
_________________________________________________________________

REGISTER TO BECOME A FOOL -- GET FREE STUFF!
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161167
_________________________________________________________________

 Sponsored By: Scottrade
 Fools, Scottrade is the only broker with $7 trades, 120 local
 offices & FREE REALTIME STREAMING quotes & charts! Apply now!
 http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=161168

"Always forgive your enemies -- nothing annoys them so much." --
Oscar Wilde

NOKIA TO THE RESCUE
The leading mobile phone maker reports estimate-beating earnings
and an optimistic outlook for sales of its mobile handsets.

By Chris Rugaber

Finnish mobile handset manufacturer and Rule Maker Nokia (NYSE:
NOK) reported third-quarter earnings this morning, coming in
significantly higher than analysts' expectations. The company
also issued positive forecasts for next quarter and for mobile
phone sales in 2001. Nokia was scheduled to report earnings next
week, but apparently decided to do so earlier in response to the
recent volatility in technology and telecom shares.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161169

Sales rose 50% over last year's third quarter to 7.57 billion
euros ($6.38 billion), while net income jumped 40% to 892
million euros ($752.22 million), or 0.19 per share. Pretax
profit increased 43% to 1.34 billion euros ($1.13 billion),
ahead of analysts' forecasts of 1.06 billion.

Nokia's shares had declined about 40% since the company's July
warning that third-quarter profit would be lower than the second
quarter's, due to product delays. Today's report, and the
company's optimistic outlook, reversed that trend, with shares
up 18% in European trading.

Mobile phone sales, which account for almost three-quarters of
the company's revenues, increased 59%, while operating profits
for the division were up 42% to 1.07 billion euros ($900
million). Operating margin decreased to 19.6%, from 21.9%,
though the company remains far ahead of No. 2 mobile phone maker
Motorola (NYSE: MOT), which recently posted a 6% operating
margin for its cell phone division.

Nokia introduced seven new handset models in the third quarter,
and the company believes it increased its handset market share,
which stood at 27.5% at the end of the second quarter. Motorola
controlled 15.6% and Ericsson (Nasdaq: ERICY), which reports
earnings tomorrow, held 10.3%.

While other mobile phone companies, such as Motorola and
Matsushita, have reduced their projections for industrywide
handset sales, Nokia maintained a positive outlook. "Our view of
the market development fundamentals remains unchanged, with more
than 400 million mobile phones estimated to be sold in 2000,"
said CEO Jorma Olilla in a prepared statement. "For 2001 we
expect the mobile phone market to be in the region of 550
million units." Olilla also stated that as a result of these
figures, the company expects there will be 1 billion mobile
phone users by 2002.

Sales in the company's wireless infrastructure unit were also
strong, with revenues up 34% to 1.92 billion euros and operating
margins improving to 18.1% from 17.3%. Overall, the company
expects "record-breaking" earnings per share (EPS) for the
fourth quarter, and 25-35% sales growth in 2001.

AFTER-HOURS COVERAGE

TECH HEAVIES REPORT EARNINGS
By The Motley Fool Staff
A number of top companies reported earnings last night after the
bell. Check out our after-hours coverage for news on Microsoft
(Nasdaq: MSFT), Akamai (Nasdaq: AKAM), America Online (NYSE:
AOL), Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), and several other companies, many
that don't begin with A.
FULL STORY>>
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161170
_________________________________________________________________

NEWS TO GO

Network switch-maker Extreme Networks (Nasdaq: EXTR) announced
first-quarter fiscal 2001 earnings last night, clocking in with
net income (excluding amortization costs) of $9 million, or
$0.08 per share, ahead of analysts' estimates of $0.06 share,
and double the year-ago figure of $4 million, or $0.04 per
share. Sales were up 29% sequentially to $119.3 million, 153%
higher than last year's third-quarter revenue of $47.2 million.
Shares of the company fell initially in after-hours trading, but
rebounded after the company increased its earnings forecasts for
fiscal 2001 and 2002.

Communications chip designer Broadcom (Nasdaq: BRCM) joined the
earnings parade after yesterday's market close. Sales for the
company's third quarter more than doubled, to $319.6 million,
while earnings (excluding acquisition and other costs) jumped to
$78.7 million, or $0.30 per share, from last year's $28.7
million, or $0.12 per share. Consensus analysts' estimates were
for the company to earn $0.24 per share. Broadcom designs chips
for cable modems, digital set-top boxes, and other high-speed
networking equipment.

Wireless communications software company Phone.com (Nasdaq:
PHCM) also reported earnings last night, and the developer of
the Wireless Application Protocol, or WAP, increased revenues
62% sequentially, to $46.5 million. The company's net loss,
excluding amortization and other costs, was $10.4 million, or
$0.13 per diluted share, ahead of consensus estimates for a
$0.20 per share loss. Phone.com's new partner, Software.com
(Nasdaq: SWCM), with which it expects to merge next month, also
announced earnings. Sales reached $37.6 million, a 27%
sequential increase, and earnings before acquisition and other
costs were $7.4 million, or $0.13 per share, ahead of estimates
of $0.03 per share.

And now for some non-earnings news: According to a Bloomberg
report, telecom carrier WorldCom (Nasdaq: WCOM) is planning to
create a tracking stock for its consumer long-distance business.
The company indicated during its July earnings conference call
that it was considering several options for its slow-growing
voice operation, including a tracking stock. While WorldCom did
not comment on yesterday's report, final word may come when the
company releases earnings on October 26. Like other
long-distance carriers, WorldCom is seeking to highlight the
healthy growth of its data and Internet services by separating
out the stagnant consumer long-distance unit, which grew
revenues by only 1% last quarter.

Get yesterday's Foolish market wrap-up with a click of the mouse.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161171
_________________________________________________________________

EDITOR'S PICK

Two Fools argue about the merits of Dell, including whether or
not there is anymore market share for it to conquer.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161172
_______________________________________________________________

-News & Commentary
 http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161173

-Fool Community
 http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161174

-Post of the Day
 http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161175

-Latest Fribble
 http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161176

-Latest Market Numbers
 http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161177
____________________________________________________________

My Portfolio: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161178
My Discussion Boards: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161179
My Fool: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161180
Fool.com Home: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161181
My E-Mail Settings: http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161182

 Sponsored By: Scottrade
 Fools, Scottrade is the only broker with $7 trades, 120 local
 offices & FREE REALTIME STREAMING quotes & charts! Apply now!
 http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=161183

WIRELESS 201: FREE PREVIEW
 Get a sneak peek at this report on Soapbox.com
http://www.lnksrv.com/m.asp?i=161184

BECOME A FOOL!
 Get a FREE Investing Guide and more...
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161185

FOOL DIRECT E-MAIL SERVICES
 Need to change your address or unsubscribe? You
 can also temporarily suspend mail delivery. Click here:
http://www.fool.com/community/freemail/freemaillogin.asp?email=benjamin.rogers
@enron.com>

Have ideas about how we can improve the Fool Direct or new
e-mail products you'd like to see? Try our discussion board:
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=161186
____________________________________________________
(c) Copyright 2000, The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. This
material is for personal use only. Republication and
redissemination, including posting to news groups, is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of The Motley Fool.

.

MsgId: msg-3549-B10192241Address.msg-09:19:02(10-19-2000)
X-Version: mailer-sender-master,v 1.84
X-Version: mailer-sender-daemon,v 1.84
Message-Recipient: benjamin.rogers@enron.com


---------------------- Forwarded by Dana Davis/HOU/ECT on 02/01/2001 12:04 PM
---------------------------

Rufino Doroteo
02/01/2001 11:06 AM
To: Stacy Hardy/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Brian Schwertner/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan
Rance/NA/Enron@Enron, Rosalyn Lum/Corp/Enron@Enron, Laynie East/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Lisa Best/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kristi Fredericks/NA/Enron@ENRON, Lisa
King/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tammy Barta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Pam Becton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marnie Lamb/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: December 2000 Journal Entries

Here is a list of journal entries for December that I have.  They will be
ready to be filed/signed.  Pam will have the ones the will require a
signature.

 To Be Filed   Signature Required
Co.  0003    01N2
 027L    0272
 028C    0958
 028P    0988
 034M    1319
 0364    0942 (just added)
 037H    046K (just added)
 040N
 046k
 052K
 0914
 0919
 0957
 1144
 1297
 1298
 1314
 1371

Any other entries that need to be filed can be dropped at my desk.

Thanks,
Rufino


Sam,

I think counterparty ID# 754 is Bonneville Power Administration, not
Bonneville Power Association.

	Samuel Schott
	03/08/01 05:32 PM

		 To: Walter Guidroz/ENRON@enronXgate @ ENRON, Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana
Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brant
Reves/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Debbie R Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT, Lesli Campbell/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Cynthia
Clark/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Enron Europe Global Contracts and
Facilities@ENRON, Enron Europe Global CounterParty/LON/ECT@ECT, Stephanie
Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Claudia
Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT, William S Bradford/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Lisa
Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Juana Fayett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jana Morse/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Trang Le/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Maley/LON/ECT@ECT, Sonya Clarke/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim
Davies/LON/ECT@ECT, Karen O'Day/NA/Enron@Enron, Tanya
Rohauer/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON, Kelly Lombardi/NA/Enron@Enron, Brian
Lindsay/Enron Communications@Enron Communications@ENRON, EOL Call
Center@ENRON, Bernice Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Amy
Heffernan/Enron Communications@Enron Communications@ENRON, Molly LaFuze/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications@ENRON, Danny Clark/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: EOL approvals, 3-8-01 _ GCP Response

Any GCP adjustments will be highlighted in red.

Rgds.

Samuel x3-9890
(GCP_Enron Networks)

From: Walter Guidroz/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/08/2001 05:24 PM
To: Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Samuel
Schott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brant Reves/ENRON@enronXgate,
Debbie R Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT, Lesli
Campbell/ENRON@enronXgate, Cynthia Clark/ENRON@enronXgate, Enron Europe
Global Contracts and Facilities@ENRON, Enron Europe Global
CounterParty/LON/ECT@ECT, Stephanie Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom
Moran/ENRON@enronXgate, Claudia Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT, William S
Bradford/ENRON@enronXgate, Lisa Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Juana
Fayett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jana Morse/Corp/Enron@Enron, Trang Le/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Paul Maley/LON/ECT@ECT, Sonya Clarke/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Davies/LON/ECT@ECT,
Karen O'Day/NA/Enron@Enron, Tanya Rohauer/ENRON@enronXgate, Kelly
Lombardi/NA/Enron@Enron, Brian Lindsay/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, EOL Call Center@ENRON, Bernice Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bill D
Hare/HOU/ECT@ect, Amy Heffernan/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Molly LaFuze/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Danny Clark/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
cc:
Subject: EOL approvals, 3-8-01

Please see attached.


----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 02/28/2001 02:06 PM -----

	James D Steffes
	02/27/2001 02:41 PM

		 To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, bhansen@lhom.com, Ginger
Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, hgovenar@govadv.com,
Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, JBennett@GMSSR.com, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, jkradin@marathon-com.com, Joe
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT,
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, ken@kdscommunications.com, Linda
Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON, Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Schoen/NA/Enron@Enron,
Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron, mday@gmssr.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT,
rlichtenstein@marathon-com.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, syamane@marathon-com.com, SGovenar@govadv.com,
Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Database of Public Documents

The following items are available or being produced by Enron resources to
support the on-going activities related to California.  If I've missed
anything, let me know.

When anyone needs new material, please feel free to contact John Neslage.

John Neslage will keep the material and should be apprised of any new
material.  John's number is 713-853-6827.

Thanks,

Jim

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

READY TO GO

Steve Kean Letter to Sen. Feinstein  RE:  California Status
Steve Kean Letter to Sen. Wyden RE:  Information Release
Enron Fixes for California (attached)
CERA Highlights on California Crisis

IN PRODUCTION

One Page Fact Sheet - Buy Books, Not the Grid
One Page Fact Sheet - Enron's Opposition to Cal ISO Takeover by California
Politicans (Mirant v. ISO)
One Page Fact Sheet - How Big a Blackout for Summer 2002?
One Page Fact Sheet - Enron's Global Solution
EPA Package - Necessary Fixes to Increase Supply


You had the wrong number - 713-412-4571.  Sorry.

Jim Schwieger
04/09/2001 07:36 AM
To:	Kim Ward/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Called the number you gave me about 7:40 PM but it was your pager not your cell phone. (713-415-4571)
I figured you were pretty tired and just sleeping, which was the best thing for you anyway.
I went over to the Kinder Morgan party.

You missed a great weekend.
Saturday was a little cool up at the lake, but Sunday was fantastic.

I hope you feel better before your trip to the spa.
Don't work so much!

	Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 04/09/2001 09:28 AM ---------------------------

	  From:  Kim Ward                           04/09/2001 09:25 AM

To:	Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Never heard from you Friday - I was sick all weekend - didn't leave the house until yesterday.  I just hope I feel better for my trip wednesday.


Recently I have come into possession of copies of two (2) partially
executed documents between our companies, and I have been asked by my boss
to follow up to procure one (1) original of our Electronic Trading
Agreement and one (1) copy of our fully executed Password Application.

On January 3, 2000 our counsel, Elaine M. Walsh, both faxed and FedEx'd
three items to you--an EnronOnline Electronic Trading Agreement, Password
Application, and Customer Registration Form.  Again, if you would be so
kind as to forward one of the originals of the Trading Agreement and one
copy of the Password Application, I would greatly appreciate it.  If you
have, in fact, already returned an original to us way back when, I would be
grateful to receive a copy of this fully executed document.

Very many thanks.

Sincerely,
Elise M. Devlin
Administrative Assistant
Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc.
(617) 912-6065


Nice job.  Going to be a wild ride.


FYI - two small articles in the Toronto newspapers  (and WSJ) got us in some hot water with the Minister's office. Seems okay now. 	Hope you are still coming on the 24th.  We should talk before you come about Canadian perspectives on the events of this week.  My own observation is that the events and the aftermath have highlighted how closely tied Canada is to the US and, in particular,  how closely tied Toronto is to New York City.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dadson, Aleck
Sent:	Friday, September 14, 2001 9:28 AM
To:	'sjacob@equicomgroup.com'
Subject:	Newspaper Articles - Milnthorp Letter to Wilson

sasha, attached is a letter that Milnthorp is sending to Wilson today.  It could have been a lot stronger - Rob and Eric Thode (who was on the call) tell me that it was the reporter who got on the interview saying that a date had been set and seeking our reaction; when Rob said he didn't think a date had been set, the  DJ reporter insisted that one had in fact been set.


Nony:

Thanks for the note.  I had caught that, but I apprecate you letting me know.

Jeff

	Nony Flores
	05/29/2001 06:06 PM

		 To: Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Oil & Gas Confirms - Andex

Jeff:  FYI.  There is a typo in the first paragraph of the gas confirm and
Nancy Corbett has confirmed that it should read "... between Brazos VPP LP
and Enron North America Corp." instead of "Star VPP LP.."

Nony
----- Forwarded by Nony Flores/HOU/ECT on 05/29/2001 11:54 AM -----

	John Viverito@ENRON
	05/29/2001 09:04 AM

		 To: Nony Flores/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Oil & Gas Confirms - Andex

Nony-

When you have time, let's discuss.

Thanks!

John Viverito
Phone (713) 345-7814
Fax       (713) 646-3490
e-mail John.Viverito@enron.com
----- Forwarded by John Viverito/Corp/Enron on 05/29/2001 09:03 AM -----

	Connie Castillo@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	05/25/2001 02:45 PM

		 To: billswenson@akllp.com, Phillip Ballard/Enron@EnronXGate, Joan
Quick/Enron@EnronXGate, Brian Otis/Enron@EnronXGate, John Viverito@Enron,
Jeffrey T Hodge@ECT
		 cc: Nancy Corbet/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 Subject: Oil & Gas Confirms - Andex

The following is from Nancy Corbet:

Attached are the form Oil and Gas Confirms for the Andex transaction .
Please take a look and I'll then circulate revised draft to the larger group
next week.  Obviously need details in schedules etc.  (We anticipate closing
1st of June).

Connie Castillo
Legal Department
Enron Global Markets
713-345-7891


Jeff, I wish you would have cleared this through me first due to the
implications in India. Keep me in the loop on all further announcements. JOe

Jeffrey Sherrick@ENRON
10/13/2000 03:26 PM
To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joseph W
Sutton/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Cliff Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: EGEP Sale Announcement

Ken, Jeff , Joe & Cliff,

This is a copy a note I sent to PR(Steve Kean & John Ambler), IR(Mark Koenig)
and Enron India(Sanjay Bhatnagar & Jimmy Mogal) regarding our internal
announcement to  EGEP/EOGIL employees in Houston and India on October 13,
2000.

On Friday (last night Houston time) we announced to employees Enron's
decision to sell Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd. (EOGIL), our subsidiary that owns
a 30% interest in the Panna, Mukta and Tapti concession areas.    We now have
bankers involved and a data room is being prepared in Houston which  made it
extremely difficult to keep the deal quiet any longer.  There were numerous
rumors circulating through the office, but the reality of the announcement
was still a shock to most of the employees in India and Houston. Basically we
said the following:
 1) Selling assets or companies is a routine part of Enron's strategy to
redeploy capital in the higher return opportunities.  The company has
exposure to a number of tremendous opportunities today that were not
envisioned even twelve months ago.  In line with this strategy, we are
placing EOGIL in the market.
 2) Depending on the success of finding an acceptable buyer for EOGIL,  we
will be reviewing the balance of our portfolio for transfer to other Enron
entities or for sale as separate packages.  We anticipate closing the EOGIL
transaction and rationalizing the remaining portfolio by March 31, 2001.
 3) Pending the success outlined in item #2, we will eliminate Enron Global
E&P as an Enron business unit on March 31, 2001.
 4) We announced some interim staff changes to facilitate the process.
  a) Jeff Sherrick would re-focus his time largely on the sale process
  b) Mike Stewart will be responsible for all India activity except the sale
process
  c) Steve Harper will be responsible for EGEP's sale activity and
coordination with our bankers and Corporate Development
 5) Commented on the potential impact to employees in general terms.  We told
them it was pre-mature to outline all of the possibilities until we signed a
PSA with a buyer.  However, in general, there is a good likelihood that many
people will either have opportunities for future employment with the buyers
or through redeployment within Enron.  Those people that do not remain with
the assets or are not redeployed in Enron will be involuntarily terminated
March 31, 2001 unless they are needed to close a transaction or to provide
transition services to a buyer.

I would like to keep this as low-keyed as possible.  Last year when we were
for sale there were not a lot of comments, but you never know.  If anyone in
the media picks up on this I would expect it to happen early next week.  Mike
Stewart is currently in India in the Mumbai office (01191228395841) and can
be reached at the Mariott after-hours(01191228577878).  He is fully briefed
on our position regarding the activities within EGEP and EOGIL.  Mike will be
traveling offshore and to Baroda over the weekend and on Monday.  I will be
available all weekend and next week at the following numbers; (work)
713-853-5934, (home) 281-320-2198, (cell) 713-569-4713.  I would suggest
talking with Mike or I before making any comments to the media if possible.

This afternoon I notified our partners and the Gov't of India of our
intention to market our assets.  I will be making a trip to India soon to
visit with the appropriate people in these organizations within the next two
weeks.  While I wouldn't expect this to happen, please refer any inquiries
from our partners (ONGC and Reliance) or the GOI to Mike or me.  As you might
expect, we want to be careful and consistent in our message to these
groups.

I will keep you informed regarding any changes to the above.  If you have any
questions, contact me at the above numbers.

jeff


I'm throwing away anything on my desk with Gatherco.  I'm assuming you and
Ms. Jordan are taking care of everthing on that.  Also, if you ever need to
send transport contracts to Houston, its best to send it to Sylvia Campos.
She is the transport contract Queen and she absolutly loves paper.  So send
her allllll of your paper.


Tim -- This is the only article our "research department" could find.  Hope
it's the one you were looking for.  kd
---------------------- Forwarded by Karen Denne/Corp/Enron on 03/21/2001
08:55 AM ---------------------------

	From:  Ann M Schmidt                           03/20/2001 04:14 PM

To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: San Diego Union-Tribune

Karen,

I have combed carefully through past San Diego Union-Tribune articles for the
article Tim Belden is looking for and below are the only two articles that I
can find that remotely address Steve Peace and the stranded cost issue.  I
have a feeling it may not be what they are exactly looking for but then again
it may be.  I even had Miyung Buster and Lynette Barnes take a stab at
finding it and they had no luck. Please let me know if this is it and if not
I can combed through again.  Thanks, Ann

NEWS
ELECTION '98 | PROPOSITION 9
Sparks fly over utilities measure | Consumer groups vs. broad coalition
Ed Mendel
STAFF WRITER

10/11/1998
The San Diego Union-Tribune
1 2
A-1
(Copyright 1998)

SACRAMENTO -- It looked like a triumph of legislative deal-making when, after
a year and a half of talks, a sweeping plan to deregulate electricity in
California came together in the final hours of the legislative session two
years ago.
The bill, brokered mainly by state Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon, was not
opposed by any special-interest group. The complicated measure sailed through
both houses of the Legislature without a single "no" vote. But then consumer
groups took a second look.
They reached two main conclusions: A promised 10 percent rate reduction is
"phony," they say, and ratepayers should not have to pay for privately owned
utilities' ill-advised investments in nuclear power plants. Now the consumer
groups, backed by one of the biggest names in consumer protection, Ralph
Nader, have placed an initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot, Proposition 9, that
would make major changes in the deregulation plan passed two years ago.
"Billions of dollars of ratepayer money has been committed not to a
sustainable energy future but to the outright bailout of uneconomic nuclear
and fossil-fuel plants owned by investors," said Nader.
Proposition 9 prohibits ratepayers from being charged to pay off $6 billion
in bonds issued last year to finance a 10 percent cut in electricity rates
that took effect last January.
Furthermore, the initiative promises a 20 percent rate reduction by
prohibiting utilities from charging ratepayers for the "transition" costs as
they move nuclear and other uneconomical power plants into a deregulated
system.
The ballot measure is alarming to opponents, a broad coalition that includes
nearly all of the major business, labor, agriculture and local government
groups, some environmental groups, the Republican and Democratic parties, and
the leading gubernatorial candidates: Democrat Gray Davis and Republican Dan
Lungren.
Opponents say the initiative would be a severe setback for the deregulation
process needed to bring more competitive electricity prices to California,
where rates have been 50 percent higher than the national average. The
opponents also contend that the initiative could force taxpayers to pay off
the $6 billion bond, drive up the cost of borrowing for state and local
government by damaging bond credit ratings, and ultimately result in higher
rates for residences and businesses.
"I think it's fair to say Proposition 9 is categorically the most
disingenuous, misleading, anti-consumer proposition ever put on the ballot,"
said Peace.
With heavy funding from utilities, opponents have launched an extensive
television ad campaign to defeat Proposition 9. Backers of the measure say
their campaign will probably be limited to grass-roots work. Some polls have
shown Proposition 9 with a lead. But the statewide Field Poll, which has
decades of experience polling on ballot measures, showed the initiative
trailing by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1.
Mark DiCamillo, Field research director, said that successful initiatives
usually have a lead of about 2-to-1 in early polling. DiCamillo said the
results of the poll are "very ominous" for Proposition 9. The stranded issue
At the heart of the dispute is what has become known as the "stranded" costs
of the three large privately owned California utilities: San Diego Gas &
Electric, Southern California Edison, and Pacific Gas and Electric. The rates
that the utilities could charge in the past were set by the California Public
Utilities Commission. In exchange, the utilities had little or no
competition, and they were required to serve all creditworthy customers in
their service areas.
The utilities invested in nuclear power plants and, at the direction of
regulators, also made long-term contracts at relatively high rates to ensure
a stable supply of electricity from sources that minimized pollution.
But in a deregulated market, the utilities cannot sell power from nuclear
plants and their long-term contracts at competitive prices. Thus, the
utilities' cost of paying off the debt on their nuclear power plants and
other long-term contracts is said to be "stranded."
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said the nuclear-related
stranded costs for the three utilities is about $10 billion. Estimates of
their total stranded costs are as high as $28 billion.
Peace and the backers of the deregulation legislation argue that it would be
unfair and illegal to force the utilities to pay their stranded costs,
because the state changed the rules of the game and the marketplace. A
federal court ruled against a New Hampshire restructuring plan last year that
would not have allowed a utility to recover its stranded costs. The utility's
lawsuit argued that the plan violated the "contracts" and "takings" clauses
of the U.S. Constitution.
The California plan allows the utilities to pay off their stranded costs in
two ways. The utilities received $6 billion from a bond issue that will be
paid off by ratepayers over 10 years, and the utilities can add a Competition
Transition Charge to ratepayer bills until March 31, 2002. Meanwhile, rates
are capped, and the amount of the competition surcharge that could be added
to ratepayer bills shrank or disappeared last summer as energy costs soared.
There is no guarantee that all of the stranded costs will be paid off under
the plan. Pacific Gas & Electric, a Northern California utility with
hydroelectric power sources, is said to have plenty of room under the rate
cap and may recover all of its stranded costs. But some think that San Diego
Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison could fall short of full
recovery. In the view of the backers of Proposition 9, the deregulation
legislation is far too generous to utilities. The consumer advocates say that
the shareholders of the investor-owned utilities should share risk as well as
profits, particularly from the nuclear power plants. Harry Snyder of
Consumers Union said that other states, such as Pennsylvania and Illinois,
are not asking their ratepayers to pay all of the stranded costs of
utilities.
Proposition 9 would prohibit ratepayers from paying most of the transition
costs and all of the bond payments, resulting in a rate reduction of at least
20 percent. A disputed preliminary staff report from the state Energy
Commission estimated that the reduction could be 32 percent. The bond deal
Most of the controversy has centered on the $6 billion bond issue.
After the amount was determined by the Public Utilities Commission, the bond
was issued by private trusts created through the state Infrastructure Bank.
The bond refinances some long-term utility debt at a lower interest rate.
Peace said ratepayers save $1.2 billion on the amount that would be paid on
the debt if there had been no refinancing.
Furthermore, said Peace, the bonds allowed the deregulation legislation to
include a 10 percent rate reduction that took effect last January. He said
the lower rates not only benefit customers, but also thwart unscrupulous
competitors.
"I didn't want a bunch of fly-by-night operators coming in here with all of
the rip-offs that we saw during the deregulation of telephones," said Peace.
But the consumer advocates say that the bond payments will offset most of the
rate reduction, making the alleged short-term savings from the deregulation
little more than a shell game.
"What they did was deny the 10 percent rate reduction," said Lenny Goldberg,
a lobbyist for The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. "We ended up with a rate
reduction of 2 to 3 percent by financing the entire thing and making us pay
for 10 years."
Opponents have been running television ads contending that passage of
Proposition 9 could result in the state -- meaning taxpayers -- paying off
the $6 billion bond, rather than the utilities and their shareholders as
intended by the authors of the initiative.
But many think that the courts, citing long-standing laws covering contracts,
would be virtually certain to overturn the provision in Proposition 9 that
prohibits ratepayers from paying off the bond.
Under the existing deregulation, the bonds are in essence being financed by
ratepayers.
After talking to experts, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that the
probability of taxpayers becoming responsible for the bond is "very low." The
possibility is not even mentioned in the analyst's discussion of Proposition
9 in the ballot pamphlet.
One of the co-authors of the initiative, Mike Florio of TURN, conceded at a
legislative hearing that the provision barring ratepayers from paying off the
bond is likely to be overturned in court. If ratepayers are charged for the
bond payments, the initiative has a fallback provision that is intended to
require utilities to reduce their rates to offset the bond payments made by
ratepayers.
Consumer groups drop support
California and other states began to move toward deregulation after a 1992
federal law removed restrictions on the ownership of power-generating
facilities and made it easier for independent power generators to use
existing transmission lines.
Consumer groups and some legislators said that a California Public Utilities
Commission decision on deregulation guaranteed full recovery of stranded
costs and was skewed toward businesses and big customers at the expense of
residential users.
At first, consumer groups welcomed the legislation put together by Peace and
others as an improvement over the PUC's plan.
A four-page letter from TURN and the San Diego-based Utility Consumers'
Action Network expressed some reservations about the plan, but concluded with
these words:
"However, we will not oppose a bill which, under difficult circumstances, has
successfully incorporated a number of the concerns of residential and
small-business customers."
But after more study, Proposition 9 was written by a group of consumer
advocates, including Florio of TURN, Snyder of Consumers Union, and Harvey
Rosenfield, whose Proposition 103 cut insurance rates a decade ago. Backers
of the deregulation legislation accuse the consumer groups of "betrayal" and
breaking a deal, while the consumer advocates denounce the legislation as a
"fraud" and a "rip-off."
Peace and Snyder, who once had a good working relationship, are now
exchanging bitter barbs.
Snyder said of Peace: "He is doing the bidding of the utilities, not the
public, and he is really a disgrace to democracy."
Peace said he has never been so disgusted with political opponents: "It isn't
so much the issue, as it is their total disrespect for truth and for the
process itself."
The consumer groups used a contribution of about $800,000 from the Public
Media Center, a nonprofit organization in San Francisco, to gather the voter
signatures needed to place the initiative on the ballot. Opponents of the
initiative have suggested that the Public Media Center laundered
contributions from out-of-state energy companies and may have exceeded the
political contribution limit for nonprofit organizations. Herb Chao Gunther,
Public Media Center president, said the organization has received no
contributions from out-of-state energy companies. He said the organization,
which grossed $32 million during the last two years, is well within the
contribution limits for nonprofit organizations based on revenue.
"It's the classic defensive posture of trying to make us the issue," Gunther
said of the allegations from Proposition 9 opponents.
Proposition 9
What it does: Changes a state law deregulating the electric industry.
Electric utilities would be barred from charging customers to recover the
cost of nuclear power plants. Customers could not be charged to repay $6
billion worth of bonds issued last year to finance a rate reduction. Requires
a 20 percent reduction in electricity rates, rather than the 10 percent
reduction currently required by deregulation. Arguments for:
{} Privately owned utilities pushed through a deregulation law that allows
them to raise electric rates to pay off their money-losing investments in
nuclear power plants. The bonds used to cover the cost of a phony 10 percent
rate cut would be paid off by private utilities, not consumers or taxpayers.
Consumers would get an honest 20 percent rate cut not covered by back-door
payments to private utilities. A study suggests that rates eventually could
be cut by a third. Supporters:
{} Consumers Union, Ralph Nader, Harvey Rosenfield, The Utility Reform
Network and League of Women Voters.
Arguments against:
{} Taxpayers would be liable for the $6 billion bond repayment, potentially
causing a major cut in funding for schools and other services or a tax
increase. Changing the source of repayment for the $6 billion bond would
jeopardize state and local bond ratings. The plug would be pulled on a
deregulation plan that eventually will produce permanent electricity rate
reductions through a competitive market system. The poorly written measure
would trigger a major court battle. Opponents:
{} California Chamber of Commerce, California School Employees Association,
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, Environmental Defense Fund,
Planning and Conservation League, California Taxpayers Association,
Democratic and Republican parties.

3 PICS | 1 CHART; Caption: 1. No charge: Proposition 9 would prohibit
utilities from charging ratepayers for much of the cost of uneconomical
nuclear plants,including San Onofre. (A-19) 2. Proposition 9 (A-19) 3. Steve
Peace: "I think it's fair to say Proposition 9 is categorically the most
disingenuous, misleading, anti-consumer proposition ever put on the ballot."
(A-19) 4. Ralph Nader: "Billions of dollars of ratepayer money has been
committed . . . to the outright bailout of uneconomic nuclear and fossil-fuel
plants." (A-19); Credit: 1. FILE PHOTO 2. UNION-TRIBUNE

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

BUSINESS
Only a few unplug | Despite deregulation, 99% of consumers stay with same
power firms
Craig D. Rose
STAFF WRITER

10/13/1998
The San Diego Union-Tribune
1 2 3 6 7 8
C-1
(Copyright 1998)

State Sen. Steve Peace can take credit for co-authoring California's
electricity deregulation bill -- legislation that appeared to revolutionize
the power market and provide an array of choices to consumers. But when it
comes to his own home, Peace hasn't revolutionized anything: His household is
still drawing current from SDG&E.
"Here is where my wife's skepticism is," said the Democrat from El Cajon.
"And she makes the decisions."
The Peace family belongs to a very big club.
About 99 percent of the state's consumers continue to receive electricity
from their local utility, despite the nominally competitive market now in
place. In fact, a full six months after deregulation of the state's $23
billion power industry, the outcome remains short of electrifying. In August,
about 17,000 of the 10 million utility customers switched to a new power
provider. But during the same period, 3,300 switched back to their local
utility.
Overall, about 9 percent of the load in competitive markets has switched to
new providers, with utility companies retaining the 91 percent of the market
they've traditionally held.
If consumers are underwhelmed, would-be competitors also express surprise at
the lack of competition in the newly opened market.
"Of the 300 that signed up (to be new power providers), only five or six are
legitimate power providers," said Frederick Bloom, chief executive officer of
Commonwealth Energy, which claims 39,000 customers. Under California's
deregulation plan, SDG&E and other local utilities have retained their
monopolies over regional power grids. But there is supposed to be competition
in the power-generation business.
Companies registered with the California Public Utilities Commission win the
right to sign up customers and supply power to a state pool in amounts
equivalent to the usage of their customers. And hundreds of companies signed
up to compete.
But the new power companies say that technical hassles and the burden of
paying utilities about $28 billion for their unprofitable nuclear plants and
other investments -- so-called stranded costs shouldered by all ratepayers --
is limiting their ability to truly compete.
Many find they're unable to offer much if anything beyond the 10 percent rate
reduction mandated to all ratepayers under the state's deregulation law.
The payback of stranded costs, meanwhile, has provoked Proposition 9, a voter
initiative that would rewrite terms of the open power market and cancel the
payoff to utilities, while promising deeper rate cuts to small power users.
If smaller users have found little to excite them in the new market, some
larger commercial power users have found savings in the deregulated market.
Collectively, these larger users have switched about 20 percent of their load
to new providers.
A small number of residential consumers also are unplugging from local
utilities for green power, electricity said to be generated by means other
than burning a fossil fuel.
Peace says all this is what he expected.
"This is probably the single most complex transition of any single market,"
Peace said. "I'm stunned by how smoothly it has gone."
But Harvey Rosenfield, a consumer activist leading the effort to pass
Proposition 9, says consumer indifference proves that California's
deregulation is a "total fraud."
"It's a devastating indictment of the way deregulation was crafted by the
Legislature to destroy competition for residential ratepayers," Rosenfield
said.
Either way, deregulation has opened the door to small savings for at least a
few local power users.
The San Diego Association of Governments, which purchased about $40 million
in power annually from SDG&E, hopes to cut about $1 million from its yearly
power bill by purchasing its energy from Commonwealth Energy Corp. in Tustin.
The savings were hard to find.
The association had to twice bid out its power needs before finding a vendor
that could provide savings worth the effort to switch. Even with a vendor in
hand, the changeover has been prickly.
"It's a very detailed process for switching each account," said Steven Sachs,
senior planner with SANDAG. What had been expected to be a 60-day process is
now nearing completion after more than three months, he said. "We hope the
headache was mostly at the front end," Sachs said. "The real issue is that
all local governments have to be in the energy market so it's a great chance
for these people to learn about what is going on." Macy's department stores
in San Diego have also unplugged from SDG&E and contracted for power from New
Energy Ventures.
The department store chain made the switch to save money, said Russ Brown,
energy manager for Macy's Western division, but he declined to discuss the
amount of savings the stores hope to achieve.
"Nobody does this to lose money," Brown said.
New Energy Ventures, which is supplying power to Macy's, meanwhile, touts
itself as the biggest winner in the new market. The Los Angeles-based company
says it's won about 40 percent of the power load now being supplied by
companies other than the major utilities.
The company says the key to its success has been shared-savings contracts
with customers, in which the power company and its customers share the
savings that are achieved through the relationship, said Michael Peevey, the
company's chief executive officer. Smaller users
Peevey noted that such savings are unavailable to residential and small
commercial customers. The automatic 10 percent rate cut plus the stranded
cost payments make it difficult for new companies to compete against the
utilities for smaller power users.
"We look forward to the time (in 2002) when the utilities industry's stranded
costs are paid by customers so that we can begin to provide truly significant
reductions in energy costs for customers," said Peevey. Arthur O'Donnell,
editor of California Energy Markets, a weekly newsletter based in San
Francisco, agreed that the rate cut and the burden of stranded costs has
eliminated the potential for lower prices for most Californians. Attempting
to compete on price under the current market structure can be fatal,
O'Donnell added, who noted that at least three companies competing for
residential customers have already defaulted, unable to deliver the power
they promised consumers and forced to turn their accounts back to utilities.
"That's the first solid evidence of people getting washed out of the market,"
said O'Donnell.
Peace says small customers will have more significant choices in power
company offerings within a few years.
"It was always our preference in the Legislature that the transition to
competition in the residential arena not be pushed fast because residential
customers are vulnerable to scams," said Peace. Moving slowly will allow
residential power users to become more sophisticated about their choice. In
the meantime, he said, small customers have benefited from the 10 percent
rate cut, plus from the boost to the state economy from the savings that
larger companies are achieving in their power bills.
Green power niche
That said, green power has found a niche in the new market, although these
offerings require customers to pay up to 25 percent above the cost of
conventional power. O'Donnell calls green power the most robust sector of the
new market.
Among the leaders in the niche is Green Mountain Energy Resources of Vermont.
The company declines to disclose the number of customers it has signed up
beyond saying it's greater than 10,000 and should exceed 50,000 by year-end.
Douglas Hyde, president of Green Mountain, believes that more than 20 percent
of California's 11 millions power users are potential green power customers.
"The lack of active price competition is not what we expected, but on the
other hand we're convinced the value of the (green power) we bring to the
market will excite people," said Hyde. "We sell cleaner resources to
customers who care about the market."
That customer base may extend beyond what many expected. Edison Source, for
example, a unit of Edison International, has won a contract to supply power
from renewable sources to several of Toyota Motor Sales USA's offices in
California. Other commercial users have also gone green, said O'Donnell. But
any revolution in the California market is unlikely for several years, he
said.
"What has happened is kind of what was expected," O'Donnell said.
"Deregulation was not meant for residential customers."
Trickle but no bolt
A few thousand of SDG&E's 1.2 million customers each month request to leave
the utility for a new power supplier. More than 97 percent have stayed put. A
smaller number each month are filing requests to return to SDG&E. 1997
Leaving SDG&E Returning to SDG&E
Nov. 224 0
Dec. 612 0
1998
Jan. 268 0
Feb. 828 0
March 1,892 12
April 6,878 81
May 1,562 104
June 1,840 143
July 5,074 375
Aug. 5,897 242
Sept. 4,225 2,214*
*2,012 returned to SDG&E because one company defaulted.

1 ILLUSTRATION | 1 CHART; Caption: Trickle but no bolt | A few thousand of
SDG&E's 1.2 million customers each month request to leave the utility for a
new power supplier. More than 97 percent have stayed put. A smaller number
each month are filing requests to return to SDG&E. (C-7); Credit: 1. KRIS J.
LINDBLAD / Union-Tribune 2. UNION-TRIBUNE | SOURCE: SDG&E

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


Could you please refresh my memory of the other person in the group who's working on California?  Thanks a bunch.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Thome, Jennifer
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 2:31 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	RE: Rescheduling California Call

Jeff:

Works for me.  Thanks, Jennifer

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Monday, September 24, 2001 2:09 PM
To:	Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Mara, Susan; Kaufman, Paul; Scott Govenar (E-mail); 'hgovenar@govadv.com'; 'bhansen@lhom.com'; Denne, Karen; Kingerski, Harry; Thome, Jennifer; Lawner, Leslie
Subject:	Rescheduling California Call

For this week, we'd like to cancel both the Tuesday and Thursday calls and instead reschedule to Wednesday at 9 AM PDT (11 AM CDT).   We'll try to use the same call-in number. Scott, could you let Ken know of the plan?

Please let me know if this change presents a problem for anyone.

Best,
Jeff


As you are aware, your business unit has been selected to participate in
Project GEM (Global Enron Migration) for the rollout of Windows 2000.  In
preparation for this rollout, it is imperative that we gather information
about your workstation and the applications you use.  To begin this data
collection, we have automated the process.  In fact, your system has just
been inventoried.   Once this information is received, we will be working
with your local department coordinator to consolidate this information to
ensure this transition is as smooth as possible.

The GEM team would like to thank you for your participation.  If you have any
questions, please contact Mike Hernandez at (713)853-7740.


Teresa,

I'm following up on whether we had our amendment to Mahonia docs (for
rehypothecation) finally executued. I don't appear to have a copy of the
executed docs & would be grateful if you would provide them for me if they
have been executed. If not would you let me know whether Chase are still
holding the docs for signature.

Many thanks,

Soma


Judy ran the overrun report for us. Attached in this section is the TCO run
with my comments on fixes. Joann please look at the other days and contracts.
We will need to figure out how to balance Hopewell without causing overruns
on the retro's. Any ideas???

---------------------- Forwarded by Joan Veselack/Corp/Enron on 04/17/2000
06:49 PM ---------------------------

jhickman@columbiaenergygroup.com on 04/17/2000 10:41:41 AM
To: " - *Stonestreet, Steven" <sstonestreet@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " -
*Joan.Veselack@enron.com" <Joan.Veselack@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Overrun

Attached is your April to date overrun report.

 - BillingOverrun1.xls


Hi Alan:

In our ongoing analysis of the MOU, and in our attempt to put together a
solution for California, we need to do a reality check on the implied curves
the Governor's consultants are using to arrive at their rate proposals.  To
ensure an "apples to apples" comparison, we're hoping to get our curve data
for 24X7 power, averaged on a quarterly basis, from 2001-2010.

Hoping that you can get that for us.  That possible?  Let me know.  Thanks a
bunch.

Best,
Jeff


Yesterday we received a supplement to the plaintiffs' discovery that contained a damage report from the plaintiffs' damage experts.
	Plaintiffs are claiming $71 million.  This number takes into account the amounts allegedly lost from breach through March 2002, the date the plaintiffs claim they will have both machines up and running. More specifically, this number is based on:
	1.	The alleged actual costs associated with moving, operating and using the machine that was moved back to Somerset. ($12 million for 2001/ $5 million for 1/02-3/02- Total $17million)
	2.	Lost tax credits "grossed-up" for the machine that remained at Pier IX but, according to plaintiffs, was unable to make any synfuel because the plaintiffs purportedly could not get the coal to operate it. ($54 million)
	By only using the period from breach through March 2002, the plaintiffs have avoided having to make any assumptions about the spread and also have avoided having to take into account any long-term cost-savings that Enron's alleged breach provided which, we argue, they would have to apply to offset their early damages.
	We are analyzing the plaintiffs' numbers and will get back to you.


Any interest? I got this resume today from a person I never met. It seems he may
have some relevant skills.

Vince
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Frank Bogaert" <frankb@cityscope.net>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Frank+20Bogaert+22+20+3Cfrankb+40cityscope+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 2:20 PM
To:	vkamins@enron.com
Subject:	Today's Conversation

Vince:

It was a pleasure talking with you a few moments  ago.  As discussed, please find attached my resume in Word.  For your  convenience, I also copied a plain text version at the bottom of this  e-mail.

I would appreciate the opportunity to briefly visit  with you at your convenience to learn more about the energy industry and  where I should further seek to identify opportunities.

The easiest way to reach me is at 281-531-7990 or  by return e-mail.

Thank you!

Frank Bogaert

FRANK M. BOGAERT
14423 Twisted Oak  Lane
Houston, Texas 77079
281-531-7990frankb@cityscope.net

SUMMARY

Business Analysis Manager
* Quantitative  analysis and modeling of business economics
* Strategic implications and  opportunities
* Hands-on team leader

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Industry Structure and Forecasting
* Developed a  quantitative model predicting long-term natural
  gas prices for a major  oil company, and later for the
  consulting firm's marketing  efforts.  In the early nineties,
  model correctly predicted price  increases to oil parity by
  around the year 2000.
* Documented the  changing structure of the office furniture
  industry.  Formulated  strategy to regain profitable growth.

Financial and Operational Modeling of Asset  Deployment Decisions
* Based on the interaction of logistics and  manufacturing
  economics and market research, developed business  strategy
  for a leading insulation manufacturer.  Early results  allowed
  maintaining both price and volume in the down cycle of
  commodity market.
* Validated strategy of leading  automotive aftermarket
  manufacturer based on distribution  economics.  Validated
  economic model with top  management.

Supply Chain Improvement
* Led the inventory  management function through the integration
  of a major automotive  aftermarket distributor acquisition,
  involving consolidation of two  warehouse networks and multiple
  line changeovers.  Reduced  inventories by $30 million while
  improving fill rates.
* Led the  inventory management function in the improvement of
  shipping  performance, resulting in an additional profit of
  $5 million per  year.
* Improved the integration of suppliers and other functions  in
  the overall supply chain.

Process Redesign
* Led client teams through the  fundamental redesign of financial
  processes, typically identifying  cost reduction opportunities
  of 20% to 50%.
* Implemented variety  of business processes and controls:
  production scheduling, financial  and cost accounting, sales
  and pricing policies, project  documentation.

WORK HISTORY

PROFESSIONAL SIGNWORX, Houston,  Texas 1997-2001
A manufacturer and erector of custom  signage
President

APS, Houston, Texas 1996-1997
A major  automotive aftermarket distributor
Senior Director of Supply Chain  Management

FEDERAL-MOGUL, Southfield,  Michigan 1993-1995
A global automotive parts company
Director of  Logistics

THE HACKETT GROUP, Hudson, Ohio 1992-1993
A  process re-engineering consulting firm
Senior Consultant

BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, Cleveland,  Ohio 1985-1992
A global management consulting firm
Associate, Senior  Associate, Principal

CEGI-TYMSHARE, Paris, France 1980-1982
The  French subsidiary of a US time sharing computer company
Applications Software  Engineer

MILITARY

Belgian Army, First Grenadiers Regiment, Soest,  Germany,
Second Lieutenant, 1982-1983.

EDUCATION

MSIA (MBA), Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 1985

MS-Engineering Degree in Computer Science,  Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 1980

Languages:  English, Dutch, and  French.

 - FMBRF.doc


Start Date: 2/2/02; HourAhead hour: 23;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002020223.txt


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

 - an.jpg


Steve - After last week's "win" on the European export charge (you have
received a few e-mails from me on this), I think we might want to change the
one slide that touches upon this issue before the EBR.  I do not have the
relevant slide here with me in Tokyo, but could work with Elizabeth on
Friday, changing my earlier materials.  In the prior materials, we showed
this a big "defensive" issue (risk to be mitigated).  I (very) conservatively
put the value to Enron at $5MM for 2001 (Joe Gold says it saves him several
hundred thousand this Q4 alone, and that number is low because he realigned
his supply portfolio in anticipation of the charge being effective Oct. 1,
which realignment he says he has not done/did not do yet for 2001, hence the
bigger figure.  Any way, if you want to make the change, if Elizabeth will
call me Friday, we can work to incorporate it.   thanks  mcs


----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 10/26/2000 03:33 PM -----

	Tanya Rohauer
	10/26/2000 02:03 PM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Lehman

Per my VM


Stacey,

Please find attached our outstanding 1st quarter power questions.  As we are
to
sign off on the 10Q by Monday, April 14th, please provide your responses as
soon
as possible.

(See attached file: Updated#2 1st Quarter 2001  Power Questions.doc)

If you have any questions, please call me at X6-6269.  Thank you for your
help.

Jennifer

*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.  If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery
of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by
reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not
consent
to Internet email for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

 - Updated#2 1st Quarter 2001  Power Questions.doc


Debra:

As Debra and I discussed, we are  currently preparing a GISB contract for GPU
Services Company, as agent for ______.  I mentioned to Debra that when we
have a counterparty who is represented in transactions by an agent, we  work
to include the attached agency riders in the master agreement.  These riders
include reps and warranties relating to the agent's authority as well as an
acknowledgment by the principal relating to same.  I propose that you all
consider the attached riders when preparing master agreements in an agency
context.

To the extent that the counterparty is amenable, I strongly urge you to
propose that the principal enter into the contract on its own behalf and that
the contract merely recite that the agent is authorized to enter into
transactions pursuant to the agreement for and on behalf of the principal.
This is the approach I am going to try with GPU.  If an agent represents
multiple principals, try to enter into a separate master with each principal.

However, to the extent the counterparty absolutely refuses this approach, at
the very least I would include the riders and get acknowledgments from the
principal(s).  If there are multiple principals, try to get a separate
agreement with the agent for each principal (as opposed to one master with an
agent on behalf of numerous principals) to avoid questions about allocation
of transactions and credit exposures.

Please feel free to follow up with any questions or comments.

I have also attached for your reference a memorandum I prepared some time ago
regarding various issues to consider when dealing with an agency relationship.

Leslie


I do not use.


Thanks, as usual!

	Kay Young/ENRON@enronXgate
	06/01/2001 03:41 PM

		 To: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Two Nada's request

 Tina - We have no agreements with either bank to the best of my knowledge.
 -----Original Message-----
From:  Jones, Tana
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:40 PM
To: Young, Kay
Subject: Two NDA's request

Can you please confirms NDAs for the two companies below.  Much thanks!
----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 06/01/2001 02:38 PM -----

	Justin Rostant/ENRON@enronXgate 06/01/2001 11:39 AM 	   To: Tana
Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT  cc: David Forster/ENRON@enronXgate  Subject: NDA request

As per our discussion, can you please send a draft of an NDA to the following
entities:

TD Securities Inc.
222 Bay St.
Toronto, Ontario. M5K1A2
Send to:cliff.feehan@tdsecurities.com

Scotia Capital
Scotia Plaza
40 King St West
Box 4085 Station A
Toronto, Ontario. M5W2X6
Send to: garry_fredrickson@scotiacapital.com

Tana, since you are going to send the NDAs to these individuals, can you also
ask them to confirm the full legal entity's name and address?
Also, please copy David Forster and myself when sending the NDAs
Thanks so much

Justin Rostant
EnronOnline LLC.
Phone: 713-853-6460
Mobile: 832-264-6333
Fax: 713-646-2126


Debra Perlingiere
Enron North America Corp.
Legal Department
1400 Smith Street, EB 3885
Houston, Texas 77002
dperlin@enron.com
Phone 713-853-7658
Fax  713-646-3490

----- Forwarded by Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT on 12/22/2000 02:23 PM -----

	Kimberlee A Bennick
	12/22/2000 10:46 AM

		 To: catTaurus@aol.com, Mary Ogden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patricia Downey/HOU/EES@EES,
Cathy Sprowls/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pat Radford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kaye Ellis/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Becky Spencer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terrie Wheeler/GPGFIN/Enron@ENRON, Marilyn
Colbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, htarran1@txu.com, mlashely@altra.com, Debra
Perlingiere/HOU/ECT@ECT, Genia FitzGerald/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marlo C
James/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: CHRISTMAS CARD

Merry Christmas!!!!!

 - Jax Christmas Card 5.exe


Correction ref 490710(Miek Swerzbin) Prebon is showing Enron as the buyer and
Sempra as the seller.

---------------------- Forwarded by Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron on 01/08/2001
04:35 PM ---------------------------

Evelyn Metoyer
01/08/2001 04:38 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Friday deals for Mike Swerzbin

Kate,

 for ref 490710 ( Mike Swerzbin) Prebon just sent over a confirm and the
broker is showing Enron as the seller and Sempra as the buyer.

for ref 490640 (Mike Swerzbin) Prebon just sent over a confirm and the broker
is showing Enron as the buyer and Sempra as the seller

Can you check with Mike and verify this because I confirmed this differently
with Prebon.

Thanks!!

   Kate Symes @ ECT                01/05/2001 04:20 PM

To: Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re:

They are good deals, but we don't have deal numbers because Mike is out of
the office right now and said he wanted to check with the broker personally
before verifying the price. He's aware that the deals will have to go in late
and be backdated, and that they will not be in his calculation for the day.
Please let me know if there's anything else I can do.

Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
01/05/2001 02:23 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:

Are these good deals for Mike?

---------------------- Forwarded by Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron on 01/05/2001
04:18 PM ---------------------------

Evelyn Metoyer
01/05/2001 03:45 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject:

Can you check Mike Swerzbin for the following deals through Prebon:

Enron sells Sempra 50 mw of Sept.'01  Mid-C at $360.00
Enron buys Sempra 50 mw of July '01 Mid-C at $270.00

Thanks!!


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Capitol Connection <capcon@gmu.edu <mailto:capcon@gmu.edu>>@ENRON
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:37 AM
To:	(Recipient list suppressed)@ENRON
Subject:	FERC Special Meetings on Friday 10/26/01 and Monday 10/29/01

The Capitol Connection is pleased to announce that it will broadcast (via
the internet and telephone Only) the following Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Special Meetings:

Friday, October 26, 9.30 a.m. ET
Topic: Interstate Natural Gas Facility Planning Seminar, Presentation of
Staff Findings

Monday, October 29, 1:00 p.m. ET
Topic: Technical Conference Concerning West-Wide Price Mitigation for
Winter Season & Procedures for seeking participation

If you have an annual subscription to the Capitol Connection internet
service, these meetings are included in the annual fee.  Please contact us
if you are interested in signing up for either of these meetings or want to
get an annual subscription to our internet service.

The Capitol Connection offers FERC meetings live via the Internet, as well
as via Phone Bridge, and satellite, please visit our website at
www.capitolconnection.org <http://www.capitolconnection.org>. or send e-mail to capcon@gmu.edu <mailto:capcon@gmu.edu> for more
information. If there is a meeting you are interested in receiving, please
call 703-993-3100.

David Reininger

Meeting dates and times are subject to change without notice. For current
information, you can go to our website at www.capitolconnection.org <http://www.capitolconnection.org> and
select the FERC link or you can go to the FERC web page at www.ferc.fed.us <http://www.ferc.fed.us>.
The FERC Office of the Secretary can be reached at 202.208.0400.


-----Original Message-----
From: Guerra, Claudia
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 7:26 AM
To: Black, Tamara Jae
Subject: FW: NERC CRC Internet Site

-----Original Message-----
From: Will, Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:20 PM
To: Guerra, Claudia
Subject: FW: NERC CRC Internet Site

Please forward this email to all of East Power Staff.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Lou Leffler" <Lou.Leffler@nerc.net>@ENRON
Sent: Thu 8/2/2001 5:23 PM
To: Lou (E-mail)
Cc:
Subject: NERC CRC Internet Site

02 August 2001

NERC ANNOUNCEMENT

We are pleased to PRE-announce significant enhancements to the NERC CRC

Internet site.

CRC provides information to the Electricity Industry:

1.  NERC Eastern Interconnection Transmission Loading Relief events.

2.  NERC Energy Emergency Alerts.

3.  Data on key flowgates.

4.  The Transaction Distribution Factor viewer.

5.  The Generator Shift Factor viewer.

6.  Links to factor and document files.

The existing site:

< <http://crc.nerc.com>>

will remain active as the official updated functional site until the

cutover, which is tentatively planned for the evening of Tuesday 07

August 2001; during the cutover there will be a planned outage of the

CRC site for a short time, expected to be no longer than one hour.

The new site will have the same URL.

The beta site is available for your inspection until the cutover:

< <http://crc2.nerc.com>>

You are encouraged to check this out and to review the changes in

format. There will likely be some continuing work and the exact

appearance may be altered somewhat prior to the cutover. Please note

that download files are available under the new heading "Downloads".

Thank you, and questions can be directed to NERC at:

609-452-8060


Gerald and Shonnie;

 After discussion with Finance, we request the following language be added to
the LOU:

 Buyer's Closing Conditions:

 (iii)  Add "and the terms of the consents or waivers shall be acceptable to
Buyer." to the end of the clause.

 Revise (ix) to "Buyer shall have received from its existing lenders all
waivers or consents necessary to consummate  this Transaction and Buyer shall
have obtained the financing necessary to consummate this Transaction.

Thanks.  Eva.


Can you part with Rhett or Chancey?  I need a "bye week back" this week.  I
can offer Pittman and a receiver for the same.


Jim,
I got a notice from the dentist yesterday that Jarrod has a dental cleaning
scheduled for February 28 at 4:30.  I have a doctors appointment that day at
3:30 and cannot take him - can you?  If not, let me know and I'll reschedule
his appointment.

Also, I am scheduled to have the boys the weekend of April 21-22, and would
like to switch with you if possible.  Let me know what would work for you.
Thanks,
Joan


Dear All,

          Attached please find the October 2000 Curve Validation summary.  If
you have any questions, don't hesitate to call me at ext.  35257.

Best Regards,

 Maria Teresa Aguilera-Peon


what do you guys think about this one?  Jay, we have talked about them before I think.  Can I get a response in order to put this away or pursue?

thanks,

Kim
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	PZCummins@aol.com@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-PZCummins+40aol+2Ecom+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:57 PM
To:	Ward, Kim S (Houston)
Cc:	KBSSAC@aol.com; kmiles@wellhead.com
Subject:	Yuba City Cogen 5 yr gas deal

Kim,

We spoke last week about a possible 5 yr gas deal for our Yuba City plant.
Below is our RFP.  I'll call to discuss.

Thanks, Paul Cummins
916-996-2291 cell
916-447-5171 work

Request for Proposal ("RFP")
Yuba City Cogeneration Partners, LP
650 Bercut Drive, Suite C
Sacramento, CA  95814

Background.  Yuba City Cogeneration Partners, LP ("YCC") is the owner of a 49
megawatt cogeneration facility ("Facility") in Yuba City, California.  YCC
sells its 49 megawatts to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ("PG&E"), an entity
that recently filed for bankruptcy protection.  YCC recently entered into a
five-year, fixed-price electricity agreement with PG&E, and YCC desires to
enter into a long-term Natural Gas Supply Agreement ("NGSA") with an
appropriate supplier ("Seller") of natural gas.  The NGSA shall be subject to
approval of the YCC project lenders, and YCC will only be able to enter into
the NGSA after bankruptcy court approval of the five-year, fixed-price
electricity agreement with PG&E. As a result, YCC will require a daily update
to proposals it receives (to account for varying market conditions) until it
receives all necessary approvals to enter into a final NGSA.

Term. The term sheet contemplates either a three-year natural gas supply
agreement or a five-year natural gas supply agreement.  Under either term,
the starting date will be tentatively August 1, 2001, subject to the
necessary approvals.

Point(s) of Delivery.  PG&E City Gate.

Annual Volumes.  For the purposes of this RFP, it is assumed that the
Facility will consume monthly and annual gas volumes under one of three
different operating scenarios:

    Scenario        Annual Volume, mmBtu

       1                1,210,000

The typical, historical daily usage at the Facility has been 6,000 mmBtu/day,
except periods of maintenance or reduction by the Facility due to the
satisfaction of capacity requirements under its power purchase agreement
("PPA") with PG&E, and the typical, monthly historical usage has been based
upon a Monday through Friday operation.  Scenario 1 is indicative of plant
operations for the satisfaction of the minimum requirements of the PPA,
essentially 80%.

YCC would prefer a NGSA that is based upon annual volumes in a rolling
12-month period.

Monthly Balancing.  Monthly balancing on the PG&E system shall be the
Seller's responsibility, subject to the limitations of the YCC's natural gas
transportation agreement with PG&E, and subject to the PG&E gas system rules
and tariffs.  Seller shall be responsible for any gas imbalance charges
incurred on the PG&E System.

Usage Estimates.  For the purpose of assisting Seller in the Nomination
process, YCC shall make usage estimates in advance and as usage occurs.
Seller should specify requested frequency of usage estimates.

Monthly True-Up.  Actual usage at the Facility will almost certainly be of
some variance to the forecasted monthly gas volumes.  Seller shall propose a
means of "true-ing up" the actual usage to the forecasted monthly volumes.
The ideal system of true-ing up would allow for flexibility to both YCC and
Seller ("the Parties") under the following minimum circumstances:

1. True-up of variance between forecasted usage and actual, if any.

2. If gas price volatility has created daily or other market pricing that
creates financial incentive to the Parties to curtail deliveries to the
Facility and remarket the natural gas to the spot or other market.

3. Allowance for the Facility to curtail deliveries for planned or unplanned
maintenance.

Monthly true-up may incorporate resolution of the differences between price
and volume.

Day of Nomination.  The date of Nomination of daily gas volumes by the Seller
to the PG&E City Gate shall be at the option of, and as determined by Seller,
subject to the limitations of YCC's natural gas transportation agreement with
PG&E, and subject to the PG&E gas system rules and tariffs.

Maximum Daily Nomination Quantity:  YCC's natural gas transportation
agreement with PG&E allows for a maximum daily nomination quantity of 9,550
MMbtu/Day.

Price.  YCC seeks a NGSA that will provide a physical price hedge via three
alternative strategies.  The strategies are as follows:

Strategy        Price Hedge

       1            Fixed price for the term.
       2            Floating price, with a not-to-exceed cap.
       3            Floating price, with a minimum and maximum price.

YCC acknowledges that other hedging strategies exist and may be advisable for
the NGSA.  The Seller is encouraged to supply a proposal that incorporates
other strategies.

Credit and Payment Terms.  YCC can offer the following credit and payment
mechanisms for the purpose of removing credit and payment concern from the
Seller:

1. Semi-Monthly Payment. Semi-Monthly payment for gas based on expected
consumption over the first fifteen (15) calendar-day period of each month,
and the expected consumption over the balance of each month via a wire from
YCC to be made one day following the receipt of payments for electrical
energy from PG&E.

2. Priority payment.  YCC has an agreement with its lender that costs of fuel
shall have first priority in the waterfall of cash flows, i.e. the fuel
supplier shall be paid from project cash flows prior to the payment of all
other costs incurred, including repayment of debt, operations and maintenance
costs, management fees, etc.

RFP Response may be sent via fax to Paul Cummins @ 916-447-7602.  Please call
916-447-5171 for questions.


we will meet just to make sure nobody has anything they want to talk about,
so it should last hardly at all


unfortunately, mathematical analysis of skew is extremely hard to do.  the
question is why does skew exist and does the market do a proper job of
correcting for violations of the black scholes model.  in my mind, there are
three big reasons for skew.  one is that the assumption of stochastic
volatility as a function of price level gets violated.  commodities tend to
have long range trading ranges that exist due to the economics of supply and
elasticity of the demand curve.  nat gas tends to be relatively stable when
we are in that historical pricing environment.  however, moving to a
different pricing regime tends to bring volatility.  an options trader wants
to be long vol outside the trading range, believing that a breakout of the
range leads to volatility while trying to find new equilibrium.  supports a
vol smile theory.  in addition, in some commodities realized vol is a
function of price level.  nat gas historically is more volatile at $5 than at
$4 and more volatile at $4 than $3.  thus there has been a tendency for all
calls to have positive skew and all puts except weenies to have negative
skew.  the market certainly trades this way as vol has a tendency to come off
in a declining market and increase in a rising market.  to test, regress 15
day realized vol versus price level and see if there is any correlation.
second reason is heptocurtosis, fatter tails than lognormal distribution
predicts.  supports vol smile theory.  easy to test how your market compares
by plotting historical one day lognormal returns versus expected
distribution.
third, is just supply and demand.  in a market where spec players are
bearish, put skew tends to get bid as vol players require more insurance
premium to add incremetal risk to the book.  if you have a neutral view
towards market, or believe that market will come off but in an orderly
fashion, enron can take advantage of our risk limits by selling more
expensive insurance.  crude market tends to have strong put skew and weak
call skew as customer business in options is nearly all one way: producer
fences.  if you believe vol is stochastic in the region of prices where the
fence strikes are, can be profitable to take other side of trade.
if you want to discuss further give me a call 4-6 pm houston time.  hope this
helps,
john

Sharad Agnihotri
04/04/2001 12:44 PM
To: Mike Maggi/Corp/Enron@Enron, John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Gas Implied Volatility Smile

John, Mike

I work for the London Research team and am looking at
some option pricing problems for the UK gas desk.
Dave Redmond the options trader told me that you had done
some fundamental research regarding
the gas implied volatility smiles and may be able to help.

I would be grateful if you tell me
what you have done or suggest
someone else that I could ask.

Regards
Sharad Agnihtori


A warning from our IT people--and why FERC had no e-mail for a couple of  hours.
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:36:51 -0500
From: "IT Support Center" <itsc@ferc.fed.us>
To: <AAbate@ferc.fed.us>,<abbigale.addison@ferc.fed.us>,        <ACarroll@ferc.fed.us>, <ADeng@ferc.fed.us>,        <AHinz@ferc.fed.us>, <BBourque@ferc.fed.us>,        <bbraswell@ferc.fed.us>, <BBryan@ferc.fed.us>,        <BHarrington@ferc.fed.us>, <BHolsey@ferc.fed.us>,        <bsesso@ferc.fed.us>, <cbeatson@ferc.fed.us>,        <CChung@ferc.fed.us>, <CCook@ferc.fed.us>, <CDegu@ferc.fed.us>,        <CHandley@ferc.fed.us>, <CNiehaus@ferc.fed.us>,        <cnutsch@ferc.fed.us>, <CPhung@ferc.fed.us>,        <CRybicki@ferc.fed.us>, <CWeakley@ferc.fed.us>,        <DCagnon@ferc.fed.us>, <DCiemielewski@ferc.fed.us>,        <DFrailey@ferc.fed.us>, <DHannan@ferc.fed.us>,        <DMashburn@ferc.fed.us>, <DMurray@ferc.fed.us>,        <DSmith@ferc.fed.us>, <DZugris@ferc.fed.us>,        <EArnold@ferc.fed.us>, <EBarka@ferc.fed.us>,        <EBrown@ferc.fed.us>, <egargon@ferc.fed.us>,        <elizabeth.bethke@ferc.fed.us>, <ERamos@ferc.fed.us>,        <ethompson@ferc.fed.us>, <FBryant@ferc.fed.us>,        <FWilliams@ferc.fed.us>, <GTWhite@ferc.fed.us>,        <GWyche@ferc.fed.us>, <hbotchway@ferc.fed.us>,        <jason.chen@ferc.fed.us>, <JGilchrist@ferc.fed.us>,        <jhassan@ferc.fed.us>, <JJeffas@ferc.fed.us>,        <JKrug@ferc.fed.us>, <JLarsen@ferc.fed.us>,        <JLivingston@ferc.fed.us>, <JLuna@ferc.fed.us>,        <JMcDougal@ferc.fed.us>, <JMiller@ferc.fed.us>,        <JMMiller@ferc.fed.us>, <jonathan.burgess@ferc.fed.us>,        <JPaquin@ferc.fed.us>, <JShepherd@ferc.fed.us>,        <jsilva@ferc.fed.us>, <JWagner@ferc.fed.us>,        <KLeblanc@ferc.fed.us>, <KMerlo@ferc.fed.us>,        <KSherman@ferc.fed.us>, <LBunn@ferc.fed.us>,        <LFerguson@ferc.fed.us>, <LFinger@ferc.fed.us>,        <mali@ferc.fed.us>,        <Martin#032#W#032#Van#032#Doorninck@ferc.fed.us>,        <MCalin@ferc.fed.us>, <MFerebee@ferc.fed.us>,        <MGreenham@ferc.fed.us>, <MHughes@ferc.fed.us>,        <MKlose@ferc.fed.us>, <MRison@ferc.fed.us>,        <NGoharian@ferc.fed.us>, <NMoore@ferc.fed.us>,        <PHairston@ferc.fed.us>, <PKilchrist@ferc.fed.us>,        <popeng.chang@ferc.fed.us>, <RAmerkhail@ferc.fed.us>,        <RLynch@ferc.fed.us>, <RRegal@ferc.fed.us>,        <RReid@ferc.fed.us>, <rrogers@ferc.fed.us>,        <RShaffer@ferc.fed.us>, <SBDavis@ferc.fed.us>,        <SDupree@ferc.fed.us>, <SNovak@ferc.fed.us>,        <ssalehi@ferc.fed.us>, <SSauve@ferc.fed.us>,        <steve.collins@ferc.fed.us>, <STriplett@ferc.fed.us>,        <TBaker@ferc.fed.us>, <tbryfogle@ferc.fed.us>,        <TByrd@ferc.fed.us>, <TCampbell@ferc.fed.us>,        <TJohnson@ferc.fed.us>, <TWelch@ferc.fed.us>,        <uhong@ferc.fed.us>, <VSarma@ferc.fed.us>,        <WMeroney@ferc.fed.us>, <WSpencer@ferc.fed.us>,        <YPark@ferc.fed.us>, <ZMagos@ferc.fed.us>
Subject: URGENT FERC MESSAGE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_471A7B26.690875E1"

A new virus was released  today.  This high risk virus is called  W32/GONER@MM.  All incoming and outgoing internet email  has been temporarily shut down at FERC in order to prevent this virus from  infecting workstations.

If you have received any email with the Subject:  Hi containing an attachment entitled GONE.SCR  please delete it immediately and empty your Trash.  If you need  assistance with this, please call the IT Support Center immediately at  208-1163.

Once this issue has been resolved, internet mail service will be  restored.  Another notice will be sent at that time notifying you that this  problem has been corrected.

Thank you.


CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT

Description:
	2001 Summer Operations Meeting

Date:		5/16/2001
Time:		8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Central Standard Time)

Chairperson:	Outlook Migration Team

Detailed Description:


The meeting will be held on December 8, 2000 from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM in
Conference Room EB 19C1.  Box lunches will be served.  Your choices are
listed below:

Salads: Roasted Chicken Cobb Salad, Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad, Classic
Chef Salad

Sandwiches: Turkey, Roast Beef, Ham, Chicken Salad, Tuna Salad or Club
Sandwich.  Served on homemade white or wheat bread

Please email your lunch choice to me by Monday, December 4, 2000.

Thanks and regards,

Anita DuPont


We agree

"Eileen Ponton" <kponton@duke-energy.com> on 04/18/2001 10:48:19 AM

To:   David Avila/LSP/ENSERCH/US@TU, Charlie Stone/Texas Utilities@TU, Melissa
      Jones/Texas Utilities@TU, HPL.SCHEDULING@ENRON.COM, LIZ.BELLAMY@ENRON.COM
cc:
Subject:  NOM / ACTUAL VOLUME FOR APRIL 17TH

NOM       MCF       MMBTU
50,000         48,264         49,568

BTU = 1.027


The report named: West VaR and Peak Position Report By Trader <http://erv.corp.enron.com/linkFromExcel.asp?report_cd=26&report_name=West+VaR+and+Peak+Position+Report+By+Trader&category_cd=6&category_name=WEST&toc_hide=1&sTV1=6&TV1Exp=Y&current_efct_date=10/22/2001>, published as of 10/22/2001 is now available for viewing on the website.


Kay, lets couch it as below...or similar....what I did below is botchy.

Reagan C. Rorschach
Enron North America
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
713.345.3363

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:52 AM
To: Rorschach, Reagan
Subject: Are we confusing scheduling services with QSE type stuff?

(20) If and when a new RTO begins operation, seek to  [Rorschach, Reagan]
comply with scheduling requirements and to satisfy [Rorschach, Reagan]  such
rules and protocols [Rorschach, Reagan] that are created in [Rorschach,
Reagan]  association therewith.


The attachment can be opened in the VIEW FORMAT.
----- Forwarded by Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron on 01/17/2001 09:34 AM -----

	Donna Fulton
	01/17/2001 09:14 AM

		 To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Bernadette Hawkins/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 Subject:


There is a VERY good reason why he cannot pass "official" interviews.  I
will be more than happy to interview him, but if he doesn't know anything,
then it shows that he hasn't put in the effort to learn, and is cheating his
way through school.

 If memory serves me correct, this was the guy who talked all the time, and
flattered anyone who he thought would be valuable to him.  There are many
other reasons why he doesn't want to appear on interview lists.   I would be
reluctant to treat him any differently than his classmates.

-Kevin K.


Jeff- Joann sent me this note showing CES capacity that expires 3/31/2000.
Except for the SST, it differs from what we discussed this week.
Please Review.
Scott
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron on 03/15/2000
11:31 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Joann Collins                           03/15/2000 10:38 AM

To: Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: just FYI

K#  Type  Market Expiration Date  Volume Comments
63281  SST  coh(various)  3/31/2000 134,710   As discussed
62978  FTS  cpa8   3/31/2000 8000
63282  FTS  cgv10   3/31/2000 6
63283  FTS  cmd4&8  3/31/2000 46
63764  FTS  cpa8   3/31/2000 10000
65458  SST  coh3   3/31/2000 33

These contracts were term contracts since 10/1/99.

thanks
joann


re feedback from this thing:
the guy who bob knows who was  looking wanted to get people from outside to really build up the business...the other co-head wanted to concentrate on internal moves to see if they could start with an option capacity and build it up later .....the second guy won....
so not a decision that reflected the resumes put forward, but a focus on internal politics.....

just wanted to let you know

are you going to france for honeymoon?

i found out george taking me to california for our anniversary......what are the names of your favorite wineries.....we really should do a joint trip next time....

spk soon
hope you are well - best regards to lisa
robyn
212-702-3948

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ruscitti, Kevin
Sent:	Tuesday, July 17, 2001 12:09 PM
To:	Zivic, Robyn
Subject:

i lost my resume so i've been trying to construct a new one from scratch.  hopefully, it'll be done by tomorrow.
what is george's email address.  did you say he was leaving town this week.  if so, when.  thanks.  talk to you
soon.

kevin


Please disemminate more widely as you may think appropriate, but below is a
copy of the summary and conclusions of a study commissioned by the European
Commission on the "social effects" (meaning "unemployment", among other
things) of liberalisation.  Thought many of you would find it of interest for
a  variety of your research and target audiences.  mcs
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT on 09/10/2000
17:14 ---------------------------

Nailia Dindarova
09/10/2000 16:16
To: Govt Affairs
cc:

Subject: Commission's study on the social effects of liberalisation

Please see attached a summary and conclusions of the study carried out by a
consulting firm (ECOTEC) at the Commission's request.

Nailia


I need the  phone number for Tom Heatherington (sp?) at Bracewell in Houston.
Someone should have a directory.

Kay


EFF_DT PORTFOLIO_ID DOWN95
1/30/01  MANAGEMENT-COAL 0
1/30/01  MANAGEMENT-CRD 0
1/30/01  MANAGEMENT-GAS 162,703.
1/30/01  MANAGEMENT-PWR 253,554.
1/30/01  AGG-MANAGEMENT 365,246.


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000
04:28 PM ---------------------------

"George Richards" <cbpres@austin.rr.com> on 09/26/2000 01:18:45 PM
Please respond to <cbpres@austin.rr.com>
To: "Phillip Allen" <pallen@enron.com>
cc: "Larry Lewter" <retwell@mail.sanmarcos.net>, "Claudia L. Crocker"
<clclegal2@aol.com>
Subject: Investment Structure

STRUCTURE:
Typically the structure is a limited partnership with a corporate (or LLC)
general partner.  The General Partner owns 1% of the project and carries the
liability of construction.

LAND OWNERSHIP & LOANS
The property would be purchased in the name of the limited partnership and
any land loans, land improvements loans and construction loans would be in
the name of the limited partnership.  Each of the individual investors and
all of the principals in Creekside would also personally guarantee the
loans.  If the investor(s) do not sign on the loans, this generally means
that a larger amount of cash is required and the investor's share of profits
is reduced.

All loans for residential construction, that are intended for re-sale, are
full recourse loans.  If we are pursuing multifamily rental developments,
the construction loans are still full recourse but the mortgage can often be
non-recourse.

USE OF INITIAL INVESTMENT
The initial investment is used for land deposit, engineering &
architectural design, soils tests, surveys, filing fees, legal fees for
organization and condominium association formation,  and appraisals.  Unlike
many real estate investment programs, none of the funds are used for fees to
Creekside Builders, LLC.  These professional expenses will be incurred over
the estimated 6 month design and approval period.

EARLY LAND COSTS
The $4,000 per month costs listed in the cash flow as part of land cost
represent the extension fees due to the seller for up to 4 months of
extensions on closing.  As an alternative, we can close into a land loan at
probably 70% of appraised value.  With a land value equal to the purchase
price of $680,000 this would mean a land loan of $476,000 with estimated
monthly interest payments of $3,966, given a 10% annual interest rate, plus
approximately 1.25% of the loan amount for closing costs and loan fees.

EQUITY AT IMPROVEMENT LOAN
Once the site plan is approved by the City of Austin, the City will require
the development entity to post funds for fiscal improvements, referred to as
the "fiscals".  This cost represents a bond for the completion of
improvements that COA considers vital and these funds are released once the
improvements have been completed and accepted by COA.  This release will be
for 90% of the cost with the remaining 10% released one year after
completion.  Releases can be granted once every 90 days and you should
expect that the release would occur 6 months after the start of lot
improvement construction.  These fiscals are usually posted in cash or an
irrevocable letter of credit.  As such, they have to be counted as a
development cost, even though they are not spent.  Because they are not
spent no interest is charged on these funds.

The lot improvement loan is typically 75% of the appraised value of a
finished lot, which I suspect will be at least $20,000 and potentially as
high as $25,000.  This would produce a loan amount of  $15,000 on $20,000
per lot.  With estimated per lot improvement costs of $9,000, 'fiscals' at
$2,000 and the land cost at $8,000 , total improved lot cost is $19,000
which means $0 to $4,000 per lot in total equity.  The investment prior to
obtaining the improvement loan would count towards any equity requirement
provided it was for direct costs.  Thus, the additional equity for the
improvement loan would be $0-$184,000.   Even if the maximum loan would
cover all costs, it is unlikely the bank would allow reimbursement of funds
spent. The higher estimates of equity investments are shown in the
preliminary proforma to be on the safe side.  The engineer is preparing a
tentative site layout with an initial evaluation of the phasing, which can
significantly reduce the cash equity requirement.

Phasing works as follows.  If the first phase was say 40 units, the total
lot improvement cost might average $31,000 per lot.   Of this, probably
$13,000 would be for improvements and $19,000 for the land cost.  The
improvements are higher to cover large one time up front costs for design
costs, the entry road, water treatment costs, perimeter fencing and
landscaping, and so on, as well as for 100% of the land.  The land loan for
undeveloped lots would be 70% of the appraised raw lot value, which I would
estimate as $10,000 per lot for a loan value of $7,000 per lot.  Then the
loan value for each improved lot would be $15,000 per lot.  This would give
you a total loan of $992,000, total cost of $1,232,645 for equity required
of $241,000.  This was not presented in the initial analysis as the phasing
is depended on a more careful assessment by the Civil Engineer as the
separate phases must each be able to stand on its own from a utility
standpoint.

CONSTRUCTION LOANS
There are three types of  construction loans.  First, is a speculative
(spec) loan that is taken out prior to any pre-sales activity.  Second,  is
a construction loan for a pre-sold unit, but the loan remains in the
builder/developers name.  Third, is a pre-sold unit with the construction
loan in the name of the buyer.  We expect to have up to 8 spec loans to
start the project and expect all other loans to be pre-sold units with loans
in the name of the builder/developer.  We do not expect to have any
construction loans in the name of the buyers, as such loans are too
difficult to manage and please new buyers unfamiliar with the process.

Spec loans will be for 70% to 75% of value and construction loans for
pre-sold units, if the construction loan is from the mortgage lender,  will
be from 80% to 95% of value.

DISBURSEMENTS
Disbursements will be handled by the General Partner to cover current and
near term third party costs, then to necessary reserves, then to priority
payments and then to the partners per the agreement.  The General Partner
will contract with Creekside Builders, LLC to construct the units and the
fee to CB will include a construction management and overhead fee equal to
15% of the direct hard cost excluding land, financing and sales costs.
These fees are the only monies to Creekside, Larry Lewter or myself prior to
calculation of profit, except for a) direct reimbursement for partnership
expenses and b) direct payment to CB for any subcontractor costs that it has
to perform.  For example, if CB cannot find a good trim carpenter sub, or
cannot find enough trim carpenters, etc., and it decides to undertake this
function, it will charge the partnership the same fee it was able to obtain
from third parties and will disclose those cases to the partnership.
Finally, CB will receive a fee for the use of any of its equipment if it is
used in lieu of leasing equipment from others.  At present CB does not own
any significant equipment, but it is considering the purchase of a sky track
to facilitate and speed up framing, cornice, roofing and drywall spreading.

REPORTING
We are more than willing to provide reports to track expenses vs. plan.
What did you have in mind?  I would like to use some form of internet based
reporting.

BOOKKEEPING
I am not sure what you are referring to by the question, "Bookkeeping
procedures to record actual expenses?"  Please expand.

INVESTOR INPUT
We are glad to have the investor's input on design and materials.  As always
the question will be who has final say if there is disagreement, but in my
experience I have always been able to reach consensus. As you, and I presume
Keith, want to be involved to learn as much as possible we would make every
effort to be accommodating.

CREEKSIDE PROCEEDURES
CB procedures for dealing with subs, vendors and professionals is not as
formal as your question indicates.  In the EXTREMELY tight labor market
obtaining 3 bids for each labor trade is not feasible.  For the professional
subs we use those with whom we have developed a previous rapport.  Finally,
for vendors they are constantly shopped.

PRE-SELECTED PROFESSIONALS, SUBS AND VENDORS
Yes there are many different subs that have been identified and I can
provide these if you are interested.

I know I have not answered everything, but this is a starting point.  Call
when you have reviewed and we can discuss further.

Sincerely,

George Richards
President, Creekside Builders, LLC

 - winmail.dat


kevin, do you have the phone number for Geysa Arujo at the Williams Shrink - Cochrane facility. She called me the other day and I must have taken her number down incorrectly.

Thanks. BT


******  ******      **       *************************************
**        **       *  *      ***   U.S. Department of Energy    **
****      **      ******     * Energy Information Administration *
**        **     **    **    ** To unsubscribe see the message ***
******  ******  **      **   ************* footnote **************
EIA, the Nation's clearinghouse for energy statistics. ***********
******************************************************************

(NOTE: To best view this document, your email software should
be set to view the item in an 80 character format, using a
"non-proportional" font, e.g. courier)
******************************************************************

This is to notify you of recent natural gas analysis released by the U.S.
Energy
Information Administration which can be found on our web site.

The Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting released an analysis report
entitled "U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the
Future".

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/naturalgas/pdf/oiaf00102.pdf
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/naturalgas/pdf/oiaf00102.pdf>

Please Note:  If the link does not work by clicking on the above URL, please
do
the following in order to view the products:

Go to EIA's home page at www.eia.doe.gov <http://www.eia.doe.gov>
On the left sidebar, click on "What's New"

--------------------------  To Unsubscribe  -----------------------------
You are currently subscribed to ng_analysis as: [Mike.Grigsby@enron.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-ng_analysis-124863F@tonto.eia.doe.gov.
Please do not use the reply button.