How nice it would be if EVERYONE (including me?) stopped using reply to all.
PLEASE STOP USING REPLY TO ALL!!!!!!!!!!!

You were told in the note note below how to remove yourself from the list
without sending it to a long list of people who have absolutely no interest
in knowing whether or not you are on the list or want to be removed from the
list.
   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
   Gerry Garnett    gerry.garnett@bchydro.bc.ca
<mailto:gerry.garnett@bchydro.bc.ca>       B C Hydro
        Manager, Network Operation Services         at  Burnaby Mountain
                 *  c/o 6911 Southpoint Drive, Burnaby, B.C.  V3N 4X8
                               *  (604) 473-2726       Fax: (604) 473-2722

----------
From:  Margaret Schaff [SMTP:mschaff@WORLDNET.ATT.NET]
Sent:  Wednesday, May 16, 2001 7:11 AM
To:  RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG

Sarah,
I'll still remain on the RRG and other lists even if I get off this one,
right?  Or is this the new official list.....
Thanks
Margie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Dennison-Leonard" <sdleonard@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:29 PM

> To get off the list, please send an e-mail to: LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG
and
> in the subject line, please put "SIGNOFF RRGA-L"
>
> Thank you!
>
> - Sarah
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pyburn, Jack R." <jack.pyburn@MIRANT.COM>
> To: <RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 5:11 PM
>
>
> > I'm not sure how I got on this list, but I'd like to be deleted.
Thanks!
> >
> > Jack Pyburn, Jr.
> > Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP
> > 1155 Perimeter Center West
> > Atlanta, GA  30338
> > Phone: 678-579-7443
> > Fax:     678-579-7303
> > Cell:     678-488-0660
> > Email:  Jack.Pyburn@Mirant.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dalia, Keith A - TOS-DITT1 [mailto:kadalia@BPA.GOV]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:40 PM
> > To: RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG
> > Subject:
> >
> >
> > You have been added to the RRGA-L mailing list (RTO West Congestion
Model
> > Content Group) by Keith Dalia <kadalia@BPA.GOV>.
> >
> > Please save this message for future  reference, especially if this is
the
> > first time you subscribe to an  electronic mailing list. If you ever
need
> > to  leave the  list,  you  will find  the  necessary instructions
below.
> > Perhaps  more importantly,  saving a  copy of  this message  (and of
all
> > future subscription notices  from other mailing lists) in  a special
mail
> > folder will give you instant access to the list of mailing lists that
you
> > are subscribed  to. This may  prove very useful the  next time you  go
on
> > vacation and  need to leave  the lists temporarily so  as not to  fill
up
> > your  mailbox while  you  are away!  You should  also  save the
"welcome
> > messages" from the  list owners that you will  occasionally receive
after
> > subscribing to a new list.
> >
> > To send  a message to  all the people  currently subscribed to  the
list,
> > just send mail  to RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG. This is  called "sending
mail
> > to the  list", because  you send  mail to a  single address  and
LISTSERV
> > makes  copies  for all  the  people  who  have subscribed.  This
address
> > (RRGA-L@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG)  is also  called the  "list address".  You
must
> > never try to send any command to that address, as it would be
distributed
> > to all the people  who have subscribed. All commands must  be sent to
the
> > "LISTSERV  address",   LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG.  It   is  very
> > important to understand  the difference between the  two, but
fortunately
> > it is  not complicated. The  LISTSERV address is  like a FAX  number
that
> > connects you  to a  machine, whereas  the list address  is like  a
normal
> > voice line connecting you to a person. If you make a mistake and dial
the
> > FAX number  when you  wanted to talk  to someone on  the phone,  you
will
> > quickly realize  that you used the  wrong number and call  again. No
harm
> > will have been done. If on the  other hand you accidentally make your
FAX
> > call  someone's  voice  line,  the  person receiving  the  call  will
be
> > inconvenienced, especially if your FAX then re-dials every 5 minutes.
The
> > fact that  most people  will eventually  connect the  FAX machine  to
the
> > voice line to  allow the FAX to  go through and make the  calls stop
does
> > not mean  that you  should continue  to send FAXes  to the  voice
number.
> > People would just get mad at you.  It works pretty much the same way
with
> > mailing  lists, with  the difference  that  you are  calling hundreds
or
> > thousands of people  at the same time, and consequently  you can expect
a
> > lot of people to get upset if  you consistently send commands to the
list
> > address.
> >
> > You may leave the list at any  time by sending a "SIGNOFF RRGA-L"
command
> > to LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG. You can also tell LISTSERV how you
> > want it to confirm  the receipt of messages you send to  the list. If
you
> > do not trust  the system, send a "SET RRGA-L  REPRO" command and
LISTSERV
> > will send you a  copy of your own messages, so that you  can see that
the
> > message was distributed and did not get damaged on the way. After a
while
> > you  may find  that this  is getting  annoying, especially  if your
mail
> > program does not  tell you that the  message is from you  when it
informs
> > you that new mail has arrived from  RRGA-L. If you send a "SET RRGA-L
ACK
> > NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail you a short acknowledgement
instead,
> > which  will look  different in  your  mailbox directory.  With most
mail
> > programs you  will know immediately  that this is an  acknowledgement
you
> > can read  later. Finally,  you can  turn off  acknowledgements
completely
> > with "SET RRGA-L NOACK NOREPRO".
> >
> > Following  instructions from  the list  owner, your  subscription
options
> > have been set to "NOFILES REPRO" rather than the usual LISTSERV
defaults.
> > For more  information about subscription  options, send a  "QUERY
RRGA-L"
> > command to LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG.
> >
> > Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get
a
> > list of the available archive files  by sending an "INDEX RRGA-L"
command
> > to  LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG. You  can then  order these  files
> > with a "GET RRGA-L LOGxxxx"  command, or using LISTSERV's database
search
> > facilities. Send an  "INFO DATABASE" command for more  information on
the
> > latter.
> >
> > This  list is  available  in digest  form.  If you  wish  to receive
the
> > digested version of the postings, just issue a SET RRGA-L DIGEST
command.
> >
> > Please note that  it is presently possible for other  people to
determine
> > that  you are  signed up  to the  list through  the use  of the
"REVIEW"
> > command,  which  returns   the  e-mail  address  and  name   of  all
the
> > subscribers. If  you do not  want your name to  be visible, just  issue
a
> > "SET RRGA-L CONCEAL" command.
> >
> > More  information on  LISTSERV  commands  can be  found  in the
LISTSERV
> > reference  card, which  you can  retrieve  by sending  an "INFO
REFCARD"
> > command to LISTSERV@LIST.RTOWEST.ORG.
>


This is the first of several contracts I need you to alter to make specific
between HPL and a third party counterpart, taking out the Enron and its
affiliate spin.  Please forward your altered draft back to me when
completed.  Send to SSchneider@aep.com with a copy to MLCarriere@aep.com.


The information contained herein is based on sources that we believe to be
reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete.  Nothing
contained herein should be considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation
of an offer to buy any financial instruments discussed herein.  Any
opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author.  As such, they
may differ in material respects from those of, or expressed or published by
on behalf of Carr Futures or its officers, directors, employees or
affiliates.  , 2001 Carr Futures

The charts are now in the most recent version of Adobe Acrobat 4.0 and they
should print clearly from Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or higher. Adobe Acrobat
Reader 4.0 may be downloaded for FREE from www.adobe.com.

(See attached file: UnleadedStocks.pdf)(See attached file: CrudeStocks.pdf)
(See attached file: HeatingOilStocks.pdf)(See attached file:
PADDIIstocksCL.pdf)(See attached file: PADDIstocksHO.pdf)(See attached
file: PADDIstocksHU.pdf)(See attached file: API.pdf)

Carr Futures
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606  USA
Tel:  312-368-6149
Fax:  312-368-2281
soblander@carrfut.com
http://www.carrfut.com
 - UnleadedStocks.pdf
 - CrudeStocks.pdf
 - HeatingOilStocks.pdf
 - PADDIIstocksCL.pdf
 - PADDIstocksHO.pdf
 - PADDIstocksHU.pdf
 - API.pdf


Hi Kate, per our discussion on yesterday about the $15.00 flat fee on Tom's
and Mark's deals, here is Bloomberg's response.  Please pass this info to all
of our traders.  Please let me know what the response is from them.

Thanks

---------------------- Forwarded by Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron on 04/17/2001
02:34 PM ---------------------------

"PAUL CALLAHAN, BLOOMBERG/ NEW YORK" <PCALLAHAN2@bloomberg.net> on 04/17/2001
02:28:57 PM
To: Evelyn.Metoyer@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Commission

Evelyn, as of April 16, 2001 our charge for Spot trades is a flat fee of
$15/trade.


Kay-

Based on the fact that we're almost done with the project, I don't have any
comments to the S&S breakout contract for our units at Austin.  If you want
to remove the combined cycle language, I can live with that.  What I hope we
can keep are the Austin site specific basis conditions and performance
guarantees (which are currently listed in the contract you sent to me).  Let
me know if they resist.

Thanks,
Eric


Mike,

Following request has been made for a number of people.

The access requested is: o:\research\power meteorology\weather temperatures -
Read/Write
 Data Approval  Grant

This is what I wrote, denying the request:

The reason for the rejection has been communicated  several times.
The person who requested the access does not want it any more.  Granting both
read/write access could threaten the integrity of the data.

Any comments?

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 01/29/2001
08:19 AM ---------------------------

ARSystem <ARSystem@mailman.enron.com> on 01/26/2001 07:16:10 PM
To: "vince.j.kaminski@enron.com" <vince.j.kaminski@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Approval is Overdue: Access Request for paul.d.thomas@enron.com

This request has been pending approval for  2 days and you are the
alternate.  Please click
http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000015384&Page=
Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000015384
Approver            : stinson.gibner@enron.com
Request Create Date : 1/25/01 7:59:02 AM
Requested For       : paul.d.thomas@enron.com
Resource Name       : \\enehou\houston\common\Research - [Read/Write]
Resource Type       : Directory


---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Parks/Corp/Enron on 05/09/2000
03:03 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Garrett Tripp @ ECT                           04/26/2000 05:44 PM

To: Michelle Parks/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Texas Tolling Exploratory Pricing: Corrected

The intrinsic valuation in the Corpus quote was incorrect, it is corrected in
this file!

Berney asked me to run these scenarios for you: Wolf Hollow, Corpus Christi.
  Please see attached file.  Pricing is not for transaction purposes.

Thank you, (call with any questions)
Garrett
39335


This is great info and very helpful.  Thanks a million.  I'll likely be
getting back to you.

Best,
Jeff

	James D Foster@EES
	03/16/2001 08:49 AM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/Na/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES
		 Subject: Re: More Inquiries From CA PUC re: Switching customers back to LDC

Good Morning Jeff,

Catherine is out of the office until Tuesday 3/20/01.  Not wanting to keep
you waiting for a reply, I thought it best to give you some feedback
immediately.

The great majority of CAD's customers in CA are core.  CAD does not knowingly
terminate any current customer prior to their expiration date. The reasons
why CAD's customers are turned back to the utility are as follows:

1) Upon receiving renewal pricing from the CAD rep,  the customer chooses to
return to the utility.

2) Understanding that the current minimum margin per meter for our customers
is approximately $300, those customers that have extremely low annual volumes
are sent attrition letters and turned back to the LDC, at the end of their
contract.  We cannot competitively price this type of customer versus the
utility, and extract enough margin to support them. Currently in the
California markets (PG&E, SDG&E, & SOCAL) , there exists approximately 50
customers that have usages so low that given current market conditions, we
will not choose to renew the contracts.  The expiration dates for these are
between 5/30/2001 and 2/28/2005.

3) The customer initiates a request for termination prior to the end of their
contractual expiration date.  As we are all aware, California customers,
specifically those with either an index or NYMEX product, experienced a large
swing in their pricing during the past few months.  CAD has been inundated
with customers requesting to be returned to their LDC.  Although we seek to
satisfy our customer to the best of our ability,  returning these customers
to the utility is the LAST thing we want to do!!!!!!!

The steps we have taken to address this issue is to:
 a) work with customer service/credit to offer extended payment options to
ease the effect of the increase.
 b) offer to restructure the customer's contract, and reprice the customer on
a fixed price product; minimizing their risk going forward.
 c) explain to the customer, in more detail, the reasons why this has
occurred, and how, going forward, the index/NYMEX pricing has eased.

Should you have additional questions, please reply or call.
-Jim

From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/15/2001 04:50 PM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, Dennis Harris/DUB/EES@EES, James D
Foster/DUB/EES@EES
cc: Roger O Ponce/HOU/EES@EES, Catherine Woods/DUB/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, mpalmer@enron.com, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES, smccubbi@enron.com,
smara@enron.com, Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W
Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shelley Corman/Enron@EnronXGate, Mike D
Smith/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: More Inquiries From CA PUC re: Switching customers back to LDC

Greetings:

Recall that about 3 weeks we got a call from a CA PUC staffer asking whether
we'd switched a particular gas customer (or two) back to the LDC.  We looked
into it and discovered that we'd mistakenly switched the customer back due to
a mix up about the fact that the customer had two active meters behind two
different utilities.  We informed the PUC staffer of the mix-up and explained
that the situation would be resolved.

The questions from the staffer arose because the CA PUC made a bad decision a
couple of months ago. When gas prices ran up at the California border a lot
of large ("noncore") customers attempted to switch back to the utility tariff
in the hope of lowering gas costs.  In response, SoCalGas filed with the
Commission asking the PUC to prohibit customers from switching back.  The
Commission agreed and put the prohibition in place.  The Commission is now
concerned that if suppliers terminate their contracts with customers (for
whatever reason), or choose not to renew the contracts when they expire,
customers won't have the option of returning to LDC service.

Today, I received a letter from the President of the Commission asking me to
respond to the following:

Have you "stopped selling and delivering natural gas to any non-core
customers with whom you have an existing procurement contract, or...notified
any of your non-core customers that you do not intend to renew an existing
natural gas commodity procurement contract.  If your company has stopped or
intends to stop serving non-core customers, the CPUC also needs to know

how many contracts you have terminated or expect to terminate
the natural gas volumes involved
the location of the non-core customer(s)
the reason(s) your company intends or has already acted to terminate those
contracts."

There's a good chance that the letter from the President of the Commission is
linked to the fact that we've recently switched our electricity customers
back to utility service in California.

Prior to deciding whether and how to respond to the Commissioner, I'm trying
to get handle on whether we're re-sourcing any gas retail customers to the
utility prior to expiration, choosing not to renew contracts once they've
expired, etc.  Catherine, or Jim Foster, can you help out?  Thanks.

Best,
Jeff


Greetings Senator:

I'm informed that Mr. Lay is currently out of the country and that your
message has been forwarded to him.

In the meantime, I am attaching a document that Ken Lay distributed to
business leaders at meetings in Silicon Valley and Los Angeles about 2 weeks
ago.  It is the document referenced in the Dow Jones wire story and does
include the Company's view that a core/noncore market structure is the right
answer for California (though the document has not been shared with Speaker
Hertzberg).

Mr. Lay discussed the core/noncore proposal extensively during his trip to
Sacramento several weeks ago when, as you recall, he visited Sacramento and
met with a variety of legislators from both sides of the aisle to discuss
solutions to California's electricity crisis.

But unlike the Speaker's core/noncore proposal that I read about in today's
San Francisco Chronicle, Enron's the proposal does not shift all of Edison's
past due amounts from small consumers to California businesses. The Company
believes that all customers should be responsible for the costs that have
been incurred on their behalf.

I will be in Sacramento on Monday, June 4th and would like to discuss our
proposal with you further if you would find it useful and if your schedule
permits.  I'm also available to discuss the proposal further by phone if you
would like to talk before Monday.

If there's anything else I can do, or if you have any questions, don't
hesitate to contact me at 415.782.7822.

Best,
Jeff Dasovich


Henger's summary of the major cases discussed at FERC's October 24th Meeting:

	JOHN & HENGERER
	A LAW PARTNERSHIP
	1200 17TH STREET, N.W.
	SUITE 600
	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-3013

DOUGLAS F. JOHN	TELEPHONE
EDWARD W. HENGERER	(202) 429-8815
KEVIN M. SWEENEY
KIM M. CLARK	TELECOPIER
GORDON J. SMITH	(202) 429-8805
MATTHEW T. RICK
ELIZABETH A. ZEMBRUSKI

	October 24, 2001

Via Internet
MEMORANDUM

TO:		Interested Clients

FROM:		John & Hengerer

RE:		Commission Meeting -- October 24, 2001

At today's lengthy Commission meeting, the Commissioners approved the consent agenda and then discussed the items detailed below.

ELECTRIC MATTERS

State Participation in RTO Development Process
In light of comments voiced during last week's RTO workshops, Commissioner Brownell
suggested that avenues for participation by the State Commissions in the RTO development process need to be explored.  She suggested that one option might be to establish regional panels made up of state commission representatives.  Commissioner Brownell further suggested that state commissions, perhaps through such regional panels, could explore issues related to RTO set-up, adequacy of revenue requirements, demand-side management programs, market monitoring and mitigation, and distributed generation.

The other Commissioners generally echoed Commissioner Brownell's sentiment, although Commissioner Massey cautioned that the pace of RTO development should not be slowed by excessive or redundant administrative procedures and costs.  The Commissioners unanimously voted to instruct Staff to develop proposals for greater state commission involvement, and to present their proposals to the Commissioners at an upcoming agenda meeting.  At this point, the initiative appears to be designed to explore alternatives.  More concrete proposals, however, could be included in the broader RTO strategy the Commission is expected to announce in the near future.

Discussion of RTO Development Process in Southeast, Docket No. EX02-1
Staff began the discussion with a power point presentation on the Southeast RTO mediation process, noting that participants had reached a consensus on most issues, including market monitoring, operational authority, short-term reliability, and planning.  Staff explained that consensus could not be reached on issues of governance and independence and provided an overview of the two competing RTO Models outlined in the Judge McCartney=s mediation report.  After briefly describing the Collaborative Governance (CG) model and Independent System Administrator (ISA) model, Staff identified positives and negatives for both.  Staff did not take a position on which model should be approved by FERC; rather, it concluded that either model satisfies the requirements of Order No. 2000.  Staff also noted that in the Southeast, participation by public power is essential to the formation of a functioning RTO in the region.

After Staff=s presentation, Judge McCartney and Herbert Tate (former New Jersey Chairman) discussed the proceeding with the Commissioners.  Specific issues discussed included: public power participation, concern over independence in the ISA model, whether the ISA was analogous to current ISOs, and the allocation of functions in the CG model.  Overall, Judge McCartney expressed support for CG model, citing concerns over independence in the ISA model as well as, what she viewed as, the experimental nature of the ISA proposal.  As a former state commissioner, Mr. Tate outlined the concerns expressed by the state commissions during the mediation period.  In their final recommendations, both Judge McCartney and Mr. Tate encouraged the Commission to provide additional guidance as to the essential elements or principles to structure RTOs.

Discussion of RTO Developments in the Northeast, Docket No. EX02-2
Staff began this discussion item with a presentation on the Northeast RTO mediation process.  Staff explained that a Business Plan was issued to implement the Northeast RTO.  The Business Plan consists of eight sections: post-mediation process, governance, market design, operations, technology assessment, transmission tariff-related issues, regional transmission planning, and interregional coordination.  Staff did not detail the content of the Business Plan, but noted that in the two areas where there was disagreement B governance and market design options B the plan included three alternatives for each.

Staff=s presentation was followed by a discussion with Judge Young and Joe Garcia (former Florida Commissioner).  Judge Young explained that the Business Plan provides a viable blueprint for the formation of the Northeast RTO.  He noted that several issues must still be resolved, including: governance, market design, and shareholder process.  Judge Young reiterated his recommendation that a independent, non-vendor expert should analyze the technology of the three ISOs to assess whether entirely new software will be necessary to implement the Northeast RTO.  In response to Commissioner Breathitt, Staff explained that software is one of the biggest hurdles in the Northeast RTO.  Mr. Garcia expressed some concern that the ALJ and participants could waste too must time attempting to achieve the perfect RTO.

Chairman Wood noted that the Commission=s intention is to leave the region better, not worse off, than pre-RTO.  He also explained that the Northeast is in a better position to form a viable RTO than the other regions because of the maturity of its markets.  Commissioner Brownell noted that inconsistencies between the existing ISOs are working against retail competition programs in the Northeast region.  She cautioned against proceeding too slowly with regard to RTO formation.  Commissioner Wood noted that there are some issues that can be resolved relatively quickly, for example, regional transmission planning, real-time imbalance market software.

In response to Chairman Wood, the Judge Young and Mr. Garcia provided recommendations.  Mr. Garcia explained that the Business Plan provided participants with a basic plan and asked the Commission to provide guidance in the areas were there was divergence.  He also encouraged the Commission to issue a decision in the near future, noting that the Commission should let parties litigate jurisdictional issues so that RTO issues could be resolved sooner rather than later.  Judge Young encouraged the Commission to take the time to assess market design in order to prevent a further waste of time and money in the likelihood that the chosen market design proves unworkable.  Judge Young also requested that the Commission provide additional guidance on the parameters of Abest practices,@ governance structure, market design, and stakeholder process.
Discussion of RTO Developments in the Midwest, Docket No. EX02-3
Staff provided an update of recent developments in the Midwest.  A settlement agreement between Alliance and MISO, approved by the Commission earlier this year, provides the basis for developing a seamless market in the region that will be served by the two groups.  Under the terms of the Illinois power settlement, the financial viability of MISO is guaranteed, the Alliance business model is preserved, and seams issues between MISO and Alliance are addressed.   Staff explained that the seams agreement provides for one-stop shopping, congestion information on a joint bulletin board, an imbalance market, transmission planning, and market monitoring.

Staff explained that both MISO and Alliance recently filed status reports with the Commission addressing their ability to be functional and the seams agreement included in the settlement previously approved by the Commission.  Alliance noted that a proposal by National Grid USA (EL01-80-01) to manage the Alliance RTO, along with Alliance's's proposed Business Plan, are critical to the RTO's start-up.  Alliance reports that it would take up to 120 days to initiate operations once it has received final Commission approval.

In response to Commissioner Brownell, Staff maintained that both MISO and Alliance have made progress in addressing seams issues.  Staff expressed satisfaction with both the substance and timing of the entities filings.

There was some discussion over the division of functions between MISO and Alliance.  Chairman Wood noted that, if there is going to be one regional entity with not for-profit and for-profit entities, the Commission will have to address how the functions should be split.  Chairman Wood also expressed concern that a viable wholesale market may not result if all the functions were delegated to the for-profit entity.

Discussion of Western Infrastructure Adequacy Conference, Docket No. AD01-2
First in a series of regional meetings on infrastructure, the Western Infrastructure Adequacy Conference will be held in Seattle on November 2, 2001.  Staff identified three main questions to be addressed at the meeting:  (i) whether the current infrastructure is adequate; (ii) the infrastructure needs of the region, and (iii) the factors that are inhibiting adequate investment in infrastructure.  Such questions will be addressed within the context of the outlook for growth and population increases in the region as well as the outlook for future energy needs.  The Commission hopes to determine what the states and the federal government can do to encourage infrastructure investment.

Next, Staff gave a power point presentation on the infrastructure throughout the United States.  This presentation, which breaks down energy infrastructure by fuel use and price-responsive demand, can be accessed by the public on the Commission=s website under AFERC Discussion Papers.@  Staff noted that gas is the primary fuel in West and that use of gas continues to rise within the region.  In a separate presentation, Staff then presented its findings on its western infrastructure assessment which began in August.  Staff has collected data and analyzed information on Western infrastructure, with a final assessment available Friday, October 26, 2001.

The western infrastructure assessment was broken into three sections: demand, supply, markets, and transmission.  With regard to demand, Staff traced the population and consumption differences over past few years in the West.  Staff noted that the Southwest started to consume larger amounts of gas and electricity because of population and economic growth.  Staff traced gas uses, growth, total capacity, and peak loads within Western region, as well as projections for demand, capacity, use, and infrastructure.  Next, Staff provided an overview of the supply of electricity, hydropower and gas in the United States.  Staff asserted that proven and potential gas reverses in United States could provide supply for next 50 years.  In the portion of the presentation on markets, Staff identified the primary trading hubs in the West and the average monthly spot market prices and monthly trading volumes in the region. Staff also noted that recently, there has been a downward shift in the gas futures market for the West which it attributed to lower temperatures, more capacity, lower gas prices and the Commission=s price mitigation plan.  Finally, Staff provided an overview of transmission projects in the Western region.

New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER01-2967
Cinergy Services, Inc., Docket Nos. ER01-2984 and ER01-3022
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket ER01-2985
American Electric Power Service Corp., ER01-2163
In a July 2001 order in Docket No. ER01-2163, the Commission denied a transmission provider=s request to receive interest on system upgrade payments.  In this draft order, the Commission issued an interim order which granting rehearing on this issue.

The Commission will address the issue of interest on system upgrade payments in the generic proceeding addressing transmission interconnection.  Commissioner Breathitt dissented in part, maintaining that the Commission should not issue an interim order, but, instead should address the issue in the transmission interconnection proceeding where the ramifications can be more fully explored.  Commissioner Massey and Wood voiced their support for the order, noting that if generators are treated as banks, they should receive interest.  However, Commission Massey explained that as a long-term issue, he has an open mind as to how the generation costs should be allocated.

Kern River Gas Transmission Company, Docket Nos. CP01-70 and CP01-31
There was no Staff presentation on these two items which were placed on the discussion agenda by Commissioner Breathitt.  Although she concurred with the decision, Commissioner Breathitt expressed concern over intervenors allegations that the pipeline expansion would negatively impact the availability of take-away capacity on the Kern River system.  Commissioner Breathitt noted that in determining whether pipeline expansions are in the public convenience and necessity, the Commission must address concerns that there will be a degradation of existing shippers firm rights.

F:\Word\02\MEMO\FM102401 eaz.wpd


to discuss June 3 meeting.  202-586-3093.


No one has ever mistaken me for being a shy or timid person...least of all
Ted.  Therefore, telling him about the shirt was right in character for me.
I think a part of him probably felt a little ashamed that a 23 yr. old girl
with almost no dating experience could handle the situation with more class
than him.  Anyway, there were a few other things established and solidified
last night by Ted - 1. By his own admission, I am definitely smarted than
him (while in the past I have challenged that I had to agree last night) 2.
I am a confident, probably too much so, and well-adjusted individual.
Merely taking into account those two points, Ted in his present "condition"
could never be a match for me.  I would either always feel like I was
carrying him or rolling over him.  I'm still absolutely floored by the fact
I have now dated a divorcee.  Does Chuck think less of me for being duped?
I hope not...he really seemed like a good (to everyone that met him).

I think Mom, Dad and I are all going to fly over on the same flight
(Singapore Airlines).  I found a great deal from San Francisco for around
$580.  I of course will have to fly from Houston which ups the fare to
$800, but it's still the best deal around.  I can't wait to see you guys.

Susan


---------------------- Forwarded by Judy Hernandez/HOU/ECT on 07/27/2000
11:29 AM ---------------------------

"SOCORRO HERNANDEZ" <SUHERNAN@LLGM.COM> on 07/27/2000 09:19:47 AM
To: <ehernandez@ci.santa-ana.ca.us>, <Judy.Hernandez@enron.com>,
<silviamanzanales@hotmail.com>, <jh306@netzero.net>, <Maria.Soliz@ppfa.org>,
<bandama@ssa.co.orange.ca.us>, <maryloulou@yahoo.com>
cc:
Subject: A Man's Perspective

TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE FROM A MAN WHO'S HAD ENOUGH...

If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to
answer.

Learn to work the toilet seat. If it's up, put it down.

If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act
like soap opera guys.

Don't cut your hair. Ever. Long hair is always more attractive than short
hair. One of the big reasons guys fear getting married is that married women
always cut their hair, and by then you're stuck with her.

Birthdays, Valentines, and Anniversaries are not quests to see if we can
find the perfect present yet again!

If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you
don't want to hear.

Sometimes, we're not thinking about you. Live with it. Don't ask us what
we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as
navel lint, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.

Sunday = sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides.
Let it be.

Shopping is not a sport, and no, we're never going to think of it that
way.

When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine.
Really.

You have enough clothes.  You have too many shoes.

Crying is blackmail.

Ask for what you want. Let's be clear on this one: Subtle hints don't work.
Strong hints don't work. Really obvious hints don't work. Just say it!

No, we don't know what day it is. We never will. Mark anniversaries on
the calendar.

Peeing standing up is more difficult. We're bound to miss sometimes.

Most guys own three pairs of shoes-what makes you think we'd be any good
at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?

Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what
we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor.

Foreign films are best left to foreigners.

Check your oil.

It is neither in your best interest nor ours to take the quiz together.
No, it doesn't matter which quiz.

Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. All comments
become null and void after 7 days.

If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways
makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

Let us ogle. We're going to look anyway; it's genetic.

You can either tell us to do something OR tell us how to do something
but not both.

Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during
commercials..

ALL men see in only 16 colors. Peach is a fruit, not a color.

If it itches, it will be scratched.

Beer is as exciting for us as handbags are for you.

If we ask what's wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's
wrong. We know you're lying, but it's just not worth the hassle.

What the heck is a doily anyway?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

para Blondi...errr  Charlie:

ogle:  mirar codiciosamente o insinuante
doily:  tapete


The conference call scheduled for today at 1:30 p.m. CT has been cancelled.
It has been rescheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. CT.  I
have cancelled the conference call scheduled for next Wednesday too because
of Tuesday's call.

Dial In:  1-888-285-4585
Host:  121970
Participant: 536220


Attached FYI is a memo prepared by IPPNY summarizing a NY Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) decision issued last week that could impact environmental reviews of projects that are smaller than 80 MW and thus not subject to the State's siting law. As noted by IPPNY, the impact of this court ruling could be to delay the environmental review and thus the permitting time for these smaller plants.  In other generation-related developments, the NYS Siting Board last week approved the Astoria Energy project. This is a 1,000 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility to be loacted in Astoria, Queens, New York City. The plant is estimated to go in service the 3rd quarter of 2004. This brings to over 1600 MW the amount of new in-city generation recently approved by the State Siting Board, on top of the 400 Mw\W added this past summer by the NY Power Authority.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanessa Anctil [mailto:Vanessa@ippny.org]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:25 PM
To: IPPNY Members 2
Cc: Carolyn Brown
Subject: Member Alert #48-2001 - Court of Appeals issues Potential Setbackto SEQRA Generators In NYPA Turbine Ruling

Member Alert #48-2001
November 26, 2001

Court of Appeals issues Potential Setback to SEQRA Generators In NYPA Turbine Ruling

On November 20, 2001, the New York State Court of Appeals denied a motion by the New York Power Authority ("NYPA") for leave to appeal a Appellate Division decision, Uprose v. Power Authority of State of New York, requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for its installation of 10 GE LM6000 turbines at several sites in New York City.  (IPPNY's brief supporting NYPA's motion was accepted by the Court.)  The impact of the ruling may be to delay the environmental review for projects evaluated under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").

The Court of Appeals, the State's highest court, did not affirm the Appellate Division's decision, it merely declined to consider the appeal, which was discretionary.  The decision is binding only in the courts of the 2nd judicial department, which includes Long Island and Westchester, although courts in other areas of the state may rely on the case for guidance.

Prior to the lawsuit, NYPA issued a negative declaration of potential significant impact with regard to the turbine projects, a SEQRA prerequisite to proceeding without preparing an EIS.  The Appellate Division decision required that NYPA prepare an EIS by January 31, 2002 because NYPA's analysis of particulate matter 2.5 ("PM2.5"), which relied on an evaluation of PM10 as a proxy, was insufficiently detailed to support a negative declaration.

The potential impact for new generation projects is that applicants proposing power plants under 80 MW, which are subject to SEQRA, may be required to prepare an EIS.  A State agency may still be able to issue a negative declaration, and thus avoid the requirement to prepare an EIS, if an applicant demonstrates in its Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") that there is no potential for adverse environmental impacts from PM2.5.  However, as a result of the Uprose decision, the applicant may not be able to make this demonstration by relying on a PM10 proxy analysis.  If the demonstration cannot be made that PM2.5 will not have a potential adverse environmental impact, the agency must make a positive declaration, requiring the preparation of an EIS and associated public notice and participation.  Potentially significant delay could result from this process.

The Appellate Division decision should have little impact on Article X applications.  The Article X process supplants the SEQRA process.  Essentially, the Article X process requires the preparation of an EIS equivalent, wherein PM2.5 is analyzed.  At least one case, Consolidated Edison's East River Repowering Project, has addressed the PM2.5 issue.  In that case, the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), Department of Health, and the Department of Public Service agreed that the only applicable legal standard for PM2.5 is the PM10 proxy standard.  The Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment ruled that PM2.5 was not an issue in the case because it is within the purview of the companion DEC air permit proceeding.  A ruling distinguishing the Uprose case was made by the Commissioner of DEC.  Although the court found that the proxy analysis conducted by NYPA was not sufficiently detailed in the EAF to support a negative declaration under SEQRA in the Uprose case, the DEC Commissioner found in the East River case that the PM10 analysis will support the determination as to whether or not the proposed project complies with the PM2.5 standard.

In an unrelated development, the FERC last week issued two orders addressing issues related to market mitigation.  In its Order Establishing Refund Effective Date And Proposing To Revise Market-Based Rate Tariffs And Authorizations ("Market Rates Order"), FERC instituted a proceeding to investigate the justness and reasonableness of the terms and conditions of market-based rate tariffs and authorizations of wholesale generators.  FERC noted that it intends to revise all existing market-based rate tariffs and authorizations by adding the following language (which will be included in all new authorizations, as well):

"As a condition of obtaining and retaining market-based rate authority, the seller is prohibited from engaging in anticompetitive behavior or the exercise of market power. The seller's market-based rate authority is subject to refunds or other remedies as may be appropriate to address any anticompetitive behavior or exercise of market power."

FERC indicated that the refund effective date will be 60 days from notice of the Market Rates Order in the Federal Register.

In a second order, FERC announced that it will implement an industry-wide standard market mitigation measure that will address conditions of market shortage in which market power could be abused.  The surplus margin assessment ("SMA") tool will be employed by FERC to determine what entities possess market power.  The SMA will replace the FERC's existing "Hub-and-Spoke" methodology for determining whether an entity possesses market power.   Entities that fail the screen are required to sell uncommitted capacity into the spot market pursuant to a form of cost-of-service rates.  The SMA order expressly does not apply in New York, because FERC noted that it will not apply this new mitigation procedure in markets (including NY) where market mitigation plans have been approved by FERC.

Copies of the orders are available upon request.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact IPPNY.


What is so proprietary about their distribution drawings? Should we start
kicking butt? Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: "Fantz, Donald" <DIF1@pge.com>@ENRON@EES
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 7:46 PM
To: Cone, Rob
Cc: "'Dick Smith'" <dick_smith@csufresno.edu>@ENRON@EES; vanUlden, Dirk;
"Hagen, John H" <JHH4@pge.com>@ENRON@EES; "Kinert, Robert"
<RCK3@pge.com>@ENRON@EES
Subject: RE: PG&E drawing request

 Rob,
I apologize for the misunderstanding of what we would provide you.
Our drawings are proprietary. After furture discussions with our experts,
they feel that what we have provided, should do what you need.  Mr. Raymond
will not be providing the drawing but should be able to offer the guidance,
to get where we need to go, to further the project.  I have been advised
that the description that we provided you will adequately cover the "ground"
needed in the CEQA.  Mr. Raymond (Ph. # 559.263.5239) can advise if you have
further issues.  He is an excellent resource and has done a lot of work on
our end with similar projects.  This is why we are confident with what we
provided.
If the above does not further the issue please call me immediately at
559.263.5528.  I will be out of the office on vacation tomorrow.
Don Fantz
> ----------
> From:  Rob Cone[SMTP:Rob_Cone@enron.com]
> Sent:  Tuesday, November 30, 1999 5:21 PM
> To:  Fantz, Donald
> Cc:  'Dick Smith'; Dirk vanUlden; Hagen, John H; Kinert, Robert
> Subject:  RE: PG&E drawing request
>
> <<File: pic30836.pcx>>
>
>
> Don,
>
> Will Mr. Raymond be able to supply the drawing that we are looking for?
> The
> PG&E drawing indicating the existing pole locations is very important.
> The
> drawing will demonstrate how the "overbuilding" of the existing line will
> impact
> the residential and commercial buildings in the area.  It is critical to
> determine the effects this will have on the area, so that we can decide
> which
> CEQA path the Project might need to take.  Please advise.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rob Cone
>
> Project Manager
> Enron Energy Services
> 12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500
> San Ramon, CA 94583
> Ph:925.543.3701, Fax:925.543.3550
> Pager:888.397.5826
>
>
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From:   "Fantz, Donald" <DIF1@pge.com>@ENRON@EES
>    Sent:   Tuesday, November 30, 1999 8:39 PM
>    To:     Cone, Rob
>    Cc:     "'Dick Smith'" <dick_smith@csufresno.edu>@ENRON@EES; vanUlden,
> Dirk;
>              "Hagen, John H" <JHH4@pge.com>@ENRON@EES; "Kinert, Robert"
>              <RCK3@pge.com>@ENRON@EES
>    Subject:  RE: PG&E drawing request
>
>    (Embedded image moved to file: pic30836.pcx) Rob,
>    After discussion with one of our folks, who has experience with the
> CEQA
>    process, we feel that the narrative should provide what you need for
> our
>    part in the CEQA process.  If you need additional information regarding
>    this, please contact Mr. Gaylen Raymond at (559) 263-5239.
>    By the way, do we have a tentative date to meet again for around
>    mid-December? I will not be available on Fridays in Dec.
>    Don Fantz
>    > ----------
>    > From:      Cone, Rob[SMTP:Rob_Cone@enron.com]
>    > Sent:      Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:32 AM
>    > To:   Fantz, Donald
>    > Cc:   'Dick Smith'; vanUlden, Dirk
>    > Subject:   PG&E drawing request
>    >
>    > Don
>    >
>    > Thank you again for the narrative of the proposed PG&E work on
>    > overbuilding the existing overhead line for the new 115kV circuit.
> Can I
>    > still expect the drawing indicating the routing of the existing line
>    > sometime this week?  I need to have this info. to discuss your
> proposed
>    > work with our CEQA consultant.
>    >
>    > Thanks
>    >
>    > Rob Cone
>    >
>    > Project Manager
>    > Enron Energy Services
>    > 12647 Alcosta Blvd., Suite 500
>    > San Ramon, CA 94583
>    > Ph:925.543.3701, Fax:925.543.3550
>    > Pager:888.397.5826
>    >
>    >
>


---------------------- Forwarded by Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT on 03/16/2000
02:07 PM ---------------------------

Stephane Brodeur
03/16/2000 07:06 AM
To: Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Maps

As requested by John, here's the map and the forecast...
Call me if you have any questions (403) 974-6756.


Thanks to all of you who participated in the Associate & Analyst Programs
survey and PRC focus groups.  We appreciate your input and the feedback is
essential for the program's success.

We have received the analysis from Watson Wyatt regarding the survey.  At
this time the Office of the Chairman is reviewing the results and working
with program management to formulate an action plan.  Once this review is
complete the results of both the survey and the PRC focus groups will be
communicated to you.  In addition, any action items will be addressed at that
time.

Thank you again for your participation and continued support of the Associate
& Analyst Programs.


Every thing is good here. Tom and I played golf yesterday at Fox Hollow,
beautiful day, unfortunately can't say the same for our golf game.

Enron is sure in the press. Seems like your hotdog McKinnsey ex-president
and CFO are much more adept at accounting sleights of hand than actually
running the company.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lenhart, Matthew [mailto:Matthew.Lenhart@ENRON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:13 AM
To: hfl@fp.edu
Subject:

sorry i haven't called you back.  i am in portland.  i don't get back
until tonight.  i will call you when i get home.  hope all is well.

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


o.k.

Thanks!!

   Kate Symes @ ECT                02/02/2001 04:13 PM

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

Subject: Re: 2-2-01 Checkoutq

Chris Mallory and the Prebon broker are currently debating this price. I'll
let you know when they settle it.

Thanks,
Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
02/02/2001 01:30 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: 2-2-01 Checkoutq

Chris Mallory
Deal 512609
Prebon shows price as $165....Enpower has $160.


Lucy,

What is the latest?  Write me a note about what is going on and what issues
you need my help to deal with when you send the rentroll.

Phillip


Morris:
Thanks for your input.  Harry Collins or I will contact you if we have any
questions.

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

	Morris Richard Clark/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/31/2001 09:31 PM

		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Susan Musch/ENRON@enronXgate
		 Subject: FW: Steel Master Form

Carol,

I have forwarded our tax comments on the Master Steel Agreement.  Please let
me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.

MRC

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Musch, Susan
Sent: Thursday, May  31, 2001 8:45 PM
To: Clark, Morris
Cc: Gockerman, Matthew F.
Subject: RE: Steel Master Form

Morris,

My comments on the Master Steel Agreement are as follows:

1.   Section 3.7 - The Taxes arising at the Delivery Point should be the
responsibility of the Buyer rather than Seller (i.e., Seller should be
responsible for all Taxes applicable to the Commodity being sold under the
Master Agreement arising upstream of the Delivery Point and Buyer should be
responsible for all Taxes applicable to the Commodity being sold under the
Master Agreement arising at and downstream of the Delivery Point).

2.   Section 3.7 - The phrase "within [___] days" should be added immediately
before the comma in the sentence beginning "[i]f Buyer and Seller are unable
to reach mutual agreement...."

3.   Section 3.7 - The following sentence should be inserted before the
sentence beginning "If either party is exempt from Taxes...":

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party is not liable for any applicable Taxes
that are legally imposed on the other Party and that are refundable to the
other Party, including without limitation value added or goods and services
taxes.

4.   Section 9 - The following sentence should be added to the definition of
Delivery Point:

For purposes of  transactions involving an Option on the Commodity, the
Delivery Point shall be defined to mean the date of delivery to the Buyer of
written confirmation of the purchase and sale of the Option, which date shall
be in all cases not earlier than one day following the day of acceptance of
the Counterparty,s offer.

5.   Section 9 - The phrase "goods and services taxes," should be added to
the definition of New Taxes immediately after the phrase "value added taxes,".

6.   Section 9 - The words "value added, goods and services," should be added
to the definition of Taxes immediately after the word "use,".

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional
information.

Best regards,
Susan

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Clark, Morris
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:31 PM
To: Musch, Susan
Subject: FW: Steel Master Form

Susan,

Can you please take a look at the attached steel master agreement  and
provide any additional language that you think is necessary (I imagine it
should work similar to the paper and pulp master that we discussed).  My
concern with the steel master is twofold: (i) it will be used for
international counterparties; and (ii) the treatment of options in many
foreign jurisdictions.  Thanks for your help.

MRC

 -----Original Message-----
From:  St Clair, Carol
Sent: Friday, May  25, 2001 3:08 PM
To: Clark, Morris
Cc: Murray, Julia
Subject: Steel Master Form

Morris:
Could you please review and sign off on the tax language?  Thanks.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3889
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 05/25/2001 03:07 PM -----

	Carol St Clair 05/25/2001 02:52 PM 	   To: Julia Murray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M
Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT  cc: Dan Lyons/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lou Stoler/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter
del Vecchio/HOU/ECT@ECT, Deb Korkmas/HOU/ECT@ECT  Subject: Steel Master Form

Julia and harry,
Enclosed is a revised draft of the Steel Master Agreement for your review.
Could you please forward this to Cheryl?  Thanks.

 << File: STEEL WORKING DRAFT NO.4 5-25 RED.DOC >>  << File: Steel Working
Draft No.4 5-25.doc >>

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


Are you setting up a meeting?

Stacey

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Glover, Sheila
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 8:27 AM
To:	White, Stacey W.; Stevens, Martha
Cc:	Carrington, Clara
Subject:	FW: Brazilian Curve

Stacey and Martha,
Any comments on the attached proposal?
Thanks, Sheila

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Glover, Sheila
Sent:	Monday, October 08, 2001 8:45 AM
To:	White, Stacey W.; Stevens, Martha
Cc:	Shahi, Pushkar; Carrington, Clara
Subject:	FW: Brazilian Curve

Stacey and Martha,

Clara and I met with Pushkar on Friday.  Take a look at the Proposal discussion and let us know your thoughts.

We are basically suggesting that we treat the front two years as MTM via all normal processes and the back years as a different process.

Thanks. Sheila

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Glover, Sheila
Sent:	Friday, October 05, 2001 2:37 PM
To:	White, Stacey W.; Stevens, Martha
Cc:	Shahi, Pushkar; Carrington, Clara
Subject:	Braziliam Curve

Stacey and Martha,
This outlines our discussion yesterday between Stacey, Clara and myself.
I have given to Pushkar today.  We will discuss with him and set  up a meeting next week.
Sheila


Thanks for your note.

Erwin Landivar@ENRON
02/21/2001 01:57 PM
To: Sally Beck@ECT
cc:
Subject: Global Accounting Promotions

Congratulations Sally on your promotion, and good luck on your new
responsibilities.
Regards,
Erwin
---------------------- Forwarded by Erwin Landivar/SA/Enron on 02/21/2001
04:57 PM ---------------------------
From: Rick Causey on 02/21/2001 05:02 AM
Sent by: Enron Announcements
To: All Enron Worldwide
cc:

Subject: Global Accounting Promotions

Please join me and the Global Accounting leadership team in congratulating
the following individuals on their promotions to:

To Managing Director
 Sally Beck (EWN)
 Fernley Dyson (EEL)

To Vice President
 Beth Apollo (ENW)
 Janine Juggins (EEL Tax)
 Phillip Lord (EBS)
 Laura Scott (ENA)
 Chris Sherman (ENA)
 Wade Stubblefield (EES)

To Senior Director
 Buddy Aiken (EEL)
 Jim Coffey (ENA)
 Donette Dewar (Intl. Tax)
 Patricia Dunn (NEPCO)
 Mark Frank (ENA)
 William Gehle (EECC)
 Joseph Grajewski (EECC)
 Jan Johnson (Corp)
 Scott Mills (ENW)
 James New (EEL)
 Mary L. Ruffer (ENA)
 Richard Sage (EEL)
 Elaine Schield (Corp)
 Kevin Sweeney (ENW)
 Beth Wapner (EBS Tax)

Director
 Thresa Allen (ENW)
 Ron Baker (Corp)
 Misty Barrett (EES)
 Jeff Blumenthal (EWS)
 Trey Cash (Corp Tax)
 Karen Choyce (Corp)
 Cheryl Dawes (ENA)
 Lanette Earnest (EWS Tax)
 Jeffrey Gossett (ENW)
 Robert Guthrie (ETS Tax)
 Susan Helton (ENA)
 Ralph Jaeger (EEL)
 Andrea Kerch (EEL)
 Faith Killen (ENA)
 Johnna Kokenge (Corp)
 Matt Landy (EEL)
 Andy Lawrence (ISC)
 Connie Lee (EBS)
 Caroline Lothian (EEL)
 Meg Malone (Corp Tax)
 Gary Peng (Corp)
 Stephen Schwarzbach (Corp)
 Sally Seelig (EES Tax)
 Don Shackley (EES/London Tax)
 Patricia Shannon (Corp)
 Eddie Sikes (Intl. Tax)
 Jeffrey Smith ( EGM)
 Ron Smith (GSS)
 Kim Theriot (ENW)
 Hope Vargas (ENA)
 Tina Ward (EEL)
 Stephen Whitaker (EEL)
 Stacey White (ENW)
 Rob Wilcott (Corp)

To Manager
 Christopher Abel (ENW)
 Stacey Aune (ENA)
 David Baumbach (ENW)
 Maya Beyhum (ENW London)
 Patricia Bloom (ENA)
 Matthew Brown (ENW)
 Vince Cacaro (ISC)
 Clara Carrington (ENW)
 Carol Carter (ENA)
 Carolyn Centilli (ISC)
 Erin Copeland (EECC)
 Richard Cross (ENW)
 Rachel Davis (Corp)
 Michael Desbiens (ISC)
 David Dupre (ISC)
 Eileen Flanagan (EEL)
 Regina Figueroa (ISC)
 Rebecca Ford (ENW)
 Darron Giron (ENW)
 Julie Goodfriend (International Tax)
 Karen Gruesen (ENA)
 Kevin Hall (EEL)
 Kristen Hanson (ENW)
 David Horne (ISC)
 Larry Hunter (ENW)
 Todd Hunter (EES)
 Jim Ischy (GSS)
 Chris Jones (ISC)
 William Kasmervisz (ENW)
 Kam Kaiser (ENW)
 Kedar Kulkarni (ISC)
 Monica Lande (ENW Portland)
 Suzanne Lane (EEL)
 Vince Mack (ISC)
 David Maxwell (ENW)
 Emitra Nelson (ISC
 Caroline Nugent (EWS Tax)
 Mark Pope (ISC)
 Yiannis Poulopoulos (London Tax)
 Melissa Ratnala (ENW)
 Jason Sharp (Corp Tax)
 Stephanie Smith (Corp)
 Patricia Spence (ENW)
 Amy Spode (ENW)
 Patricia Sullivan (ENW)
 Lisa Sutton (ETS)
 John Swinney (ENW)
 Deana Taylor (Corp)
 Dimitri Taylor (ENW)
 Wayne Tencer (EES)
 Bernella Tholen (ENA)
 Theresa Vos (ENA)
 Blake Walker (EECC)
 Bob Ward (International Tax)
 David Williams (EEL)

To Senior Specialist
 Amelia Alland (ENW)
 James Armstrong (ENA)
 Carmen Ayala (GSS
 Cynthia Balfour-Flanagan (ENW)
 Gilda Bartz (Corp)
 Stacey Brewer (ENW)
 Marian Briscoe (Corp Tax)
 Aneela Charania (ENW)
 Patricia Clark (Corp)
 Chris Crixell (EES Tax)
 Diane Ellstrom (ENW)
 Heidi Griffith (EES)
 Marla Hernandez (ISC)
 Marlene Hilliard (ENW)
 Dave Hollick (London Tax)
 Rachel Jones (EEL)
 Dawn Kenne (ENW)
 Harry Kent (EWS Tax)
 Blanca Lopez (ENA)
 Brian Hunter Lindsay (EEL)
 Rachel Lyon (EEL)
 Stacy Hardy (ENA)
 Sally McAdams (ISC)
 Kelly McCain (Corp Tax)
 Errol McLaughlin, Jr. (ENW)
 Sylvia Martinez (ISC)
 Kevin Meredith (ENW)
 Meredith Mitchell (ENW)
 Winnie Ngai (Corp Tax)
 Thien-Huong Ngo (ENW)
 Brian Palmer (ENW)
 Bich Ann T Pham (ENA)
 Shelly Pierson (Corp)
 Lillie Pittman (ISC)
 David Rae (ENW)
 Dixie Riddle (ETS Tax)
 Salvador Dominguez (Corp)
 Mark Schrab (ENW)
 Stephanie Sever (ENW)
 Danielle Shafer (ISC)
 Shifali Sharma (ENW)
 Keith Simper (ENA)
 Christopher Spears (ENW)
 Caron Stark (ISC)
 Tara Sweitzer (ENW)
 David Vandor (ENA)
 Mary Womack (ISC)
 David Yang (International Tax)
 Sabrae Zajac (ENW)

To Specialist
 Kim Chick (EES Tax)
 Justin East (EEL)
 Joey Esperance (International Tax)
 Randi Howard (ISC)
 Melanie Hutchinson (EWS Tax)
 Mary Joseph (Corp Tax)
 Sherri Kathol (International Tax)
 Lex Lacaze (International Tax)
 Michelle LeBlanc (Corp Tax)
 Ling Li (EWS Tax)
 Kori Loibl (ENW)
 Alan Marsh (Corp Tax)
 Bruce Mills (ENW)
 Erika Moore (EEL)
 Matthew Motsinger (ENW)
 Sherry Meyers (ISC)
 Andrea Price (Corp Tax)
 Bernice Rodriguez (ENW)
 Tina Salinas (EES Tax)
 Brent Vasconcellos (Corp Tax)
 Brandi Wachtendorf (ENW)
 Patryk Wlodarski      (ENW London)

To Entry Specialist
 Stuart Sheldrick (EEL)

To Accountant I
 Becky Klussman (Corp)

To Accountant II
 Silvia Shelby (Accounts Payable)

To Staff
 Mary Behn (EES)
 Guy Freshwater (ENW London)
 Geralynn Gosnell (ENW)
 Richard Miley (ENW)
 Brent Storey (ENW London)
 Stuart Thom (ENW London)
 Judith Walters (ENW)
 Jonathan White (ENW London)
 Joan Winfrey (ENW)

To Senior Tax Analyst
 Emily Allwardt (International Tax)
 Leon Branom (EBS Tax)
 Shanna Husser (EES Tax)
 Shilpa Mane (Corporate/London Tax)
 Todd Richards (Corp Tax)
 Michelle Thompson (Corp Tax)

To Sr. Administrative Assistant
 Norma Chavez (International Tax)
 Sarah Knott (ENW London)

To Sr. Travel Administrator
 Cheryl Slone (GSS )

To Administrative Coordinator
 Heather Choate (ENW)
 Kayla Heitmeyer (GSS)

To Senior Clerk
 Angela Barnett (ENW)
 Matthew Davies (ENW London)
 Daniela De Lisi (ENW London)
 Rufino Dorteo (ENA)
 Mark Pilkington (ENW London)
 Narjinder Sandhu (EEL)
 Howard Sweasey (EEL)
 Laura Vargas (ENW)
 Jo Ann Woods (Corp Tax)

To Intermediate Clerk
 Maria Maldonado (Accounts Payable)
 Araceli Mondragon (Accounts Payable)
 Irma Rodriguez (Accounts Payable)
 Bernita Sowell (Accounts Payable)


(See attached file: hpl1230.xls)

 - hpl1230.xls


(See attached file: HPLN0509.xls)

 - HPLN0509.xls


Sara - small typo - the Schedule should read "Amended and Restated as of
March 2, 2001


Attached is a revised draft of the McGarret II LLC Agreement marked against
the previous version.  All of the changes are tax related comments that we
received.

Please call Muriel McFarling or David Barbour at 713-220-4242 with any
comments or questions.

 - 258239.doc
 - 258239.wpd


Mon Jan 08 13:17:48 2001

Thank you for subscribing to the following Continental Airlines mailing lists:
 - CO.O.L Domestic
 - CO.O.L International

You are subscribed as: Kevin.Ruscitti@enron.com

With your subscription you will receive FREE emails featuring low fare
specials and promotions from Continental Airlines and some of our partners.

We plan to send notices out every other Tuesday.  However, we cannot guarantee
delivery on a specific day due to any unforeseen Internet problems, which we
have
no control over.

If you have not subscribed in time to get the email for the current week,
please feel free to visit our website at http://www.continental.com
and click through to the Vacations and Specials tab to view the Specials for
the upcoming week.

If you would like to UNSUBSCRIBE to any of the Continental Airlines mailing
lists, please click here:
http://www.continental.com/dash/build_dash.asp?vs_02_03_04


see attached


When is your big day again?????  keep me informed!!


John,

This file gives you similar information to the file that Jeff sent you for gas.  Frank is using it to continue investigating what went wrong with the extraction from the VaR model.  If you want me to change anything, let me know.

Thanks,
Stacey


Needs to be an officer or someone with power of attorney.  Ordinarily, you do
not have power of attorney unless there is board of director approval
authorizing you to sign contracts on behalf of the company.
The point is to make sure someone signs it who is authorized to bind the
company to the obligations of the agreement; otherwise they could argue later
that the agreement is not valid.

Kenneth Chow
07/27/2000 08:05 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Confidentiality Agreement

Susan,
Does it have to be an officer of the company (West Penetone, NiGen
International) that signs the agreement?
Or is it ok for the sales rep to sign it?

Thanks,
Ken

---------------------- Forwarded by Kenneth Chow/ET&S/Enron on 07/27/2000
07:59 AM ---------------------------

jimmy e hassell <jimmyhassell@juno.com> on 07/26/2000 03:52:35 PM
To: Kenneth.Chow@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Re: Confidentiality Agreement

Jimmy Hassell
C/O West Penetone
203 Shenandoah Drive
Richmond, Texas 77469

Ken, Do I need an officer in the company to sign the agreement?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:04:53 -0500 Kenneth.Chow@enron.com writes:
> Jimmy,
> I will fax you a copy of the Agreement.  Please sign and fax back to
> me for
> processing.  I will be sending you the original, also to be signed
> and sent
> back to me.  I do not have your address on hand - would you mind
> sending me
> your mailing address?
>
> Thanks,
> Ken
>
>

Jimmy Hassell
jimmyhassell@juno.com
office 281-343-0636
fax     281-343-8407
cell    281-788-8435


Lance,
 attached is the list of audits that would be Schedule 5.12 b.  These are,
with the exception of the Dabhol July 2000, audit , operational assessments
which include operations, safety and environmental audit sections.  The
Dabhol audit is environmental only.

It may be beneficial for Donnie Roark of Vinson and Elkins to give me a call
to discuss the reports prior to copying.  My phone is 713-646-7648.


Updated list of master netting agreement assignments.


**********************************************************************
CERA Conference Call: Sent Tue, November 07, 2000
**********************************************************************

Title: CERA Conference Call: FERC's Order for California Market: Bold
Decision of Insufficient Action?
Author:
E-Mail Category: Conference Call
Product Line: Western Energy , North American Power ,
URL: http://www.cera.com/cfm/track/eprofile.cfm?u=5166&m=1412 ,
http://www.cera.com/cfm/track/eprofile.cfm?u=5166&m=1413 ,

Alternative URLs:
Western Energy Members:
http://www.cera.com/client/ce/cc/110700_16/ce_cc_110700_16_ab.html

N. American Electric Power Members:
http://www.cera.com/client/nap/cc/110700_16/nap_cc_110700_16_ab.html
***********************************************************************
North American Electric Power and Western Energy
Conference Call
A Cambridge Energy Research Associates Conference Call

TOPIC
FERC'S ORDER FOR THE CALIFORNIA MARKET:
BOLD DECISION OR INSUFFICIENT ACTION?

* A FERC Vote for Market Solutions
* Where is the Relief for Retail Customers?
* What's Next for California and Western Wholesale
Markets?
* Implications for the Broader North American Power
Market

FORMAT
At the time listed below, our speakers will address this
topic for approximately 30 minutes, followed by an open
question and answer period.

SPEAKERS
Larry Makovich, CERA Senior Director, North American
Electric Power
Mike Zenker, CERA Director, Western Energy

TIME
1:00 P.M. Eastern, Monday, November 13, 2000

ELIGIBILITY
Clients eligible to participate in this conference call
are those who subscribe to the North American Electric
Power Retainer Advisory Service or the Western Energy
Retainer Advisory Service.

TO ENROLL
To enroll, please contact Ms. Kari Paakaula via fax at
(617) 497-0423, or enroll via e-mail at
kpaakaula@cera.com before 4:00 P.M., Friday, November
10, 2000.

AUDIO
For the audio portion of the call, please call in on one
of the following numbers approximately five (5) minutes
before the call:

Within the United States: 1-800-946-0741
Outside the United States: (719) 457-2649
Confirmation Code: 640107
Title of the call: CERA Call

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
U.S. callers: If you are experiencing difficulties
during the call, you may signal for technical assistance
by pressing *0 (star, zero) on your telephone keypad

International callers: Please re-dial and ask the
operator for assistance before giving the confirmation
code.

A recording of this call (audio only) will be available
until December 13, 2000. To access this recording,
please call 1-888-203-1112 (within the U.S.) or (719)
457-0820 (outside the U.S.). Please use confirmation
number 640107 to access the call.

********************************************************
**
For more information, please contact Kari Paakaula via
e-mail at kpaakaula@cera.com or via telephone at (617)
441-1362.

**end**

Follow URL for HTML version of this message only.

**********************************************************************
Account Changes
To edit your personal account information, including your e-mail
address, etc. go to: http://eprofile.cera.com/cfm/edit/account.cfm

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


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Perlingiere, Debra
Sent:	Monday, October 01, 2001 3:25 PM
To:	Pollan, Sylvia S.; Vanek, Darren
Subject:	NG Contract

 Here is the old redline version as well as the clean for execution.  If in agreement, please have your customer print two originals, sign and return same to my attention.  Also, with regards to Exhibit "A" have NG complete info re payments, invoices etc.  Thanks!

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


Iris,

We can invite you for an interview to Houston.

What would be a  the time  for you?

Vince

iris.mack@bnpparibas.com on 05/25/2000 11:32:04 AM
To: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Re[4]: Greetings from London (to Enron)

Hi,

     Thank you for your prompt response.  I am interested in any contacts you
may have in your rolodex.

     Also, I would be opened to talk to Enron as well.  Please let me know
more
details.

Kind regards,
Iris

Internet

From:     Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com on 25/05/2000 16:19 GMT

To:  Iris MACK

cc:  Vince.J.Kaminski, Stinson.Gibner, Grant.Masson, Pinnamaneni.Krishnarao,
     Vasant.Shanbhogue

bcc:

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Greetings from London (to Enron)

Iris,

I shall go through my Rolodex and try to find some good leads for you. I left
investment banking 8 years ago and this field changes very fast.

Alternatively, would you be interested in a company like Enron
or another energy company in Houston?

Please, let me know.

Vince

iris.mack@bnpparibas.com on 05/25/2000 09:20:01 AM

To:   Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
cc:
Subject:  Re[2]: Greetings from London (to Enron)

Hi,

     How are you?  Thank you kindly for your email.  Sorry I have not
responded
sooner.

     Currently I am working in Derivatives Structured Products and Risk
Management at BNP Paribas in London.  Although I currently enjoy living and
working in London, I may need to return to the states - because of my mother's
failing health.

     Do you know of any good contacts at investment banks that I may forward
my
details to?

     For your information, I have attached my CV.  (Please see attached file:
Iris Marie Mack.doc).

     Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
Iris Mack

44 (0)20  7595 8665 (work)
44 (0)20  7229 9986 (home)

(See attached file: Iris Marie Mack.doc)

Internet

From:     Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com on 04/04/2000 15:03 GMT

To:  Iris MACK

cc:  Vince.J.Kaminski

bcc:

Subject: Re: Greetings from London (to Enron)

Iris,

Please, feel free to give me a call when you have a few minutes.
I shall be glad to chat with you.

Vince

iris.mack@paribas.com on 03/30/2000 02:24:27 AM

To:   vkamins@enron.com
cc:   denis.autier@paribas.com
Subject:  Greetings from London (to Enron)

Dear Dr. Kaminski,

     How are you?  It was nice to meet you at the Real Options conference
in
NYC.

     I was intrigued by some of the comments in your conference talk.  In
particular, by your use of real options to hedge financial options.  This
is
something I am interested in as well.

     When you have some time, could we chat about this topic in a bit more
detail?

     Thanks for your time and consideration.  Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards,
Iris Mack

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

This message is confidential; its contents do not constitute a
commitment by BNP Paribas Group* except where provided
for in a written agreement between you and BNP Paribas Group*.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination, either
whole or partial, is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient of the message, please notify the sender immediately.
*BNP Paribas Group  is a trading name of BNP SA and Paribas SA

Ce message est confidentiel; son contenu ne represente en
aucun cas un engagement de la part du groupe BNP Paribas*
sous reserve de tout accord conclu par ecrit entre vous et le
groupe BNP Paribas*. Toute publication, utilisation ou diffusion,
meme partielle, doit etre autorisee prealablement. Si vous n'etes
pas destinataire de ce message, merci d'en avertir immediatement
l'expediteur.
*Le groupe BNP Paribas est le nom commercial utilise par BNP SA et Paribas
SA

(See attached file: Iris Marie Mack.doc)

 - Iris Marie Mack.doc


Any idea when this will be rescheduled?

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Velasco, Xochitl-Alexis
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:19 PM
To:	Noske, Linda J.; Crosswhite, Kathy; Reynosa, Lily; O'Neal, Patricia; Rivas, Mariaelena; Dodgen, Kathy
Cc:	Sharp, Vicki; Hensel, David; Gahn, Scott; Smith, Mike; Wu, Andrew; Steffes, James D.
Subject:	IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

Please let me know if your supervisors are able to attend a meeting on Friday, October 19 at 4 pm CST regarding California contracts.

Dave Hensel
Vicki Sharp
Scott Gahn
Mike Smith
Andy Wu
Jim Steffees

Thank you
Xochitl-Alexis


---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 04/24/2000 12:49
PM ---------------------------

dkinney@columbiaenergygroup.com on 04/24/2000 12:07:28 PM
To: " - *Kevin.Ruscitti@enron.com" <Kevin.Ruscitti@enron.com>, " -
*chris.germany@enron.com" <chris.germany@enron.com>
cc: " - *Molly.Johnson@enron.com" <Molly.Johnson@enron.com>, " - *Dalphon,
Charles" <cdalpho@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *Scott, David"
<dscott1@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *Bizik, Kim"
<knovsek@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *Jones, Donna"
<djones1@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *Destephanis, Kara"
<kdestep@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *Boyd, Heidi"
<hboyd@columbiaenergygroup.com>, " - *cfrankl2@enron.com"
<cfrankl2@enron.com>, " - *joan.veselack@enron.com"
<joan.veselack@enron.com>, " - *vversen@enron.com" <vversen@enron.com>, " -
*cindy.vachuska@enron.com" <cindy.vachuska@enron.com>, " -
*cora_pendergrass@enron.com" <cora_pendergrass@enron.com>, " -
*mmitche2@enron.com" <mmitche2@enron.com>, " - *scott.goodell@enron.com"
<scott.goodell@enron.com>, " - *steve.gillespie@enron.com"
<steve.gillespie@enron.com>, " - *cgarcia@enron.com" <cgarcia@enron.com>, " -
*despey@enron.com" <despey@enron.com>, " - *joann.collins@enron.com"
<joann.collins@enron.com>
Subject: Updated May '00 FOM requriements

The attached file is an update to the original one sent on Friday with our May
daily volume requirements.   Please refer to the "comments" worksheet and the
comments dated 4/24/00 for differences between this version and the original.
Please let me know if you have questions, problems, etc.

Doug Kinney
Ph:  703-561-6339
Fax:  703-561-7317

 - May00_FOM_Req2.xls


---------------------- Forwarded by Pinnamaneni Krishnarao/HOU/ECT on
02/18/2000 08:34 AM ---------------------------

Ajay.Khandelwal.Ftmba99-00@Cranfield.ac.uk on 02/18/2000 06:07:50 AM
To: "Pinnamaneni Krishnarao" <Pinnamaneni.Krishnarao@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Schroeder

Hi Mr. Rao!

Thanks a lot for your mail.

I would be meeting MArk and Mr. Paul Dawson on 1st March and would let you
know the outcome of the meeting.

In the mean time i am enjoying my MBA Program and hope that the outcome  of
the meeting would be positive.

Best Regards

Ajay

|--------+---------------------------------->
|        |          "Pinnamaneni Krishnarao"|
|        |          <Pinnamaneni.Krishnarao@|
|        |          enron.com>              |
|        |                                  |
|        |          17/02/00 08:20 AM       |
|        |                                  |
|--------+---------------------------------->
  >-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                       |
  |       To:     Ajay.Khandelwal.Ftmba99-00@Cranfield.ac.uk              |
  |       cc:     (bcc: AJAY KHANDELWAL/CUSOM)                            |
  |       Subject:     Meeting with Mark Schroeder                        |
  >-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Ajay!
     Hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you met with Mark and what
you
guys decided. Let me know either way. If it doesn't work out with Mark, I
will
arrange something else through our research group.
Krishna.


Vince,

You mentioned yesterday to send you an e-mail reminder to speak with Norma.
I appreciate your support.   Just as a reminder, I started on October 2,
which was a Monday.  October 1 was a Sunday.

Thanks for your support on this issue Vince.

Sincerely,
Lance


Hi Rosalee:
Steve asked that I forward this to you.  I believe that Steve left you a
voicemail describing the nature of the email.

All the best,
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/15/2001 06:51 PM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	02/15/2001 06:11 PM

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com, skean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron,
James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject:

----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/15/2001 05:57 PM -----

	Jeff Dasovich
	Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
	02/15/2001 05:56 PM

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject:

Jim:
It was a pleasure speaking with you on Wednesday.  Based on our conversation,
this email includes the following:

An Enron contact to discuss developing small-scale generation on Tribal lands.

Our views on the impediments to distributed generation and suggestions on how
to remove those impediments.

A description of the credit issues that continue to impede DWR,s ability to
sign contracts with power suppliers, and options to resolve them. Two
possible options for addressing the credit issue are 1) a California PUC
order clarifying that DWR will recover its power purchase costs through
rates, and 2) an amendment to AB1X designed to accomplish the same goal.  I
have attached talking points regarding the California PUC order and proposed
amendments to AB1X.  We believe that an amendment to AB1X is the preferable
option.

Our assessment of the supply/demand picture in California.

Our suggestions for a legislative package designed to solve both the near-
and long-term electricity crisis in California.  We will deliver to your
office tomorrow detailed legislative language.  In those materials we will
also identify existing bills that we believe can easily accommodate our
proposed language.

I hope that the information is useful.  Please do not hesitate to contact me
if you would like to discuss these materials further, or if there is anything
else that I can do to assist you.

Regards,
Ken

Contact Information to Discuss Interest Expressed by Native American Tribes
in Installing Small-scale Generation on Tribal Lands

David Parquet, Vice-President
Enron North America
101 California Street, Suite 1950
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.782.7820
Fax: 415.782.7851

2. Key Barriers to Distributed Generation

Excessive and Unnecessary Utility Stand-by Charges

Solution: The executive orders issued by the Governor on February 14th took a
step in the right direction.  Utility stand-by charges have always been
designed by the utilities to protect their monopoly position, extract
monopoly prices from customers, or both.  But there is no reason to limit the
elimination of these charges to generation facilities that are less than
1MW.  These limits will only lengthen unnecessarily the time it takes for
California to close the significant gap between supply and demand and reduce
the risk of black outs this summer.  We would propose lifting the cap by
offering amendments to SB27X, which is designed to facilitate development of
distributed generation.

Excessive delays and costs related to interconnecting facilities with
investor-owned and municipal utilities

Solution:   The Governor,s executive order regarding interconnection is a
step in the right direction*D-D-26-01 requires utilities to complete
interconnection studies within 7 days.  California should ensure that this
requirement applies to all generation facilities, including distributed
generation.  In addition, the financial conflicts the utilities face when
interconnecting generation facilities are simply too powerful to overcome
through executive orders or other regulations.  To the greatest extent
possible, California should shift control over interconnection away from the
utility and place that control with the California ISO.  This could be
accomplished through amendments to SB 27X.

Permitting and Air Quality Issues
Developers of distributed (i.e., &on-site8) generation that is 50 MWs or
greater must receive certification from the California Energy Commission and
therefore face all of the impediments to development that large-scale
generation faces.

Solution: California should ensure that the executive orders (D-22-01 thru
D-26-01) issued by the Governor to expedite plant siting and maximize plant
output apply equally to smaller scale, &distributed generation8 facilities.
In addition, distributed generation that is less than 50 MWs continues to
face local opposition.  The State should ensure that local, parochial
interests cannot block otherwise beneficial distributed generation projects.
These objectives could be accomplished through amendments to SB27X.

3. Credit Concerns Regarding Authority Granted to DWR in AB1X to Purchase
Electricity on Behalf of the Utilities

Enron responded to the RFP issued by DWR to enter into power contracts with
suppliers.
Enron is in active discussions with DWR to establish contract terms with the
goal of entering into a power purchase agreement as soon as possible.
However, ambiguities contained in AB1X have created significant credit risk
concerns that need to be resolved in order to finalize contract terms.
We understand that the lion,s share of counterparties share Enron,s credit
risk concerns.
Enron has proposed several options for resolving the credit risk issues and
is working with DWR to arrive at a solution that is mutually agreeable to
both sides and that might serve as a template for power purchase agreements
going forward.

Summary of the Source of the Credit Risk Issue

Ambiguous Ratemaking Authority
The language in AB1X is ambiguous as to whether DWR has any authority to
charge California ratepayers for the costs of purchasing power.  From our
analysis of the bill, the language in AB1X appears to leave intact the
California PUC,s exclusive jurisdiction over ratemaking in California.  As
such, suppliers have no assurance that the PUC will agree to include in rates
adequate charges to cover DWR,s costs of power purchases.

Ambiguous Regulatory Authority Regarding Contract &Prudence8
The language in AB1X leaves open the possibility that the California Public
Utilities Commission could determine that power purchases made by DWR are
&imprudent.8  On the basis of such a finding, the CPUC could then refuse to
allow DWR to collect from ratepayers the costs associated with its power
purchases.  Consequently, suppliers have no assurance that the PUC will agree
to include in rates the charges to cover the costs of power contracts that
DWR has entered into with suppliers.

Ambiguous Language Regarding the Ratemaking Mechanism that Will Be Used to
Recover DWR,s Costs of Power Purchases
In addition to the ambiguity regarding ratemaking and regulatory authority
noted above, the language in the bill is equally ambiguous with respect to
the specific ratemaking &mechanics8 that AB1X directs the PUC to employ to
permit DWR to recover its power purchase costs. Based on our analysis, it is
extremely difficult to determine how the PUC would design the rates to ensure
DWR recovers its power purchase costs.  Moreover, as currently drafted, it is
difficult to determine whether AB1X would even permit the PUC to include in
rates all of the charges necessary to fully recover DWR,s power purchase
costs.  Again, this ambiguity raises significant credit risk concerns since
suppliers have little assurance that DWR will have the ability to recover
from ratepayers the costs of purchasing power.

Options to Resolve Concerns Regarding Credit Risk

We have been working diligently with DWR officials to resolve the credit risk
issues.  We have identified three options:

Amend AB1X
The amendments, which are attached to this email, would clarify that a) the
PUC would accept as &prudent and reasonable8 all purchase costs incurred by
DWR, and b) the PUC is obligated to include in rates the charges necessary to
ensure that DWR fully recovers its costs of power purchases.  This is the
preferred option, though we understand that the there may be some political
challenges standing in the way of amending AB1X.  (See attached file
entitled, &AmendAB1X.doc8.)

Clarify the Ambiguities in AB1X through an Order Issued by the PUC, and
through Contract Language
This is the option that we are currently working with DWR officials to
implement.  However, it is more complicated and could take significantly more
time to implement than the "legislative" fix.  We have attached electronic
copies of the talking points related to the order that the California PUC
would need to issue under this option.  (See attached file entitled,
&cpuctalkingpoints.doc.8)

Make Use of Other Instruments Designed to Address Credit Risk
As indicated in our letter responding to DWR,s RFP, we are willing to accept
other forms of credit from DWR.  Those options include a letter of credit,
cash prepayment, or an acceptable form of collateral.  DWR officials have
indicated to us that DWR prefers to pursue the second options. That is, DWR
prefers to clarify the ambiguities in AB1X through a PUC order and through
contract amendments.

4. California,s Supply-demand Picture Heading into Summer 2001

Both the California Energy Commission and Cambridge Energy Research
Associates (CERA), a private sector energy think tank, have issued reports
showing that California faces a severe supply-demand imbalance.  They differ
only on how much and how soon additional supply will be made available.  All
credible sources agree that supply will be very tight throughout the Summer
of 2001 and that unless a solution is found immediately, blackouts are
likely.

CEC and CERA both forecast that California will be short of supply this
summer by approximately 5,000 MW.   These numbers are in line with our
estimates.  California,s supply base currently has a 6% capacity margin, well
below the average 15-20%, which is recommended for reliable system operation
in the West.  Since the West relies more heavily upon hydroelectric power
than other regions, reserves are particularly important, owing to the
unpredictability of the weather and the dry year the West has experienced to
date. In the event of a low rain and snow period, the system must possess the
flexibility to respond to the reduced availability of power supply.
California,s very low reserve margin makes it especially susceptible to this
requirement.

Other reasons for reduced supply for the Summer of 2001 include the early
draw-down of reservoirs in the continual effort to manage California's severe
supply-demand gap; emissions restrictions on existing plants; and a reduced
number of customers who can be curtailed under their contracts with the
utilities.  Cambridge Energy Research Associates asserts that at the current
pace of siting, permitting and construction, adequate supplies will not be
added to correct the market imbalance until 2003 at the earliest.

CERA predicts that California is likely to face approximately 20 hours of
rolling black outs this summer.  The CEC paints a considerably more
optimistic scenario, betting that California will bring an additional 5,000
MWs on line to meet peaking summer demand.  It is our view that California
should view the CEC's "rosy scenario" with considerable skepticism.

5. Suggested Package of Legislative Proposals Designed to Solve California,s
Electricity Crisis

This email offers an overview of our proposed legislative solution.  We will
deliver to your office tomorrow specific legislative language and existing
bills that we believe can accommodate our proposals.

As we have suggested throughout the crisis, any solution to California's
crisis must focus on four issues:

Increase supply
Decrease demand
Establish a truly competitive retail electricity market
Return California,s Investor-owned utilities to solvency

Increase supply--Legislative vehicle: SB28X (Sher)
To site and construct a power plant in Texas takes approximately 2 years.
Enron and others have completed the entire process in other states in less
than a year.  In California, it takes about six years, or longer.

The Governor,s executive orders and Senator Sher,s siting reform legislation
are steps in the right direction.  Our suggested amendments can improve those
efforts by further addressing the difficulties that project developers face
in securing air emission reduction credits to meet the air permit
requirements included in the CEC's certification requirements.  Enron,s
proposal seeks to streamline the process for 1) obtaining credits and 2)
transfering credits between air districts.  In addition, it creates an
innovative emissions reduction bank to allow project sponsors to fund
emissions in advance of obtaining certification, and permits the affected air
districts to use those funds to finance projects that will produce the
required reductions in pollution emissions.

Decrease demand*Legislative Vehicle:   AB31X (Wright)
Because of the delay in getting a solution in place in California, closing
the supply-demand gap through energy conservation and efficiency offers the
best chance of avoiding blackouts this summer.  This can be accomplished most
effectively and quickly in two ways:

Buy-down demand
California is tapping into an enormous amount of money from the General Fund
to finance DWR,s power purchases.  California could likely reduce demand more
economically by running an auction to determine the payments businesses would
be willing to receive to reduce their demand for a sustained period (e.g.,
through the summer months).  DWR could easily run an on-line auction to
determine the price it could pay for these demand reductions.  To
participate, businesses would be required to have the metering equipment
necessary to monitor and verify that they are actually achieving the
reductions.  Enron has developed an on-line auction software package, &Deal
Bench,8 that it would be willing to contribute to the effort.

Use Price Signals to Incent Voluntary Curtailment
To be successful, customers need access to the following key elements:

An internet based hour-ahead price posting system to track the market price
for hour-ahead power in real time.
Real-time metering systems for baseline demand and voluntarily curtailment
verification.
Settlement process that allows for market clearing prices of energy to be
paid for load reduction (&Negawatts8).

The potential benefits of an effective demand response program would include:

&creation8 of additional summer peaking capacity in California, particularly
in the short term, without requiring construction of additional generation
resources.
reduction of  peak or super-peak load on the over-stressed California
electric system, thus potentially reducing the overall cost of electricity in
the state.
fostering of demand elasticity without subjecting customers to the full risk
of hourly market price volatility by passing market price signals to
customers and allowing them to voluntarily shed load and be compensated for
responding.

We estimate that we could generate a summer 2001 on-peak demand response in
excess of 400 MW during certain high cost hours, and a demand response for
summer 2002 on-peak hours that could exceed 1000 MW.  We further estimate
that the market response to this program from all ESPs could be 2 to 3 times
that amount.  We recommend that the State of California provide rebates
directly to customers to fund the installation of advanced metering and
control systems that would support load curtailment implementation.

Establish a truly competitive retail electricity market*Legislative vehicle:
SB27X
The only customers who were protected from price volatility in San Diego were
customers who chose Direct Access and signed fixed price deals with energy
service providers.  Ironically, AB1X takes that important option away from
customers and businesses.  It is critical that AB1X be amended to remove the
prohibition against Direct Access.

Enron's legislative proposal would give customers freedom to enter into a
direct access transaction, while simultaneously addressing the Department of
Water Resources' concerns about stranded power costs that might result from
customer migration.

In addition, California will only achieve a competitive retail market when
the utility is removed completely from the procurement function.  Procurement
is not a utility core competency, as evidenced by the dire financial
condition in which the utilities now find themselves.  California should
therefore begin immediately to phase the utility out of the procurement
function entirely, with the goal of having all customers served by a
non-utility provider within 36 months.  To execute the transition, California
should hold a series of competitive solicitations over the 36-month period in
which competing service providers would bid for the right to serve segments
of utility load.

Return California,s Investor-owned utilities to solvency*Legislative vehicle:
AB18X
Utility bankruptcy will not increase supply and it will not decrease demand.
In short, bankruptcy does nothing to solve California,s supply-demand
imbalance.  In addition, bankruptcy increases the likelihood that consumers
and businesses will bear the significant financial risks of having California
State government assume the role of &electricity buyer8 for an extended
period of time.  Finally, bankruptcy will undermine both investor confidence
in California's energy markets and the private sector's willingness to
participate in that market.

California can return the utilities to financial solvency by implementing a
series of staged rate increases.  California should design those rate
increases with the dual goal of returning the utilities to solvency without
&shocking8 the economy or household budgets For example, California could
amortize the recovery of the utilities, past debt over a 5-10 year period.
In addition, the magnitude of the rate increase can be reduced in two ways:
First, the utilities could absorb some portion of their existing debt in
recognition of the risk they accepted when they agreed to the structure of AB
1890.  Second, California can &net8 the revenues the utilities have received
from selling electricity into the Power Exchange against the debts they have
accrued due to the retail price cap.


Daren-
Deal # 421859 Sales
Deal # 421847 Purchase

Settlements is showing both a sales and purchase for Texas General Land
Office and they are stating that they should not be billed or paid for
anything.
Are these deals suppose to be a washout and netted together?

 If so, the volumes are not matching: the sales on HPL are 7,440 mmbtus on
deal #421859 and the purchase on MidTX is 6,629 mmbtus.
Let me know what type of deal this was intended to be.

FYI
I was told that Tom Acton was handling this deal, but I believe he will be
out until after Thanksgiving.


[IMAGE]
NCI Marketing Web Alert

[IMAGE]
Dear Subscriber,          Foundmoney brings to you an incredibly exciting program.There is $7,000,000,000.00 (SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS!) in unclaimed moneys from bank accounts, wills, insurance settlements, over paid tax bills and estates. Three out of five American families are owed money  in some form. Since inception in 1995, Foundmoney.com has helped hundreds of thousands of people find millions of dollars on the internet.  Click here  or on the link below to find out in seconds... if you or anyone you know is entitled to claim any of the  $7 BILLION that's owed to millions on Americans... The SEARCH IS FREE, and you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose... This is the  amazing website that was featured on "The Oprah Winfrey Show"... Click here  now to see if you can claim any of the  $7,000,000,000.00!  Sincerely,  Payment Transfer Systems Disbursement Unit
[IMAGE]

 You are receiving this special offer because you have provided permission to receive third party email communications regarding special online promotions or offers. If you do not wish to receive any further messages from Network Commerce, please  click here  to unsubscribe. Any third-party offers contained in this email are the sole responsibility of the offer originator. Copyright ? 2001 Network Commerce Inc.