FYI.
Thanks.
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fergus, Gary S.
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:45 PM
> To: Michael L. Kirby (E-mail)
> Cc: Molland, Michael E.; Smith, Amanda D.
> Subject: Draft Research Memorandum on Senator Dunn Issues
>
> Mike,
>
>  Here is the draft research memo that Amanda prepared on some of the
> questions surrounding Senator Dunn's investigation (some of this you saw
> before):
>
> Legislative Committee Subpoena Power
>
> Government Code Section 9401, provides that "a subpoena requiring the
> attendance of any witness before the Senate, Assembly, or a committee may
> be issued by the President of the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly, or the
> chairman of any committee before whom the attendance of the witness is
> desired if permission has been secured from the rules committee of the
> respective house."
>
> There is a relative dearth of case law interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et
> seq. and the Govt. Code reporters cross reference to the Code of Civil
> Procedure Sections on issuance of subpoenas (C.C.P. 1985, et seq.).
> Therefore, it is possible that the provisions of both the Govt. Code and
> the C.C.P. will govern the issuance and enforceability of a subpoena
> issued by a legislative committee.
>
> Govt. Code Section 9402 provides that a subpoena is sufficient if it "(a)
> states whether the proceeding is before the Senate, Assembly or a
> committee. (b) is addressed to the witness [presumably the custodian of
> records when documents are sought]. (c) requires the attendance of the
> witness at a time and place certain and (d) is signed by the President of
> the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly or chairman of the committee before
> whom attendance of the witness is desired."
>
> If the witness does not appear or refuses to testify or "neglects or
> refuses ... to produce upon reasonable notice any material and proper
> books, papers or document sin his possession or under his control, he has
> committed a contempt."  Govt. Code Section 9405.   If the contempt is
> committed while the Legislature is in session, Govt. Code Section 9407
> provides that the committee shall report the contempt to the Senate or
> Assembly "for such action as may be deemed necessary by the Senate or
> Assembly."  If the Legislature is not in session, "the superior court in
> and for the county in which any inquiry, investigation hearing or
> proceeding [is] held ... may compel the ... production of books, papers,
> documents and accounts, as required by the subpoena issued by the
> committee, on the filing by the committee of a petition to the court
> asking that the witness be so compelled."
>
> Govt. Code Section 9409 provides that "any witness neglecting or refusing
> to attend in obedience to subpoena may be arrested...."  It is unclear how
> this provision would (or whether it could) be applied to a subpoena issued
> to the custodian of records of a non-resident company.
>
> Motion to Quash Subpoena
>
> California courts have held, under C.C.P. Section 1985, that a motion to
> quash is the procedurally appropriate method of testing the validity of a
> subpoena duces tecum.  See e.g. People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v.
> Younger (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 575.  My research has revealed no case in
> which a subpoena issued by a legislative committee has been challenged by
> a motion to quash, but, as noted above, there appear to be only a very few
> cases interpreting Govt. Code 9401 et seq.   Therefore, it appears that a
> superior court may be able to grant a motion to quash a subpoena issued by
> a legislative committee (assuming that we want to take the risk of state
> court jurisdiction).
>
> In one early case, the Court of Appeal held that the contempt order and
> accompanying affidavit issued by the Court upon the request of a Senate
> Committee were fatally defective.  Ex Parte McLain (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d
> 274.  In McLain, the Senate Interim Committee on Social Welfare served
> upon Mr. McLain, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a corporation a
> subpoena calling for the production of various books, papers and
> documents.  Mr. McLain appeared before the committee but refused to answer
> questions or produce the documents.  Upon representation of the Committee,
> the Superior Court issued an order directing Mr. McLain to produce the
> documents.  Mr. McLain again appeared before the Committee and again
> refused to produce the documents at which point, an affidavit was filed in
> Superior Court stating:
>
> "That, based upon evidence in its possession, the said Senate Interim
> Committee has determined that each of the books, papers, and documents
> specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to the matters now
> under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee, and the
> production of such books, papers and documents is necessary in order to
> enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the duties
> imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of California
> pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162." and "That each of the books,
> papers and documents specified in said subpoena duces tecum is material to
> the matters now under investigation by the said Senate Interim Committee
> and that the production of such books, papers and documents is necessary
> in order to enable said Senate Interim Committee properly to perform the
> duties imposed upon it and to report to the Senate of the State of
> California pursuant to said Senate Resolution No. 162."
>
> The Superior Court found Mr. McLain guilty of contempt and ordered him
> committed to the sheriff until he produced the records.  The Court of
> Appeals found that the order and affidavit were defective because "a
> witness who is otherwise orderly and respectful cannot be adjudged guilty
> of contempt unless the order affirmatively sets forth the materiality and
> pertinency of the books and papers called for.  In cases of constructive
> contempt, as is this, not only the order but also the affidavit upon which
> it is based must sufficiently charge the alleged facts constituting the
> offense."  McLain at 276.
>
> This holding appears to be somewhat consistent with cases interpreting
> C.C.P. 1985, which hold that the subpoena and affidavits must allege
> material facts rather than conclusory statements.  See e.g. Grannis v.
> Board of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551.
>
> However, cases interpreting C.C.P. 1985 also require the subpoena to
> demonstrate a level of specificity, materiality and relevance to be held
> proper.  See e.g. Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 273
> Cal.App.2d 61.  It is unclear whether subpoenas issued by legislative
> committees are held to this same standard.
>
> What is the likely impact of a legislative committee subpoena issued
> against the Enron' custodian of records, an out-of-state resident,
> intended to affect the production of out-of-state Enron documents?
>
>
> Here are the threshold questions:
>
> A.  Since we have found so few cases interpreting Govt. Code Section 9401,
> to what extent would a legislative committee subpoena be governed by the
> same procedural and substantive rules as a subpoena issued in a pending
> civil state court action?
>
> B.  Would a court determining the validity of a legislative committee
> subpoena make reference to the Code of Civil Procedure Sections governing
> subpoenas "generally" (i.e. C.C.P. 1985 et seq.) or those governing
> "deposition subpoenas" (i.e. C.C.P. 2020 et seq.)?  This is a toss-up and
> the answer may well be "both."  The Government Code reporter sections on
> legislative subpoenas cross references to C.C.P. 1985 et seq. ("subpoenas
> generally").  However, the "deposition subpoena" provisions (C.C.P. 2025
> et seq.) more closely resemble the "discovery" process that the Senator
> seems to be undertaking.
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 1985 et seq.
>
> C.C.P. 1989 is entitled "Residency requirements for attendance of
> witnesses" and provides that "A witness, including a witness specified in
> subdivision (b) of Section 1987, is not obliged to attend as a witness
> before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness
> is a resident within the state at the time of service."
>
> There is a statutory limitation on the residency requirement imposed by
> Section 1989.  Section 1987.3 provides "[w]hen a subpoena duchess mecum is
> served upon a custodian of records or other qualified witness as provided
> in Article 4 (commencing with Section 1560) of Chapter 2 of Division 11 of
> the Evidence Code, and his personal attendance is not required by the
> terms of the subpoena, Section 1989 shall not apply."  (Evade. Code 1650
> lays out the terms for compliance with a subpoena for business records
> where the business is "neither a party nor the place where any cause of
> action is alleged to have arisen.")
>
> On commentator noted the following with respect to C.C.P. 1987.3:
>
> "The rule limiting subpoenas to California "residents" (C.C.P. 1989) does
> not apply to subpoenas duchess mecum served on custodians of records
> unless their personal attendance is required. See C.C.P. 1987.3; Amoco
> Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (1995) 34
> Cal.App.4th 554, 561 fn. 9.  Thus, a nonresident custodian of business
> records may be required to respond to a subpoena duces tecum served upon
> him or her while present in California, by producing the records in
> accordance with Cal. Evid. Code 1560 (delivering copies of the records and
> accompanying affidavit to the court clerk)... [However], C.C.P. 1987.3
> probably applies only where the nonresident custodian is employed by a
> business entity subject to California jurisdiction. Otherwise, there would
> be no way for the court to enforce compliance with a subpoena served on a
> nonresident.  See Amoco Chem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of
> London, supra."
>
> Werner, Fairbanks & Epstein, Rutter Group, California Practice Guide:
> Civil Procedure & Trials at 1.57-58
>
> Moreover, in one unpublished case, Allee v. King (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d
> 1081, the court held that it lacked power to compel a nonresident
> defendant to produce original out-of-state documents at trial.  In so
> holding, the court stated that:
>
> "even though King apparently voluntarily attended the trial, his presence
> does not confer jurisdiction on the court to oblige him to deliver the
> out-of-state documents.   Although section 1989 uses the word "witness"
> and does not refer to documents, it has long been presumed under common
> law that documents in other states are outside the court's territorial
> jurisdiction, so that a court will allow the use of copies or other
> secondary evidence instead of originals.  (See, e.g., Heinz v. Heinz
> (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 61, 66, 165 P.2d 967, and cases cited therein.)   The
> recognition that out-of-state documents are not subject to the court's
> process is in conformity with the general rule under common law that,
> absent a statute properly conferring broader powers, the extent of a
> state's subpoena power and its accompanying subpoena duces tecum power is
> coterminous with its borders.  (See 97 C.J.S., Witnesses, S 17, p. 367, S
> 23, p. 375, S 25, p. 380;  81 Am.Jur.2d, Witnesses, S 8, p. 32, S 14, p.
> 39.)
>
> However, the Allee court notes that the "state-border" limitation on
> subpoena power has not been extended to local branches of national
> corporations who are subpoenaed to deliver documents which are
> out-of-state.  Therefore, even under Allee, if a subpoena was issued to a
> California Enron entity that possessed responsive documents, that Enron
> entity may be obligated to respond.  See Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co.
> (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806.
>
> Therefore, if a subpoena is issued which requires the attendance of an
> out-of-state officer of Enron, Enron has a very good argument that that
> witness is not obligated to attend under C.C.P. 1989.  It also seems
> probable that, under Amoco and Allele cited above, if a subpoena is served
> on an Enron custodian of records who is employed by a non-California Enron
> entity, the subpoena may be invalid.  However, if a subpoena seeking the
> production of documents is served on the custodian of records (or someone
> similarly situated) who is employed by an Enron entity that possesses
> responsive documents and is subject to personal jurisdiction in
> California, that Enron entity most likely is obligated to produce the
> documents.  It is an open question whether that custodian of records
> (employed by an Enron entity in California) would only be required to
> produce the Enron documents in the possession of the Enron California
> entity or whether that person's obligation would extend further -- to
> produce out-of state documents (i.e. documents from non-California Enron
> entities)  (This question is addressed somewhat in the commentary on the
> C.C.P. 2020 statutory scheme, see below, but is still open)
>
>
> Subpoenas against out-of-state residents under C.C.P. 2020 et seq.
>
> Additional threshold question:  If the legislative subpoena was treated as
> a "deposition subpoena," would a court deciding the enforceability of a
> legislative subpoena treat Enron as a "party" or as a "non-party"?
>
> The rules governing the reach of discovery in California are obviously
> different for the two.  The deposition of a party or party-affiliated
> witness may be noticed (without a subpoena) for a place within 75 miles of
> the witness' residence.  It is unclear how a court would resolve this
> issue.  After all, if a court was resolving the issue at all, an Enron
> entity will have appeared before it. and would be a "party."  However, it
> seems moderately more likely that the court would treat Enron's
> obligations under the legislative committee subpoena as similar to its
> obligations if it was served with a "non-party" subpoena.
>
> There are three types of "deposition subpoena":  a "testimony only
> subpoena" (requires only the attendance and testimony of the witness), a
> "business records subpoena" (requires only the production of business
> records) and a "records and testimony subpoena" (requires both -- also
> formerly called subpoena duces tecum).  The second of these is the most
> relevant to Enron.
>
> The attendance of an non party out-of-state witness or the production of
> documents can be compelled only under the law of the place where the
> deposition is to be taken.  C.C.P. 2026 (b)(2).  Specifically, C.C.P.
> 2026(b)(2) provides "If the deponent is not a party to the action or an
> officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, a party serving
> a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and
> procedures required and available under the laws of the state, territory,
> or insular possession where the deposition is to be taken to compel the
> deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document or
> tangible thing for inspection, copying, and any related activity."
>
> Some states issue subpoenas routinely, some require a showing of
> materiality or relevancy, and some require a commission from the court
> where the action is pending.    This question will depend on the law of
> the state when the custodian of records resides.
>
> Regarding the question of whether the service of a deposition subpoena on
> an in-state custodian of records would compel the production of
> out-of-state documents.  Weil & Brown, Rutter Group, California Practice
> Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at 5:540.4 notes:
>
> "It is unclear whether service of a "business records" subpoena on a
> nonparty corporation in California compels production of its records
> located outside the state. ... C.C.P. 2020(d) requires that the subpoena
> be directed to the records "custodian" (or someone authorized to certify
> the records). Whether "custodian" requires actual custody of the records
> is unclear. If it does, serving an officer or agent in California would
> not compel production of business records located elsewhere.... The result
> is different where a "records and testimony" subpoena is used. That
> procedure extends to records in control of the subpoenaed party, not
> merely in his or her custody."
>
> If the State of California files civil suit against Enron to obtain
> discovery of the requested documents, does the fact that the State is the
> plaintiff (rather than a private party) affect Enron's prospects for
> removal of the suit to federal court?
>
>
> If the action filed by the State of California presents a federal
> question, then under the rationale of the court in People of the State of
> California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992) 792 F.Supp. 84, the case
> should be removable to federal court.
>
> In People of the State of California v. Steelcase Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1992)
> 792 F.Supp. 84, the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles brought
> suit alleging violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition
> Statutes (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16720 and 17200).  The District Court
> found that, although the district attorney is only allowed to prosecute
> Cartwright Act violations on behalf of the county or public agencies
> located in the county, the unfair competition statutes expressly provide
> that suit be brought "in the name of the people of the State of
> California."  Id. at 85.  Therefore, for the purposes of the Unfair
> Competition Claims, the Court found that the State of California was the
> real party in interest.
>
> The Court then found:
>
> (1) that "for diversity purposes, a state is not a citizen of itself.
> Therefore it cannot sue or be sued in a diversity action."  Id.
> Specifically, the Court found that: "[e]ven assuming arguendo that
> defendant is correct that the County of Los Angeles is the real party in
> interest and the proper party in the Cartwright Act claim, diversity
> jurisdiction does not lie because, under long- established teaching, there
> must be complete diversity, i.e., all plaintiffs must be diverse from
> defendant.   E.g. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed.
> 435 (1806).   Here, there cannot be complete diversity because, to repeat,
> the State of California is not a citizen of any state. "  Id.
>
> (2) that "[i]ndependent of its failure to meet the complete diversity
> test, the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because of the bar of
> the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.   The Eleventh Amendment is a
> grant of sovereign immunity to a state against suit in federal court.   It
> is in "the nature of a jurisdictional bar."  .... Defendant, relying on
> the literal wording of the Eleventh Amendment, contends that this is not a
> "suit ... against one of the United States ..." because the State is the
> plaintiff.   However, since the immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment
> is an immunity from being made an involuntary party to an action in
> federal court, it should apply equally to the case where the state is a
> plaintiff in an action commenced in state court and the action is removed
> to federal court by the defendant." Id.  (internal citations removed).
>
> However, the Court noted that "where removal is predicated on federal
> question jurisdiction, removal is permitted even where a "non-removable"
> claim is joined with the removable claim...." Id.
>
> If a criminal case (price gouging, etc.) is brought against Enron, is
> there any theory (preemption, primary jurisdiction or double jeopardy)
> which would allow that criminal proceeding to be dismissed, stayed or
> removed given the criminal penalty provisions of the Federal Power Act?
>
>
> Our preliminary research shows that there is a body of substantive law
> dealing generally with the question of whether criminal proceedings are
> subject to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, but no case which considered
> this question with respect to the Federal Power Act specifically.
>
> Generally, in one case concerning a District Court order staying criminal
> action involving allegations of conspiracy and fraud against a defense
> contractor pending the District Court's referral of various questions
> regarding the case to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the
> Ninth Circuit has said:
>
> "Our concern with the district court's stay and referral is heightened by
> the fact that this action is a criminal prosecution.   While it is true
> that the primary jurisdiction doctrine has been applied in criminal cases,
> see United States v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co. (1913) 228 U.S. 87,
> 106-08; United States v. Yellow Freight Sys. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 737,
> 742, its use clearly interferes with the government's authority to
> prosecute criminal cases. ... We said in a related context:
>
> 'We approach the interpretation of the statute with a presumption against
> a congressional intention to limit the power of the Attorney General to
> prosecute offenses under the criminal laws of the United States.   In
> general, the "conduct [of] federal criminal litigation ... is 'an
> executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney
> General,' "  In re Subpoena of Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54 (2d Cir.1975),
> quoting United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1965) (Wisdom, J.,
> concurring).   Congress may limit or reassign the prosecutorial
> responsibility.   See Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 96-97, 66 S.Ct. 438
> [440-41] 90 L.Ed. 552 (946);  Nader v. Saxbe, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 92-93,
> 497 F.2d 676, 679-80 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1974);  FTC v. Guignon, 390 F.2d 323,
> 324 (8th Cir.1968).   But "[t]o graft such an exception upon the criminal
> law would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative
> will."  United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282, 32 S.Ct. 81, 82, 56
> L.Ed. 198 (1911).'  United States v. International Union of Operating
> Engineers, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161, 1162 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied,
> 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S.Ct. 1026, 62 L.Ed.2d 760 (1980)"
>
> United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (9th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 1356,
> 1366.  The General Dynamics Court went on to say that "only where an issue
> unambiguously requires initial agency determination under the primary
> jurisdiction doctrine ... and the referring court has the authority to
> review the agency's order, can the agency's regulatory interests be
> required or allowed to subordinate the government's authority to prosecute
> criminal offenses."  Id.
>
> In another context, the Ninth Circuit held that the exhaustion of
> administrative remedies before the Federal Election Commission was not a
> prerequisite to indictment under the Federal Election Campaign Act:
>
> "... neither the language nor the legislative history of the Act provides
> the kind of "clear and unambiguous expression of legislative will"
> necessary to support a holding that Congress sought to alter the
> traditionally broad scope of the Attorney General's prosecutorial
> discretion by requiring initial administrative screening of alleged
> violations of the Act. On the contrary, the language and legislative
> history indicates that while centralizing and strengthening the authority
> of the FERC to enforce the Act administratively and by civil proceedings,
> Congress intended to leave undisturbed the Justice Department's authority
> to prosecute criminally a narrow range of aggravated offenses."
>
> United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701
> (1979) 638 F.2d 1161.  See also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Shipping
> Industry (D.D.C. 1960) 186 F.Supp. 298, 309 ("though the doctrine of
> primary jurisdiction may be applied to both civil and to criminal actions,
> it is more forceful in the civil regulatory type actions than in criminal
> actions for in the latter actions the violations of other federal statutes
> may more often be involved, and the regulatory scheme less affected.")
>
> Therefore, it seems clear that it will be difficult to invoke the doctrine
> of primary jurisdiction to dismiss or stay criminal proceedings against
> Enron, especially since the "criminal penalty" provisions of the Federal
> Power Act are relatively limited.
>
> In addition, at least one court has held, in the civil context, that the
> Federal Power Act was not designed to "shift the forum for the trial of
> anti-trust questions affecting power companies from the District Courts to
> the Power Commission [FERC's predecessor]"  Pennsylvania Water & Power Co.
> v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. (4th Cir. 1950) 184 F.2d
> 552, 562.
>
> I have not been able to find any case directly on point which invokes
> "double jeopardy" type arguments.  (In other words, if there are possible
> criminal penalties under the Federal Power Act and the same conduct is at
> issue that was examined by FERC, would State law criminal charges based
> upon the same conduct be precluded.)  Further research on this point after
> the filing of a criminal claim (when the details of the allegations are
> known) may be productive.  Also, it may be worthwhile to look for
> regulatory statutes that consider language similar to that in the Federal
> Power Act to determine if preemption/primary jurisdiction case law exists
> in analogous situations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

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


Hi Tana

Have a question on EOL which I hope you can help answer.

Chevron USA Inc and Texaco Inc and two companies which I understand have ISDA
Master Agreements in place with Enron (in fact, I think you negotiated
them!). I also understand they are signed up for EOL. Would be grateful if
you could confirm this and advise whether they had negotiated to change any
terms in the ETA or PA.

Thanks for your help.

Best regards
Matt


----- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 05/29/2001 12:02 PM -----

	"Gillaspie, Eric" <EGillaspie@coral-energy.com>
	05/29/2001 11:26 AM

		 To: "Gerald Nemec (E-mail)" <gerald.nemec@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: FW: Trip Details

FYI

Eric Gillaspie
Counsel
Shell Trading Gas and Power Company
Tel. 713-230-3576
Fax 713-265-3576
2HC 1036

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan gillaspie [mailto:jongill78@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 8:13 AM
To: djunk_epc@yahoo.com; Gillaspie, Eric; jgillaspieci3@netzero.com;
ragillaspie@hotmail.com; jongill78@hotmail.com;
gillassa@fairfield.k12.ia.us
Subject: Re: Trip Details

Dan:

Can you imagine trying to set this up without the internet? It would be
impossible. Anyway, here's a quick update from the battlefield. In regards
to flight plans, we had a minor setback today. We called our local Wuxi
travel agent who is setting up the majority of our airplane tix. I asked her

if we needed to provide them with full names that are on passports. After
much heated debate she said no. However, we then called Shanghai Pudong
Airport staff to see what their response was to our enquiry. They demanded
that all flight tickets show the full names that are on passports.
Therefore, I'll need for you to provide me with the full names (first,
middle, last) for everybody in your group. We'll then pass these on to the
Wuxi agent who has already lined up the Shanghai>Qingdao flight. We'll also
provide the full names to agents who'll be setting up the other flights.

Secondly, let me give you a status report on the Beijing leg of the journey.

After you sent us your Beijing tour package info we consulted with Lin Qing.

We then asked our travel agent friend in Qingdao, Zang Bao Guo, to line us
up with his agents in Beijing to get another price quote. Jeff felt that the

$525/person fee was too much; he stated that he had retirement savings to
consider (ha!). We've spent the last couple days in negotiations with
another Beijing agent to see if she could provide us with essentially the
same Beijing tour package at a more budget-minded price. Today she gave us a

rough idea on the price of the alternative Beijing tour package. The
estimated price would be about $520/couple for the same five day package in
Beijing. This is in comparison to your price quite of $525/person for a five

day package. We would downgrade from a 5 star hotel to a 4 star hotel (it's
new). Keep in mind that we're still hammering out the details, but the
alternative package seems to be the one that would be the easiest on the
wallet.

The crude itinerary would look something like this:

June 11- fly to Beijing in the morning; check into hotel; tour the Forbidden

City; see Chinese style acrobatics show in the evening.

June 12- Great Wall; Ding Temple (tombs); Beijing roast duck dinner.

June 13- Temple of Heaven; Summer Palace; dinner at the Old Beijing Tea
House (singing and other entertainment provided).

June 14- Tiananmen Square; Beihai Park; lunch at Beihai King's Food
Restaurant (this place serves meals that the royalty would have eaten during

the Qing Dynasty); Yong He Gong (Tibetan temple); free evening.

June 15- Hutong alley tour; lunch at a Xinjiang (Chinese Muslim cuisine)
restaurant; Wangfujing Street (shopping at the trendy stores); Beijing opera

in the evening.

June 16- most folks would fly out of Beijing to USA or Shanghai.

We knocked out some destinations from the original plan. For example, the
dancing performance and the trip to Liu Li Chang (antique shopping). Ai Ping

called the agent about the dancing show and decided it wouldn't be very
interesting: it featured some Western dancing styles and the same crap we
see on TV every night. The dance performance didn't include any minority
group dances or "traditional" village styles, so Ai Ping didn't think it
sounded very "Chinese." If the antique shopping is desired (it's an
on-the-street auction, with other stores selling original and
not-so-original "fake" items) we can slap it back on the itinerary. I don't
give a hoot either way. I aim to please and we are extremely flexible. Ai
Ping's hometown is six hours west of Beijing. She's been to Beijing a
billion times; she doesn't care where we go. Let me know what you think and
we'll do as instructed.

Thirdly, I don't think we'll be needing any deposit money. The airplane tix
will be reserved in your names. The Wuxi agent said she would arrange to
have your Shanghai>Qingdao tix brought to your hotel in Shanghai and that
you could pay there. The Qingdao>Beijing tix can be paid for in Qingdao upon

arrival. The Beijing agent hasn't mentioned a  deposit for the tour package
yet. If she does, I'll put the money down- no problem.

So that leaves you with making the decision on whether or not you want to do

the Shanghai tour package: your call. It looks like a good plan to me. If
you want any assistance with the Shanghai leg of the journey we can do it.
Let me know.

Hope this gives you an idea on where we're at. Please respond asap with
comments/questions. Hope all is swell in Tejas. Will write again soon.

My Regards,

Jon Gillaspie

>From: Daniel Junk <djunk_epc@yahoo.com>
>To: Jonathan Gillaspie <jongill78@hotmail.com>
>CC: Eric Gillaspie <egillaspie@coral-energy.com>
>Subject: Trip Details
>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Jon, how is crisis management these days?  I hope it
>is coming together for you.  I hate to bother you, but
>was wondering if Ai Ping has finalized anything with
>the travel agency or airlines.  I'm sure there are
>going to be deposits required and such when the
>reservations are made.  Just let me know what you're
>needing from us.
>
>In the mean time, keep cool.  The suffering will end
>shortly.
>
>Take care....Dan
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
>http://auctions.yahoo.com/

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


gngr
713-853-7751
----- Forwarded by Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron on 04/30/2001 08:27 AM -----

	Janel Guerrero
	04/27/2001 05:04 PM

		 To: Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Final Price Caps

Ginger, please send this cleaned-up version of the Reason Institute's paper
on Price Caps to everyone in Govt. Affairs.  Thanks!


Thanks,  I'll try it out!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bayer, Adam
Sent:	Friday, September 28, 2001 8:36 AM
To:	Mckay, Jonathan
Subject:	RE: curve fetch file

John,

I have added the curves to a curve fetch file in O:\ERMS\Excel Queries\JMcKayCurveFetch.xls
I did not know which curves to get rid of, but if you go through it just hide the ones that you don't want, you won't have to go back and add them later.  I have access to the folder and file, but I don't have rights to run the macro.  I have tacked the curves you requested to the last four columns of each sheet (one sheet for dailies and the other sheet for basis curves).  Call with any questions.

Adam

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mckay, Jonathan
Sent:	Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:02 PM
To:	Bayer, Adam
Subject:	curve fetch file

Adam,

The file you sent me is exactly the type of spread sheet I needed.  Thank You.   However, I was wondering if you could get access (via that file) to a few other points.  Specifically, I am in need of Gas Daily Curves for NGI-Chicago, GDM-Dawn,GDM-Niagara, and GD-Hehub.  And with respect to basis curves, I am in need of a curve for Niagara and Columbia Gulf.

If you could point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Jon


Ready to take my money?  Welcome to Bowl Pool 2000.  Entries due on December
19th (tuesday).  Don't forget to sign your name on the form.

Spread the word.  We need a big honkin' pot.


Attached is a short note from Harry K. on the proposed decisions.  Final
decision next week.  Good news in that not all surcharge was put on Summer
On-peak.

Will keep you informed of final decision.

Jim

---------------------- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 05/11/2001
07:59 AM ---------------------------
From: Harry Kingerski on 05/10/2001 02:31 PM
To: Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES@EES, Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@ENRON, jklauber@llgm.com, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@ENRON,
Marcus Dotson/HOU/EES@EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES@EES, Paul
Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES

Subject: Re: Rate design for 3 cent Rate increase for PGE/SCE

CORRECTION - last line, Monday, May 14

	Harry Kingerski
	05/10/2001 01:16 PM

		 To: Wanda Curry/HOU/EES, James W Lewis/HOU/EES, Mike D Smith/HOU/EES, Don
Black/HOU/EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES, Diann Huddleson/HOU/EES,
jklauber@llgm.com, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES, Marcus Dotson/HOU/EES
		 cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J
Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert
Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Rate design for 3 cent Rate increase for PGE/SCE

2 proposed decisions were released last night by the California PUC - one by
the Judge and one by Chairman Lynch.

Direct access customers are exempt from the surcharge.
Each customer class is allocated an equal 3 cents, plus an amount to cover
the shortfall from having residential usage up to 130% of baseline exempt
from the surcharge (as required by law).  Each decision allocates a
substantial portion of the subsidy to non-residential classes, although Lynch
does this to a lesser extent
The new rates become effective June 1, and the shortfall from the actual
effective date of the increase, March 27, through June 1 will be amortized
over 12 months.
Residential rate design - 5 tiers will be put in place; the 5th tier (300+%
of baseline) gets a 35 cent per kwh rate
Non-residential rate design - recommendations to put all of the increase into
summer on-peak were rejected.  About 60% of increase put into summer.
Real Time Pricing was endorsed - will further explore in workshops starting
later in May.  Voluntary program will be started.
In a vindictive outlash, Lynch decision requires federal facilities to pay
market prices under new schedules to be developed by the utilities
Judge's decision seems to require surcharge to show up as a separate line
item; Lynch's decision requires that it not be shown separately

Oral argument occurs Friday and final decision is expected to be voted out
Monday, June 14.


Don,

Greg would love to see you.  What about lunch on the 13th?  (He's in PRC all
day on the 12th)  Lets say 11:30a.m.   We're located at EB2801.

Take Care,

Liz

Don Black@ENRON
09/01/2000 10:01 AM
To: Greg Whalley@ECT
cc:
Subject: Assist

Greg,

I will be in Houston for a few days the week of the 11th of September.  I
would appreciate your help as a career guidance counselor.  I would like
-+30mins of your time on the afternoon of the 12th or the morning of the 13th
of Sept.  If this works for you, have Liz contact me to set something up.
Thanks, Don


Per your request, please see the attached.

	Mike D Smith@EES
	02/14/2001 05:37 PM

		 To: Michael Tribolet/Corp/Enron@Enron, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate, mday@gmssr.com, James
D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jeff
Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, jklauber@llgm.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: PG&E SEC Filing

Please see the bold language in the article below about PG&E's recent SEC
filing.  Sounds like our "negative CTC's."

Michael--do you have a copy of that SEC filing?  MDS

NEW YORK (Reuters) - PG&E Corp.(NYSE:PCG - news), embattled parent of Pacific
Gas & Electric Co., said on Wednesday it is examining a restructuring of its
bank loans and commercial paper, and that bank lenders on a $1 billion
revolving credit facility to its California electric utility unit won't act
upon that unit's previously announced default until March 6.
San Francisco-based PG&E made the disclosures in a filing late Wednesday with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) (SEC). The utility
had about $1 billion in cash as of Tuesday, PG&E said.
A similar bank deadline affecting credit lines of Southern California Edison
(news - web sites), that state's No. 2 utility and a unit of Rosemead,
Calif.-based Edison International(NYSE:EIX - news), was to expire on Tuesday.
PG&E also said in its filing that as of Monday, Pacific G&E, California's No.
1 utility, may not have paid as much as $433 million of ``energy credits'' to
customers who have chosen to buy their electric energy from a provider other
than Pacific G&E. The utility is required under state regulations to offer
the credits, it said.
Pacific G&E and SoCal Edison have been unable to recover about $12 billion
because of a rate freeze imposed under California's 1996 utility deregulation
law, which has left them unable to pass on their soaring wholesale power
costs to consumers.


To my surprise, I was chosen today to sit on a jury to hear a felony charge.
The judge believes that we can conclude the trial by end of the day on
Wednesday or perhaps on Thursday.  I will be back here working after trial
hours in the office and checking voice mail messages during breaks in the
proceedings.  I will be back full time as soon as my civic duty is
fulfilled!

Enron is well presented in the court system over the next few days.  I sat by
Mark Koenig in the jury assembly room today, and he too was chosen to serve
on another jury.


Steve,

Thanks.

Vince

Steven Leppard
08/25/2000 07:56 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: European Market Summary - trading day 24 August

Vince - I'm having you added to the circulation list.
Steve
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven Leppard/LON/ECT on 08/25/2000
07:58 AM ---------------------------

Homan Amiry
08/25/2000 03:51 AM
To: UK RAGS
cc:

Subject: European Market Summary - trading day 24 August

Please find below the European Market Summary. Now, also available via the
RAC Intranet site.

Homan Amiry


Email sent by Kim Hillis 02/06


David,

The Supplementary Agreement looks fine.  There needs to be a few changes made
to the cover sheet with respect to the MAC provision (debt rating) and the
financial reporting for Party B (AEPSC).  AEPSC does not provide its own
financials and is not rated.  So, the MAC and financial reporting
requirements are only required for the 9 utilities.

AEPSC is only on the hook for third-party cross-default along with the 9
utilities.

I'm sorry that I missed you today...got bogged down with other emergencies.
But we can always wait for the cp's response and amend the above, unless you
want to send another version.

Regards,
Tracy

David Portz
12/07/2000 04:07 PM
To: fmdutton@aep.com@ENRON
cc: Tracy Ngo/PDX/ECT@ECT, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: EEI cover sheet completion

Mitch -- Per my voicemail to you on this subject, attached for your review is
a draft "Supplemental Agreement" and a draft Attachment A thereto.   Please
forward to Frank Hilton if this formulation looks workable to you. I look
forward to hearing from you.  Best regards, David


(See attached file: HPLN0302.xls)

 - HPLN0302.xls


Please see attached.

Regards,

Wendi LeBrocq
3-3835


Jerry Scarbrough's True Orange
The Internet Newsletter for the True Texas Longhorn Faithful

Volume 10, No. 26, October 9, 2000

No What-Iffing in This One ) Sooners Turn
Longhorns Every Which Way but Loose

The Longhorns had their worst day during the Mack Brown era Saturday in
Dallas and they picked a bad time to do it because unbeaten Oklahoma scored
on its first six possessions, and, for good measure, ran a pass back for a
touchdown, too, en route to a 63-14 victory.
The Sooners dominated the Longhorns offensively, defensively and on special
teams. They even won the halftime, when a Billy Sims-led relay team beat an
Eric Metcalf-led relay team.
QB Josh Huepel passed the Longhorns to death and 5-7, 193-pound sophomore RB
Quentin Griffin broke Oklahoma's school scoring record ) and Longhorn fans'
hearts ) with six touchdowns.
In short, it just wasn't a good day to be a Texas fan ) in the cold, damp
Cotton Bowl or anywhere.
The loss dropped Texas to 4-2 for the season and 1-1 in the Big 12 and gave
the Sooners a big boost in their drive toward national and Big 12 honors.
It also made this Saturday's game with Colorado in Boulder the biggest game
of the year. This is a season on the brink. It could go up or down. Remember
that 66-3 debacle with UCLA that started the slide in John Mackovic's last
year?
Brown is made of sterner stuff and I think he can get this team back on
track. But he has to do it in a hurry.
One thing Longhorn fans need to be very thankful about is that Heupel is a
senior. He was absolutely awesome Saturday and he probably will be the best
all-around quarterback the Longhorns will face this year.
Here, even more briefly than usual, is how the game went:
FIRST QUARTER
Oklahoma won  the toss and deferred. Texas took the ball and the Sooners got
the wind. A false-start penalty on the game's second snap doomed that drive
and forced a quick punt into the wind. Kris Stockton got a good roll on the
low kick to the OU 43. Heupel hit four of five passes to cover the 57 yards
in six plays to give OU a 7-0 lead with 11:37 left. TB Hodges Mitchell made a
great run after catching Applewhite's third-down pass to pick up a UT first
down ) but it was the only one in the first quarter.  On their second try,
the Sooners went 77 yards in 11 plays and ran the score to 14-0 with 3:30
left. A  holding penalty on the kickoff forced Texas to start frrom its 8.
Another three-and-out series and punt out of the end zone gave the Sooners a
short field at the UT 43. They were on the move again at the UT 29 when the
period ended.
SECOND QUARTER
The UT defense got a great leaping interception in the end zone from CB
Quentin Jammer, but it was disallowed and he was called for pass interference
instead, giving OU a first down at the 2. They scored on the next play for a
21-0 lead with 14:24 left. Starting QB Major Applewhite almost connected with
freshman WR Roy Williams for a 45-yard completion, but the officials ruled he
lost the ball on the way down and it was ruled incomplete. The Horns couldn't
make a first down and J. T. Thatcher ran Stockton's punt back 53 yards to the
UT 11. A personal foul on the runback set them back to the 26, but they
scored in two plays for a 28-0 lead with 12:40 remaining. Chris Simms came in
at quarterback and hit Williams for a first down, but a delay-of-game penalty
negated it and Simms' next pass was intercepted by OU LB Rocky Calmus, who
returned it for still another OU touchdown and a 35-0 lead with 11:30
remaining. That brought Applewhite back in and he hit WR Montrell Flowers for
a nice gain on first down, but an illegal motion penalty forced a punt. The
Sooners scored again, giving them a 42-0 lead with 4:43 left. At this point,
OU's offense had been so dominant that it had faced only seven first downs
all day and had converted all of them. Texas offense, meanwhile, had one
first down. The UT offense finally came to life, driving 80 yards in seven
plays to leave OU on top, 42-7, with 3:00 left. Mitchell got the TD from
seven yards out on a pass from Applewhite. The Sooners were driving again
when the half ended. It was their only drive in the first half that did not
result in a TD. At the half, OU led in first downs, 18-5, in rushing yardage,
110-13, and in passing yardage, 182-106.
THIRD QUARTER
Texas finally forced OU to punt quickly to start the second half, but
Applewhite, under a big rush, threw an interception that was run back to the
UT 24. OU scored in two plays for a 49-7 lead just 1:07 deep. Simms came back
in at QB and played the rest of the way. OU again drove deep into Texas
territory, but freshman DE Kalen Thornton's sack of Heupel forced the Sooners
to try a field goal and it went wide.  The Sooner's next TD came after a
fumble by WR Montrell Flowers at the UT 17. That made the score 56-7 with
1:26 left. Then Victor Ike, probably the swiftest of all the Longhorns, got
loose on the kickoff and Sooner DB Michael Thompson caught him from behind at
the OU 17. It was an 81-yard return. But the Horns lost four yards on two
plays and were facing third-and-4 at the OU 21 when the quarter ended.
FOURTH QUARTER
A pass interference penalty against OU gave Texas a first down at the  6.
Mitchell got five yards, then backup TB Kenny Hayter took an outside toss for
the TD to make it 56-14 with 14:09 left. OU came right back for its final TD,
driving 73 yards, primarily on runs by Griffin.

900 Number Updated Daily

I update my 900 number daily with football and football recruiting news. The
number is 1-900-288-8839. It costs $1.59 a minute. You must be 18 to call.

Coach's Corner

Coach Mack Brown said Sunday he accepts the blame for the big loss to
Oklahoma, and he said the Longhorns have to bounce back because they still
have a season to play and a lot of goals to accomplish if they play up to
their capabilities.
"After reviewing the film, I still stand by what I said yesterday," Brown
said. "They outcoached us, they outhustled us, they outplayed us. They
totally dominated the game, and when that happens, it comes back to me. It's
my fault."
But he said the team still has a chance to repeat as the Big 12 South
champion. "Last year, we were 1-1 (in the Big 12) at this point. We're at the
same spot as we were last season."
Asked if he thinks the team has a chance to rebound and win the title again,
he said, "no question about that. We're far from out of anything. We just had
a poor, poor performance yesterday in a game that was very important for us
and our fans. For me to just throw out the season because of that would be
totally asinine."
He noted that Oklahoma, after it's loss to Texas last year, beat Texas A&M,
51-6, the following week, and Stanford, after giving up 69 points to Texas
last year, won the Pac 10 championship and Rose Bowl berth.
"There is a lot of anger after a loss like this by our fans," he said. "What
I will do this week is not look at the paper, I won't watch TV or listen to
the radio. I'll be working hard all week trying to get us back on track."
He said he thought the Longhorns were ready to give a good performance
against the Sooners, but he said, after three straight losses to Texas, the
Oklahoma players might have just been hungrier.
"Our seniors had a chance to beat Oklahoma four straight times," he said.
"Some of them were crying. Most of our younger players were in shock."
He said a loss like this one forces coaches to re-evaluate everything. "We'll
definitely go back and look very closely at everything we're doing. We'll try
to simplify things."
He said some of the Longhorn players played well, but he said most of them
"played hard, but didn't play well."
"The defense had been playing so well for us," he said. "It didn't even look
like the same defense. Part of it was (OU QB Josh) Heupel. He played great."
"We had a lot of mental mistakes," Brown said. "We just played poorly and who
knows why we played that poorly? You guys will start looking at the things we
should change. The fans will start looking at the things we should change.
I've got to look at things that I think will work. I've got to get them back
on track."
Asked if he thinks there is a chance the team could fall apart because of the
loss to the Sooners, Brown said, "This team won't fall apart. It's a very
young team with a lot of heart, a lot of class. We'll go back to work to fix
things, simplify things."
He said the key thing is for him to be truthful with his players this week
about the things they did wrong, the things they did right and the goals the
team still can accomplish.
"This is a bad week to be going to Boulder," he said, noting that Colorado
upset A&M in College Station last week. "We won't ever forget this (OU) game,
but we still have goals to accomplish. We're still in the race for the
championship in our conference."
"The players are embarrassed and I know I'm embarrassed, but we've got to
pull back together and get back to work. We've got to go back and make sure
we are fundamentally sound."

10th Anniversary

This is the final issue of my 10th year of publishing True Orange. Next week
will be the first issue of my 11th year. While this is not a happy occasion
because of the football game, my first issue was after a Texas win over OU
and UT is 7-3-1 against the Sooners since True Orange began.
Thanks to all of you for your continued support.

True Orange Observations

This was one of those games where a team has to  figure out what went wrong,
try to correct it, and then forget it because a game like this can be a
cancer that ruins a season. Remember UCLA, 66-3, and 1997?
Mack Brown won't ask for my suggestions on this, and I'm sure he can figure
it out for himself, but if I were in his shoes, here is what I would do right
now:
1. Give a royal chewing out to my players, my assistants and myself, because
this game was an embarrassment to all Longhorns. Then I would say there are a
lot of games left to play and this game needs to be put on the shelf and the
Colorado game should be the start of a new season for a team with a lot of
goals left to accomplish.
2. Figure out the few things that have worked on offense and build future
game plans around them. By the same token, I'd figure out the plays that
haven't worked and quit using them. The two up-the-gut plays the Horns used
on their first two plays Saturday for zero yards have been unproductive all
year. Texas rarely has a running play outside the tackles, but the sweeps
usually work when they are tried. I'd also ditch that sideline pass that
travels 30 yards for a potential 1-yard gain ) or an interception for a TD )
and start throwing downfield more often. To open the game against Oklahoma
State, the Longhorns had a four-yard run and two pass completions on their
first three plays and didn't pick up a first down.
3. Pick a QB and go with him. Each QB has to be nervous, knowing that if he
throws an interception, he'll be jerked.
4. Quit being so predictable on offense. Example: when the Horns line up in a
two-back offense and the tailback goes in motion, Texas has passed or been
sacked trying to pass 100% of the time this season. There has been one run by
a UT fullback all year ) Brett Robin's touchdown in mop-up duty against OSU.
That formation invites an all-out blitz.
5. If the run isn't going to be a big part of the offense, go to the shotgun
with four wideouts as the basic formation. It gives the quarterback a better
chance to complete his passes, as OU QB Josh Heupel demonstrated to near
perfection Saturday.
Game Notes . .
* Oklahoma QB Josh Heupel, one of the nation's top passers, had 34 net yards
rushing Saturday, which was more than the 20 yards gained by the Longhorns'
leading ground gainer, TB Hodges Mitchell.
* This was the second most one-sided game in the series, trailing only the
50-0 Oklahoma victory in in 1908. Texas leads the series, 55-35-5.
* The Sooners 534 yards and 28 first downs are both school records against
the Longhorns.
* This was the fifth most one-sided defeat in Texas history. The bottom 10
are:
1.  1904    at Chicago      68-0
2.  1997    UCLA            66-3
3.  1988    Houston     66-15
4.  1908    at Oklahoma 50-0
5.  2000    Oklahoma        63-14
6.  1901    at Kirksville   48-0
7.  1956    at TCU          46-0
8.  1906    at Vanderbilt   45-0
9.  1956    Oklahoma        45-0
10. 1991    Miami           46-3

Baseball Team Starts Practice

The Longhorn baseball begins fall practice Wednesday with 12 lettermen back
from last year's team that qualified for the College World Series.
The team will practice through Oct. 27, and the annual Fall World Series will
be played from Oct. 25 through Oct. 27.
All the practices will be open at Disch-Falk Field, and all the practices
will be in the afternoon, but exact times have not been announced.
Coach Augie Garrido and his assistants corraled the nation's fifth-rated
recruiting class last year, and there are several pitchers in the new class
who should be able to help the team this year.

It's a Great Time to Subscribe
To The Fax/E-Mail Service
I'll Have Frequent Reports on Recruiting And Practice Throughout the Season
! Get Instant Updates for Pennies a Day !
Save As An E-Mail Subscriber !
The True Orange Fax/E-Mail Service is the way to keep up with Longhorn
football and Longhorn recruiting ) instantly. Follow Mack Brown and the
Longhorns with frequent fax updates. There are at least 99 timely faxes a
year, primarily about football and football recruiting.  To  subscribe, send
your check to True Orange, Box 26530, Austin, Texas 78755, and copy or clip
the coupon below and fill in the blanks. If you want it mailed, or by E-Mail,
just include the right numbers.

o I'm enclosing $99 for the 99-fax package for the next year
o I'm enclosing $130 (a $14 saving) to renew my subscription to True Orange
and to subscribe to the 99 faxes.
o I'm enclosing $79 for the 99-fax package for the next year by E-Mail (a $20
saving)
o Here's  $110 to renew my subscription to True Orange and to subscribe to th
e 99 faxes by E-Mail (a $31 saving)
o Here's  $99 to subscribe to True Orange by E-Mail and to subscribe to the
99 faxes by E-Mail (a $42 saving)

Name

Fax No.
(or E-Mail or mailing address)

Game Quotes . .

"It was my responsibility. The kids came in ready to play and I didn't have
them in the right places at the right time."
) Longhorn offensive coordinator Greg Davis
* * * *
"They just whipped us. They whipped us up front, they whipped us at the
linebacker level and they whipped us in the secondary. You could put it a
thousand different ways, but we just got whipped."
) UT defensive coordinator Carl Reese
* * * *
"I feel honestly this is worse than UCLA (66-3 in 1997). You don't come out
against a big rival and get beat like that. You feel bad getting dominated in
every aspect of the game."
) Texas defensive tackle Casey Hampton
* * * *
"We didn't make plays. Their quarterback did a great job, but we've got to
make plays. It doesn't matter how good he throws the ball, you've got to go
up and knock it our or something. You have to make plays and we didn't."
) UT free safety Greg Brown
* * * *
"We heard all week how good the Texas defense was, but we knew we were a good
team, too. We weren't going to take anything from them, and our goal was to
go right at them. That's what we did. My getting the record was a by-product
of our offensive performance as a whole.."
)Sooner running back Quentin Griffin, after scoring a school record six
touchdowns
* * * *
"This was the worst butt-kicking I've ever been involved in. OU was more
emotional than us, without question. This is really bad. To get manhandled by
your rival, it doesn't get any worse than this."
) UT sophomore quarterback Chris Simms
* * * *
"We took a lot away from this game last year. We were up early and were
playing good football at the start, but things didn't go our way in the end.
We wanted to play four quarters today against a very good football team, and
we did that for the most part."
) OU quarterback Josh Heupel
* * * *
"I was a little out of position, but I knew what they were doing with their
tendencies. The guy looked at this receiver the entire way. If he had looked
me off and gone the other way, then I would have been in trouble. But I took
a guess and I was right. We had a great team effort today. Everyone was on
the same page. When we work together, you can see that we are a pretty good
football team."
) Sooner linebacker Rocky Calmus, who returned a pass interception for a
touchdown

Texas-Oklahoma Statistics

Scoring Summary
Texas            0            7           0        7    )    14
Oklahoma        14         28         14        7   )    63

OU - Woolfolk 29 pass from Heupel (Duncan kick) 11:37 1Q (57 yds, 5 plays)
OU - Griffin 1 run (Duncan kick) 3:30 1Q (77 yds, 11 plays)
OU - Griffin 2 run (Duncan kick) 14:24 2Q (43 yds, 8 plays)
OU - Griffin 4 run (Duncan kick) 12:40 2Q (26 yds, 2 plays)
OU - Calmus 41 interception return (Duncan kick) 11:30 2Q
OU - Fagan 8 run (Duncan kick) 4:43 2Q (81 yds, 14 plays)
UT -  Mitchell 7 pass from Applewhite (Stockton kick) 3:00 2Q (80 yds, 7
plays)
OU - Griffin 1 run (Duncan kick) 13:53 3Q (24 yds, 2plays)
OU - Griffin 8 run (Duncan kick) 1:26 3Q (17 yds, 2 plays)
UT - Hayter 1 run (Stockton kick) 14:09 4Q (17 yds, 5 plays)
OU - Griffin 1 run (Duncan kick) 9:32 4Q (73 yds, 8 plays)

Official Attendance: 75,587

Team Statistics
Texas         Oklahoma
First Downs                     10           28
Rushing                             2            14
Passing                             4            12
Penalty                             4              2
Rushing Attempts, Net Yards     17-minus 7      56-245
Net Yards Passing                   161        289
Passes Comp., Att., Int.             20-41-2       18-28-0
Total Plays, Offense                 58-154      84-534
Avg. Gain per Play                      2.7        6.4
Fumbles Lost                            1 of  2      2 of 4
Penalties, Yards                        15-127        1-28
Punts, Avg.                         8-37.6       8-37.6
Time of Possession              25:52         34:08
Third-Down Conversions              4 of 15    11 of 15
Fourth-Down Conversions         1 of  2      0 of 1
Sacks by Team, Yds Lost             1-3       4-30

Individual Statistics

Texas
Rushing -  Mitchell 10-20; Hayter 2-1, 1 TD; Applewhite 1-minus 5; Simms
4-minus 23.
Passing -  Applewhite 9-18, 98 yds, 1 TD, 1 Int.; Simms  11-23, 63 yds, 0 TD,
1 Int.
Receiving - Mitchell 3-31, 1 TD; Healy 1-30; M. Jones 3-23; Stevens 1-20;
Williams 4-16; Ellis  2-14; Edwards 2-11; Flowers 2-9; Johnson 1-6; Hayter
1-1.

Oklahoma
Rushing -  Griffin 23-87, 5 TDs; Works 14-49; Heupel 7-34; Fagan 2-30, 1 TD;
Savage 1-30; Littrell 8-26; Hybl 1-minus 5.
Passing - Heupel 17-27, 275 yds, 1 TD, 0 Int.; Hybl 1-1, 14 yds, 0 TD, 0 Int.
Receiving - T. Smith 5-57; Norman 3-53; Griffin 3-45; Woolfolk 2-35, 1 TD;
Works 2-22; Anderson 1-20; Mackey 1-19; Savage 2-18.

Tackles by Texas Players, Unasst., Asst., Total

Rawls 7-1-8; Redding 5-3-8; Jackson 5-3-8; G. Brown 5-2-7; Tubbs 4-3-7;
Jammer 4-2-6; Thornton 4-1-5; Vasher 4-1-5; Brooks 4-1-5; Pearson 1-4-5;
Babers 2-1-3; Wilkins 0-3-3; Hayward 2-0-2; Lewis 2-0-2; Walker 2-0-2;
Hampton 1-1-2; Pittman 0-2-2; McWilliams 1-0-1; Stockton 1-0-1; McKay 0-1-1.

Tackles for Losses: Vasher 1-minus 3; Redding 1-minus 2; Pearson 1-minus 2;
Lewis 1-minus 2; Hampton 1-minus 2; Pittman 1-minus 2; Hayward 1-minus 1.

Sacks: Thornton 1-minus 3.


---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Grigsby/HOU/ECT on 10/08/2000 09:09
PM ---------------------------

Mike Grigsby
10/08/2000 09:15 PM
To: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Physical

Let's begin rolling out the cash products at 7:15 am.  We should also get
back to the cash strategy of the desk each morning.  Let's start testing the
market, find the support and resistance each day.  It would be nice to have
EOL change the stack manager so that we can switch a product from manage
market depth to last trade is mid with the click of a button, and not go
through the product properties.  I'll call them tomorrow.

Let's also decide on a time to close the products each morning.  We want to
send the message of reliability, but also allow our Ops group to balance and
nom.  I want to begin trading the next day cash by 11:01 am every day.  This
would stay active until 4:00.

The push is for PHYSICAL.  Our edge over the market will be phys.  From risk
to the ability to nominate and invoice, the other platforms will never see it
coming. What are the chances that ICE and espeed will deal with el paso
flows?  If information is the reason for EOL, then this will provide it.  It
all seems so simple - Fixed priced physical, just when you thought it was old
economy.  The reliable indices to big position trading to EOL market share,
all benefit under the new mantra.

Mike


Dear Jessica and Chuck:

I want to let you know that Kate Cole, Asst. Sec. of the subject entity, has
signed the consent of sole member that gives Charles W. Falkenstein, Jr.
authority to execute real property agreements for and in the name and on
behalf of the LLC.   The consent is dated October 1 and has been entered into
the corporate notebook.

A copy of this resolution will be placed in our EMS file, and I'll send you
each a copy in Denver.

Best wishes,
Mary C. Ogden
Legal Specialist
Enron North America Corp./Legal
713-853-7796


Andy,

As we discussed, here is my first pass at a letter to Tom Brown concerning
the contract issues as I discussed with them in my May 7, 2001 meeting with
TBI and Cantera.

Cantera has executed the PSA for the acquisition of the assets, and will be
closing in 6-8 weeks.

The excel spreadsheet has several graphs included in the workbook.  Only the
first 3 graphs were given to Cantera and Tom Brown :  the overall,
combination, and west lateral graphs.  The others were not given to TBI.
The remaining graphs and figures handed out in the meeting and referenced in
the letter are included in the Contracts Issue book I forwarded to you
earlier.

Please review ASAP.  I would like to get in the overnight tonight if at all
possible.

I have not yet decided who copies should go to - whether a copy of this
letter needs to go to Kinder Morgan folks (old Wildhorse) as well?

Ken Krisa

 - Press vs Prod Graphs 5-7-01 mtg.xls
 - TBI Ltr 5-15-01.doc


Hey Mark!
Here is (FINALLY) the long awaited...true you probably
weren't dying for it.. but here we are anyway- I'm
emailing you! So hows life in Oregon? things are doing
okay here. had kind of crazy/crappy weekend, but it
happens. Anyway-I'm hoping will be able to get
together this week while you are in town. Of course I
have work wed- sun- the whole time your here, but I
was going to try to see if I could get either wed,
thurs, or sunday off if it works for you and we can
hang. Unfortunately I wasn't able to email you until
now and the week came too quick so it is hard to plan
much, but if your busy I totally understand and I just
hope will be able to hook up for a bit. If one day is
better than the other email me or give me a call. I'll
just search on my end to see if I can get any of them
covered. I hope everythings going okay on your end. I
miss you and can't waitto see you. Talk soon. And lets
try to get these emails going.
Lots of love,
Lisa

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


Well, 2001 has truly been an unusual year for many of us -- some things good and some not so good.  Whatever your own situation, I just wanted to say to you that I hope that you do have a very Merry Christmas, and hopefully, a wonderful and happy 2002.

We plan to continue our HNG Alumni luncheons in the Spring and Fall of 2002, but just do not have any definite plans as to how we will be able to communicate and mail to you as we have in the past.  The situation at Enron has affected our organization also.

Will look forward to seeing you in the Spring.

Leon Ullrich


Update from CERA on pricing and rest of the season.

---------------------- Forwarded by Lorna Brennan/ET&S/Enron on 12/11/2000
12:30 PM ---------------------------

webmaster@cera.com on 12/08/2000 09:05:36 PM
To: Lorna.Brennan@enron.com
cc:

Subject: The Storm Arrives - CERA Alert

**********************************************************************
CERA Alert: Sent Fri, December 08, 2000
**********************************************************************

Title: The Storm Arrives
Author: N. American Gas Team
E-Mail Category: Alert
Product Line: North American Gas ,

URL: http://www.cera.com/client/nag/alt/120800_16/nag_alt_120800_16_ab.html
*********************************************************

Cold Weather Path
Colder-than-normal weather through November and
forecasted cold for the first half of December
throughout the Midwest and Northeast have driven gas
prices well into record territory, with the January
Henry Hub price trading near $9.00 per MMBtu and closing
above $8.00 on the New York Mercantile Exchange December
6. This six-week cold period and the quick depletion of
already low storage inventories has established prices
at or above CERA's cold weather path for the remainder
of the winter and in all likelihood beyond. If December
storage withdrawals are as high as CERA now expects, the
gas market will remain on the cold weather path through
2001 as well, even if weather returns to normal during
the second half of December. The enormous increase in
storage injections that is likely to be required next
summer would keep the pressure on gas markets throughout
the year.

So long as weather remains cold (or even normal) this
winter, a new market dynamic is in effect in which gas
prices interact more with distillate fuel oil prices
rather than with those of residual fuel oil. In
addition, gas is likely to have an increasingly direct
influence on power prices in the growing number of
regions in which gas-fired generation is now on the
margin in winter. This winter, the gas market is likely
to rediscover for the first time in decades which end
users value natural gas most highly, and which
ultimately do not.

The gas market is also rediscovering the value of firm
pipeline capacity, particularly into market areas. Both
the West Coast and the Northeast have experienced even
more extreme price spikes, with daily prices in both
regions peaking above $20.00 per MMBtu. Indeed, the
shortage of gas in California is so acute that prices
above $40.00 per MMBtu have been reported. If sustained,
these price levels will induce a political reaction that
will reverberate throughout the industry.

Storage Update-Even High Seems Low
Panic in the market yesterday was eased somewhat as
storage withdrawals for the week ending December 1, at
73 billion cubic feet (Bcf), proved to be less than
expected. This withdrawal was half the previous week's
rate, and in CERA's view actual withdrawals for both
weeks probably lie between these two readings. (In some
cases successive weeks smooth out volatile readings in
the AGA survey.) But even the 73 Bcf figure, though a
significant retreat from the previous week's rate, is
high by historical standards. One would have to go back
to 1994 to find a higher reading for a comparable week
in the AGA survey.

Inventories as of the beginning of December, at an
estimated 2,466 Bcf (see Table 1), were 525 Bcf below
the year-earlier level, and this deficit is likely to
increase substantially during December. If weather
forecasts indicating colder-than-normal weather through
mid-December in key heating markets hold true, storage
withdrawals for the month will average approximately
20.0 Bcf per day. This rate is an increase from CERA's
normal weather estimate of 17.0 Bcf per day, and even
this rate depends on weather returning to normal in mid-
December. This level of withdrawals would leave only
1,846 Bcf in storage on January 1, an inventory 663 Bcf
below the year-earlier level. Assuming normal weather,
such an inventory would place storage on track to reach
a March minimum of 488 Bcf, 270 Bcf below the 1996
record low. At a US inventory level this low, many
storage operators would be dipping into base-load gas in
order to support service even to firm gas customers.

* Physical deliverability from storage fields will be
significantly lower this year in midwinter, forcing a
greater reliance on pipeline gas and peaking facilities
during January and February. The actual reduction in
field deliverability is impossible to quantify, but
storage inventories cannot be withdrawn at steady rates
throughout the winter; withdrawal rates decline with
inventory as field pressure is reduced.

*  Pressure in the market will be reinforced and
extended through 2001 and probably into 2002. During the
past two summers, high prices have been required to
discourage demand and allow overall US storage
injections to reach barely 1.6 trillion cubic feet
(Tcf). If normal weather holds for the remainder of this
winter, 2.2 Tcf of injections-which would be nearly
impossible to achieve-would be required during 2001 if
inventories are to recover to 2.7 Tcf at peak. If
weather this winter is merely normal from mid-December
through March, going into winter next year the United
States will have considerably less gas in storage.
Reaching even the 2,362 Bcf level, according to CERA
estimates (see Table 1), would require an additional 275
Bcf of injections next year, and that alone would prove
challenging.

Price-The Cold Weather Path
The weakness of storage inventories and the demand
pressure in both core and power generation markets
created by the cold weather have caused prices to move
onto and even above CERA's cold weather path for this
winter (see Table 2). Storage inventories would become
perilously low if the current forecast for cold weather
through mid-December proves accurate, and the injections
required next summer would keep pressure in the market
intense. For these reasons CERA's outlook for prices for
January and throughout 2001 now reflects the cold
weather path.  Prices could take an even higher path,
particularly if colder-than-normal weather endures
beyond mid-December or returns on a sustained basis in
January or February.

Several forces that could weaken prices during 2001 will
begin to enter the market during the winter, but these
are offset by demand volatility in the winter and the
requirement to rebuild storage inventories once the
winter is over. Such factors include a building US
supply capability, growing imports, softening oil prices
(allowing a lower floor for prices once the winter
ends), and potentially weakening economic growth.

Although the influence of these factors will increase,
it is unlikely to match the huge injection requirement
that appears more and more certain next summer.

Demand-The Difficult Next Round of Switching
With gas prices hitting new record highs, CERA expects
some additional demand to be priced out of the market.
Because gas has priced above residual fuel oil for most
weeks since May, however, the easiest fuel switching in
the power generation and industrial sectors has already
occurred. Even though gas prices are currently above the
level of distillate (approximately $7.23 per MMBtu in
New York), switching from gas to distillate requires
changes in long-standing consumer habit, will occur only
over time, and is likely limited in volume. Significant
switching to distillate would quickly raise the price of
distillate itself.

There are four major sources of additional demand
response in industrial markets:

* Additional switching to resid in industrial boilers.
The next increment of demand to come out of the market
is likely to be in the industrial sector, through
additional fuel switching to resid (and to some extent
to distillate). These markets will continue to show some
flexibility but will not represent a large volume. CERA
estimates that the industrial boiler market has probably
already begun to lose small amounts (less than 0.5 Bcf
per day) in switching to resid, given the consistency of
gas price premiums greater than $0.50 per MMBtu.

* Investment in restoring switching capability. As
premiums move far beyond this level, industrial end
users can be expected to take a closer look at
reinvigorating their switching capability beyond their
initial short-term levels. However, such a change would
require investment by industrial end users and the
availability of resid in oil markets. CERA estimates
that with focused investment over the course of a number
of months to perhaps a year, switching to resid could
eventually reach as high as 1.3 Bcf per day. There is
already some movement here; given the impact of high gas
prices on earnings, energy prices have already begun to
receive management attention.

* Switching to distillate. US Department of Energy data
suggest that industrial end users have a theoretical
capability of switching nearly 1.3 Bcf per day to
distillate in the short term. This switch would
represent additional distillate demand of over 200,000
barrels per day (bd) in a US market of 3.8 million
barrels. This marginal demand would move the distillate
price in tandem with gas price, and any additional
switching among power generators to distillate would
reinforce this price correlation. In addition, the
availability of distillate inventories on site should
restrict the quick switching to short periods of time
and will not offer a long-term solution to tight
markets.

* Shutting down industrial plants. Also offering some
flexibility is the shutdown of manufacturing plants that
use gas as a feedstock. The major feedstock consumers
are the ammonia and methanol industries, and, not
surprisingly given the tight margins available,
manufacturers of ammonia and of methanol continue to
show suppressed gas demand. However, in the short term
only a portion of ammonia production is at risk. Whereas
the production needs of merchant facilities along the
Gulf Coast is relatively readily replaced by imports,
substitution becomes more difficult away from the coast
(because of transportation logistics) and for facilities
whose production is linked to value-added fertilizer
products. Hence, CERA still estimates that even with
nonexistent margins, substantial ammonia production
would continue, with additional losses of perhaps 200
million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of potential demand in
addition to the facilities that have already closed.
Extraordinarily high gas prices will also hasten the
shuttering of North American methanol capacity, putting
at risk another 100 to 200 MMcf per day of gas demand
for that sector.

Switching that could occur in boiler use is concentrated
in the chemicals, paper, and refining sectors in the
South and the food products sector in the Midwest.
Continuing feedstock losses would be concentrated in the
South Central region. For process users, even
extraordinarily high gas prices are expected to have
little impact on the use of gas in the short term.
Energy costs are not the dominant component of
production costs for these users, and a physical
changeover would be time-intensive and elemental in its
impact on end-use product quality.

The Northeast-Cold Weather Operations Begin
All of the Northeast pipelines have issued notices to
customers that they either have imposed, or are highly
likely to need to impose, transportation restrictions of
various types. The most common restriction is to
nonprimary firm services (secondary and interruptible
type services), which will be scheduled for the next
several days on many pipelines. Other pipelines have
issued balancing requirements whereby receipts and
deliveries must match. Even hourly flow orders have also
been implemented.

These actions are normal for winter operations when a
cold period is expected. Whereas the firm market for
natural gas is rarely affected by these restrictions,
the spot market becomes much more volatile as
interruptible supplies dry up. The spot market,
primarily made up of nonfirm customers, has had a
dramatic reaction to the diminished availability of
delivered spot gas into the market area, as has been
reflected by the volatility of the cash market this
week. The result of these restrictions of nonprimary
firm services has been an expansion of basis to Henry
Hub. At one point, gas for next-day delivery to New York
traded near $24.00 per MMBtu delivered, although the
average price was closer to $14.20. These high spikes
are the result of very thinly traded volumes of gas.

Although these restrictions will likely ease as
temperatures return closer to normal, CERA now expects
basis into the New York citygate to average $1.31 per
MMBtu for December and $1.36 per MMBtu for January.

**end**

Follow URL for PDF version of this Alert with associated tables.

*********************************************************
Come Shoot the Rapids with us at CERAWeek2001, "Shooting the Rapids:
Strategies and Risks for the Energy Future" in Houston, February 12-16,
2001!  For more information and to register, please visit
http://www.cera.com/ceraweek/
*********************************************************

**********************************************************************
This electronic message and attachments, if any, contain information
from Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA) which is
confidential and may be privileged. Unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this message or any attachments,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.

Terms of Use: http://www.cera.com/tos.html
Questions/Comments: webmaster@cera.com
Copyright 2000. Cambridge Energy Research Associates


Andrea,

Here is a copy of my resume.  If you need any other information please let me
know.

Thanks,
Robin
x5-7478

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Andrea Richards @ ENRON                           12/29/2000 10:16 AM

To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Updated Resume

Robin, Happy Holidays!

Please forward an updated resume so that we may start looking for your next
rotation.

Thanks!

Andrea Richards
Associate & Analyst Program
x36499


The Post Petition Lead Meeting will occur every Tuesday and Thursday through the end of December (excluding 12/25).  Please note, going forward, all meetings will take place in EB49c1.  The agenda for Tuesday, December 18 will be proposed retention plan.

Please call me only if you are unable to attend.

Many thanks,
Lucy

==================================
Lucy Marshall
Executive Assistant to Jim Fallon
Office of the Chairman
Enron Broadband Services
Office 713-853-4525
Fax    713-345-7864
Cell    713-417-7802
lucy.marshall@enron.com


yes.  check for 576.29 is in the mail!  thanks so much for getting the
coastal, and the champagne, and the opus!  can't thank you enough.  i've also
mailed you a new bottle of oyster sauce.

jeff


It has been unreal. Would like to catch up. I may need a job! Looks like UBS has bought our trading operation which includes me for the moment anyway. Hope all is well on your end. Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: James Lam [mailto:jameslam@mediaone.net]
Sent: Sat 1/12/2002 10:50 PM
To: Buy, Rick
Cc:
Subject: How are you?

Been following the Enron story as everyone else.  I am sure that is another
side to it.  Hope things are going OK for you.  Lets catch up when things
calm down.

Regards,
James


This message is intended for eHRonline users only.

Due to a recent change to eHRonline, the URL (aka "Web address") for
accessing eHRonline needs to be changed on your computer.  The change
involves adding the letter "s" to the "http" reference in the URL.  The URL
for accessing eHRonline should be:   https://eHRonline.enron.com.

This change should be made by those who have added the URL as a favorite on
the browser.


Start Date: 4/12/01; HourAhead hour: 21;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041221.txt


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Curry/HOU/ECT on 11/20/2000 05:08 PM
---------------------------

"Hailu, Ted" <THailu@ercot.com> on 11/19/2000 03:29:29 AM
To: "Hailu, Ted" <THailu@ercot.com>
cc: "Coon, Patrick" <pcoon@ercot-iso.com>, "Patterson, Mark"
<MPatterson@ercot.com>, "Moast, Pat" <pmoast@ercot.com>, "Bojorquez, William
\"Bill\"" <BBojorquez@ercot.com>, "Lowson, John" <jlowson@ercot-iso.com>
Subject: QSE project manager kick-off meeting presentations

To: QSE project manager kick-off meeting attendees

As promised, please find the attached zip file
which contains the presentations made at the first
QSE project manager kick-off meeting. Answers to
questions and follow up on action items documented
during the meeting will follow soon. I have also
attached a file which lists the client
representatives assigned to each QSE organization.
If you have any questions, please call your ERCOT
client representative or Ted Hailu, Client
Relations Manager, at (512) 248-3873.

 - QSE project manager mtg presentations.zip
 - QSE Client Rep Assignment.xls


Seth,

Thanks for the resume.
Please, call my assistant, Shirley Crenshaw, 3-5290, to set up a meeting.

Vince

SETH HURWITZ@ENRON
01/16/2001 10:51 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Joseph Hrgovcic/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Referral from Joe Hrgovcic

Vince, pursuant to your discussion with Joe, I am enclosing my resume for
your information.  I would appreciate the chance to discuss rotation
opportunities within Enron, particularly how a research position would relate
to future commercial opportunities.

For your information, I am meeting with Maureen Raymond tomorrow.  I will
call your assistant afterwards to set up a meeting.

Thank you.

Seth


Hotel Confirmation # 85755686


Murray,

Sally Beck and Leslie Reeves are both on vacation this week.  Sally will need
to discuss this with Leslie next week when they return to the office and get
back with you then.

Patti Thompson (x39106),
Sally's Assistant

Murray P O'Neil
03/14/2001 07:15 PM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sally
Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Beth Perlman/HOU/ECT, Steve Nat/Corp/Enron, Lloyd
Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Reeves/HOU/ECT@ECT, TAllen@ect.enron.com
cc:
Subject: VMS Project Next Steps

All,

It has been a very successful year for the Enron / Razorfish VMS project
Team.  We have been developing a Direct Access Power Market, user managed,
tariff based calculation engine and customer expense / revenue allocation
application.

The efforts which have taken place to date will benefit each of us as we move
forward into these deregulated Direct Access markets.  The current
application has gone through the following evolution:

Project Definition & Design documentation
Database Design / Development
User Interface Design / Development
Communication layer (COM) Design / Development
Hardware requisition / Implementation (Development / Test / Production)
Arthur Anderson Audit (Passed Audit review - Application meets all minimum
requirements)
The Major Functionality / Action Items which have been delivered to date:
Security Management (Only IT Resources to have access)
Event / Task Management & Reporting
Component / Equations Management & Reporting
Estimation Generation Management & Reporting
Counter Party Profile Management & Reporting
Settlement Entity Profile Management & Reporting
Deal-Upload Management & Reporting
Integrated Dispute Management & Reporting
Customer Generation Charge Profile & Reporting
Historical Data Conversion mechanism
95 % of Calculation Engine Original Functional Requirements

The Major Functionality which is under it's final steps of Development and
User Test
Reconciliation (Exception Identification, Allocation & Reporting)
Settlement Entity - Settlement Statement / Invoice Parsing & Reporting
Remaining 5% of Calculation Engine Functionality

Over the past 12+ months a total of $3 MM dollars has been spend on VMS.  We
are reaching the final phase of this project and I am not sensing that
everyone is still on board with this being OUR (Enron) Volume Management
strategic solutions for Direct Access Power Markets.

As of March 1, 2001 we no longer have a contract in place with Razorfish.
Razorfish has provided six developers dedicated to assist the Enron Networks
IT staff in delivering the VMS solution over the past year.  These resources
have been key in helping us get to where we are today.  In addition we had
originally planned to retain these resources over the remainder of 2001
(03/2001 - 12/2001) to assist with the implementation of VMS on the West &
East Desk and in the Toronto Canada office.  Without a contract in place and
currently working on good faith.  The project has come to a serious point of
action.  Razorfish is asking for a total of $728,000 for services rendered
between 3/1/2001 and 6/30/2001.  They will keep the resources dedicated to
the project and will deliver the following:
Finalise base product development, assist in unit / user testing and
Implement base VMS Product in Production.
Application Production Support for 30 Days post Implementation
Transition of knowledge base from Razorfish resources to Enron Networks IT
resources

Razorfish is willing to discuss terms to assist Enron throughout the
remainder of the year.  However,  I don't feel that everyone is ready to make
that decision.  We do however need to make a final decision on this first
implementation.

As I have stated prior in this document,  "We have accomplished a lot over
the past year."  Without the continued assistance from the Razorfish portion
of the VMS team.  I don't see any of us meeting our 2001 Volume Management
(VM) Direct Access Power Market objectives in a more efficient or economical
fashion.  In some cases I don't see it being possible at all.

It is time to make a decision.  Do we all agree that we need to move forward
and retain Razorfish services for the additional $728,000 and incur each of
OUR allocation of the over all VMS capitalised project total cost or do we
stop where we are and find other solution to address our needs and debate
over who was in agreement in the beginning of the project in order to
determine who picks up the $3 MM already spent.

Please provide me with your response by 5:00 PM PT to allow me to get back to
Razorfish with a well deserved response by Friday.

Thanks - MO


Peter, the summary is very helpful.  Perhaps, we should drop the summary into
the monthly report?  Please talk to Julia about that.  I want to make it as
efficient as possible.  Mark


Thanks.

Look at the attached ... it may be too late for this afternoon, but I took a
shot at a revised way of presenting the investment fund and the associated
issues (substitute for slides 15-17?)


An adjustment is required on the Tufco contract for July 2000.  The volume
for the 23rd was overstated by 5,000.  This resulted in revisions on the 23rd
and 28th.  Please see the attached Tufco.  If you have any questions, give me
a call @ 36905.

D


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 09/26/2000
12:07 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Cindy Cicchetti                           09/26/2000 09:23 AM

To: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hunter S Shively/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott
Mills/HOU/ECT@ECT, Allan Severude/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russ Severson/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Gas Physical/Financial Position

I have scheduled and entered on each of your calendars a meeting for the
above referenced topic.  It will take place on Thursday, 9/28 from 3:00 -
4:00 in Room EB2537.


I would like these individuals to have a training with Teb Lokey today or tomorrow.    Teb is aware of my desire in this regard and is awaiting your call to set up the time.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nacey, Sheila
Sent:	Thursday, November 29, 2001 9:39 AM
To:	Dietz, Rick; Corman, Shelley
Subject:	RE: Galen's Status

Shelley,  FYI--Rick & I have discussed how we will cover the reservation billing scheduled for Saturday.  Marion & Cynthia will assist us in the coverage as well as Jerry Skirtich who sat  with Galen & I on Tuesday to cover the ncessary steps to generate the billing process.  Galen has a "desk procedure manual" assembled that spells out in detail the billing process.  I'm working w/Larry Hill to ensure the Capacity Release transactions are fed to the old TSS system (still testing this process.)  I've expressed a great sense of urgency surrounding the invoicing process given the cash flow concerns we're dealing with.  Sheila

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dietz, Rick
Sent:	Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:54 AM
To:	Corman, Shelley; Nacey, Sheila
Subject:	Galen's Status

Galen's heart catheterization yesterday showed two major blockages, one 99% and the other 75%.  The doctors at St. Lukes installed two stints in the artery to repair these blockages.  Galen said his chest is pain free and the tightness is gone.  His incision on his thigh is very sore and he has not yet been allowed to get out of bed to walk.  I spoke to him this morning and he sounded fairly upbeat and said he should be out of the hospital later on today.  He was concerned about whether he would be able to come in to work on Saturday to process reservation billing.   I assured him that Sheila and I had it covered and he did not need to worry about it.

Rick


Attached is the summary of Phase 1 positions for the utilities and other
select parties. Also are Sue's (Distribution Tariffs) and Tom Hoatson's
(Ownership) testimonies.

The next fillings in May are:
5/5 Comments on Interconnection Workshop Report (CEC) - Hoatson - Frank -
Bruno
5/8 Reply testimony Phase 1- Mara - Frank
5/17 Comments on the Operation's and Planning  Report (CPUC) - Bruno
(looking at it to determine whether  not we need to file)
5/26 Testimony on Phase 2 issues (Rate issues) - Group effort

Mona L Petrochko
05/02/2000 10:37 AM
To: Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: DG

Could you please send me by e-mail Enron's testimony in the DG proceeding and
the summary chart of the utility positions.  Is anything being filed on May
2?  Thanks.


Hello everyone,
 Christine made the changes as requested.  Let me know if further action is
needed.

MVE
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Eiben/HOU/ECT on 05/19/2000 04:46
PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Christine Pham                           05/19/2000 02:02 PM

To: Michael Eiben/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Entex Adjustments for 5/00

---------------------- Forwarded by Christine Pham/HOU/ECT on 05/19/2000
02:01 PM ---------------------------

Daren J Farmer
05/19/2000 11:42 AM
To: Christine Pham/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Entex Adjustments for 5/00

Christine,

Attached is the Entex file I mentioned in the voice mail this morning.  We
really need to have these adjustments made in POPS today.  Please let me know
if you can help with this.  Thanks.

Daren
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 05/19/2000
11:40 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Gary A Hanks                           05/18/2000 03:51 PM

To: Romeo D'Souza/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ami
Chokshi/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Pat Clynes/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Entex Adjustments for 5/00

I have reviewed the Entex actuals and adjusted Gas Control's Entex factor for
the month of May.  I have found that Entex estimates have been overstated by
approximately 10.0 Mmcf/Day.

Romeo:

Will you make sure the estimates that are in POPs are corrected to reflect
the new volumes.  This should help reduce some of the UA4 that Daren and Pat
are trying to locate.

The attached file has the changes that need to be made.  Please let everyone
on this mailing list know once the changes have been made.

If you have any questions please call me at 36449.

Thanks
Gary H


No I promise I didn't....your post-id crashed my system.  I had your book and
the power book and the Nymex book all coming in at the same time and the
system just stopped.  We're going again though, so I should have your
position in a few minutes.

RR


Majed,  That sounds great.  We look forward to having you here beginning on
May 21.  Let me know if you have any questions prior to that date.

	"Nachawati, Nabil, M" <nnachawa@Central.UH.EDU>
	04/17/2001 06:01 PM

		 To: "'Gerald.Nemec@enron.com '" <Gerald.Nemec@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: RE: Starting Date

Gerald,

I hope everything is going well with respect to your work load! I know that
you are probably very busy with conference calls. Anyway, I look forward to
working in your department this summer. I have already taken my drug test,
and have given Molly Magee my start dates (tentatively with your approval).
I have my start date scheduled to commence on May 21, 2001 and end on June
29, 2001. I hope these dates coincide with your schedule. Please e-mail me
and let me know.

Looking Forward to this summer,

Majed Nachawati

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald.Nemec@enron.com
To: nnachawa@Central.UH.EDU
Sent: 4/17/2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Starting Date

Nabil,  Can you please provide the dates that you are planning on
working
for the 1st half of the summer. I called your residence earlier today,
but
your machine did not pick up.    It is probably easier to communicate
via
email since we both keep missing each other.  Thanks.


Ken, Greg and Mark,

I wanted to provide you a suggested agenda for the rescheduled Management Conference.  After working with Joannie Williamson to coordinate open dates on your calendars with hotel availability, here is what we are proposing:

Location:   Westin La Cantera Resort, San Antonio (The Woodlands still will not have enough rooms to hold our group in February.  We are concerned that if we don't have people committed to stay over, especially on a weekend, we risk weak participation.  Also, by rebooking with the Starwood property, we hope to potentially recoup some of the loss incurred by canceling our November date and maintain a positive relationship with the company.)

Dates:   Friday, February 22 and Saturday, February 23 (We received feedback that employees may not appreciate being asked to sacrifice a weekend right now.  However, these are the dates that the hotel is available.  Available dates the previous week would interfere with Valentines Day and coincide with the peak of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.)

Agenda:

DAY 1		Friday, February 22

2pm - 5pm	Registration

6pm - 9pm	Reception and Chairman's Dinner
		Speaker:  General Norman Schwarzkopf  (The General is currently available on this date, but has not accepted the engagement.  I feel that, if we can 		reschedule him, he would be a significant draw to ensure people arrive in time for the evening activities.)

DAY 2		Saturday, February 23

8am - 2pm	Business Agenda  (I will keep Ken and the brief business unit presentations/panel on the agenda.  I also hope to reschedule Gary Hamel.  Otherwise, I will		remain flexible on the agenda.)

2pm		Meeting Adjourns

		No planned activities  (The activities are perceived as an unnecessary extravagance at this time.)

We'd like to issue a memo about postponing the Management Conference to invitees as soon as possible.  While details on the agenda can be resolved later, please let me know if you are comfortable with the dates and location so we can include that information in the memo.

Regards,
Terrie James
ext. 3-7727


yeah and we are going out tonight.  shawn is actually in town.  we should
meet up.


Do we have an estimate of PCB decontamination costs for 2000?  AA is
asking...


Start Date: 4/17/01; HourAhead hour: 21;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041721.txt


Ruth,

This is a revised copy from Gerald.  Please disregard the last copy and review this one.  I'll call you to make sure you get it.

Paul
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nemec, Gerald
Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:18 AM
To:	Lucci, Paul T.
Cc:	Moon, Eric
Subject:	Revised Kennedy Amendment

Paul,  Disregard the prior version and use this one.


Hey Susan,

Any luck with the options reporting suggestions?  Let me know if you have had
the chance to put something together.

Thanks,
Dawn
3-9353


We are currently experiencing issues with EHR online. We are aware of these issues and are working to get them resolved quickly. Thank you for your patience and we will notify you when the EHR system is back online.

Thank you,

ETS Solution Center - Houston, at 713-345-4745
ETS Solution Center - Omaha, at 402-398-7454