You may want to forward this to your customers.
---------------------- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 06/30/2001
07:23 AM ---------------------------

Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com> on 06/28/2001 04:51:56 PM
To: Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@govadv.com>, Mike Day <MDay@GMSSR.com>, Bev Hansen
<bhansen@lhom.com>, Jeff Dasovich <jdasovic@enron.com>, Susan J Mara
<smara@enron.com>, Paul Kaufman <paul.kaufman@enron.com>, Michael McDonald
<Michael.McDonald@enron.com>, Rick Shapiro <rshapiro@enron.com>, Jim Steffes
<james.d.steffes@enron.com>, Alan Comnes <acomnes@enron.com>, Steven Kean
<Steven.J.Kean@enron.com>, Karen Denne <kdenne@enron.com>,
"Harry.Kingerski@enron.com" <Harry.Kingerski@enron.com>, Leslie Lawner
<Leslie.Lawner@enron.com>, Robert Frank <rfrank@enron.com>, Ken Smith
<ken@kdscommunications.com>, Janel Guerrero <Janel.Guerrero@enron.com>,
Miyung Buster <Miyung.Buster@enron.com>, Jennifer Thome
<Jennifer.Thome@enron.com>, Eric Letke <eletke@enron.com>, Mary Schoen
<Mary.Schoen@enron.com>, David Leboe <David.Leboe@ENRON.com>, Ban Sharma
<ban.sharma@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Customers

The California Chamber of Commerce received a call from someone at the
CPUC who requested that they send as many customers as possible to
testify at Tuesday's hearing in favor of direct access.   The Chamber
has requested the same thing of Enron.


Alan,
I spoke with Jeff on Tuesday regarding the overseas vehicle and where we want
to proceed.   Jeff suggested that we document the current understanding based
upon all the work which has been done to date.

We are awaiting Goldman, Sach's preferential margining treatment of Short
proceeds against longs in our current structure which would lessen the
benefits of moving overseas at this time.

Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks., Sheila


Mark,

As mentioned in our call on Tuesday, we have discussed with the US Embassy
(State Dept) what we would like to see covered in the next round of the US
Japan bilateral talks on deregulation in the energy sector. I attach a brief
note which confirms in broad terms our preliminary discussions on the topic.

We are encouraging a significantly more cooperative approach by the US to
Japan, particularly in the wake of the telecom talks earlier this year. As
mentioned in the attached note, we believe that the Japanese Government
genuinely wants to implement further reform, but is having difficulty in
balancing competing policy interests. We are not advocating that the USG tell
Japan what its environmental policy or energy policy should be. We are
suggesting more of an advisory role. The concrete outcome would be further
significant reforms to the electricity and gas sectors, together with a
timetable for complete deregulation.

We have consciously stopped short of recommending a preferred structure for
the electricity and gas sectors for a couple of reasons. Not only would it be
inappropriate for the USG to dictate to the Japanese Government on what to do
rather than how to do it, but determining the Enron preferred structure for
Japan is a significant undertaking and something that we are currently
working through. In this regard, as mentioned on Tuesday we will be looking
for significant support from your group and clearly will need sign off from
Europe and Houston.

The approach we are recommending that the US Government adopts reflects the
approach we propose adopting in Japan. To assist us in getting our message to
the right people, we have been taking steps to further develop our
relationships with cabinet ministers, the MITI Director General and others,
including members of the following committees who are or will be reviewing
various aspects of energy policy in Japan:
- the LDP Comprehensive Energy Policy Study Committee (Chair - Mr Amari)
- the supra partisan New Energy Policy Committee ( Chair - former PM Mr
Hashimoto)
- the business lead Deregulation Committee (Chair - Orix chairman Miyauchi)
- the MITI sponsored Liberalization of Power Industry and Public Interest
Committee ( Comprising academics)

I would welcome your comments on the attached note.


I have a letter on its way to Mike Moscoso right now (interoffice mail).  We
requested 5000 for nat gas any one month, but were only approved for an
additional 2000.  So we went from 15,000 to 17,000.

Welcome back!


Steve / Julia, if this is OK, will you please forward to all Market Services
members.
thanks
KH

Pursuant to our conversation today, we will implement the following change in
the way Market Services allocates the California delivery points:

Historically we have allocated the border as an area.  Effective 9/18/00
until further notice, we will allocate the border by individual points.

If SoCal windows TW down to a number less than the standard 750,000 MMBtu/d,
then we will allocate shipper noms down to the window total.
PGE and Mojave points will be individually allocated to their capacities as
well.

If the opportunity arises whereby gas allocated at Needles can be moved to
Topock or Mojave, then Market Services should work with the Shippers to
accommodate their needs.

The West of Thoreau area should not exceed the 1,090,000 MMBtu/d capacity
constraint.

Any questions can be directed to Steve January, TK Lohman, or Darrell
Schoolcraft.


**********************************************************************
CERA Watch: Sent Tue, December 12, 2000
**********************************************************************

Title: Atlantic Basin Markets Precariously Balanced for Winter
Author: Refined Products Team
E-Mail Category: Watch
Product Line: Refined Products ,

URL: http://www.cera.com/client/rp/wch/121200_19/rp_wch_121200_19_ab.html
*********************************************************

A psychology of shortage--driven by short-term
fundamentals and amplified by political events affecting
the crude oil market--has dominated refined products
markets for much of 2000. But does this signal a
fundamental shift in the business environment for the
refining industry? Probably not, since the margin
strength of this year has been the result of the
declining inventories and steeply backwardated futures
prices that have been a feature of crude oil and refined
products markets through most of 1999 and 2000. Global
refining capacity continues to outpace demand with
notable additions to effective capacity in Asia, the
Middle East, and Africa in store for 2001. As a result,
CERA's outlook is for moderating refining margins as the
year progresses.

**end**

Follow URL for PDF version of Full Report.

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

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

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


I am still using the list.  I have to circulate the list to the team from time to time.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Panus, Stephanie
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 9:38 AM
To:	Jones, Tana
Subject:	NDAs

Tana,
Are you still using your list on Word for the Online and Offline NDAs or are you now only recording them in Lotus Notes under "Networks Agreements"?

Thanks!


You are cordially invited to attend an overview session provided by the ENA
Human Resource department regarding the Performance Evaluation Process
(PEP).  Employees who have not attended any previous PEP training or new
managers are strongly encouraged to attend this session.  However, all are
invited to attend.

What:   Overview of the Performance Evaluation Process
When:  Monday, October 30, 2000
   12:00-1:30 p.m. or 3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
   OR
   Tuesday, October 31, 2000
   10:00-11:30 a.m. or 12:00-1:30 p.m.
Where:  Doubletree (next to 2 Allen Center),  De Zavala Conference Room
Available seating: 50  per session
Bring your lunch. Drinks  and cookies will be provided.
If you are unable to attend, there will be a Technical and a Process guide
available through the web base site http://pep.corp.enron.com.  Also, there
is a PEP Help Desk hotline of (713)853-4777 option 4 should you have any
questions during the evaluation process.


Per conv. w/Anthony, we should expect 13 people.  We do not need to
teleconference anyone in.  Anthony wanted the London Global Contracts people
on the line, but I discussed it with Mark, and their forms and legal issues
are so different from ours that I told Anthony that they need to contact
London Legal if they would like a presentation.


FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT on 12/14/99
07:51 AM ---------------------------

"Van T. Ngo" <vngo@rice.edu> on 12/04/99 11:17:01 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Christmas break

Dear Vince,

As the holidays approach, I am excited by my coming break from classes
but also about the opportunity to see everyone at Enron again and to
work with you and them soon.  I am writing to let you know that I would
be very happy to work at Enron over my break and I would like to plan
out a schedule.

My semester officially ends Dec. 20th but I may be out of town the week
before Christmas.  I will be available the following three weeks, from
Monday, Dec. 27 to Friday, Jan. 14.  Please let me know if during those
three weeks, you would like me to work and for what dates you would need
the most help so that we can arrange a schedule that would be most
helpful to you and so that I can contact Andrea at ProStaff soon.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about a
possible work schedule for me.

Give my regards to everyone at the office and wishes for a very happy
holiday season!  I look forward to seeing you soon.

Sincerely,
Van Ngo

Ph: 713-630-8038

 - att1.htm


John,

What about a lunch on Monday (April 3), 11:30?

Vince


Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 05/07/2001 12:13 PM -----

	"Chris Micheli" <cmicheli@carpentersnodgrass.com>
	05/07/2001 10:14 AM

		 To: "Susan McCabe" <smccabe@mccabeandcompany.net>, "Sue Mara"
<smara@enron.com>, "Steven Kelley" <steven@iepa.com>, "Steve Ponder"
<steve_ponder@fpl.com>, "Stephanie Newell"
<stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>, "Scott Sadler"
<sadlersa@earthlink.net>, "Scott Govenar" <sgovenar@govadv.com>, "Sandi
McCubbin" <smccubbi@enron.com>, "Ron Tom" <rtom@govadv.com>, "Roger Pelote"
<roger.pelote@williams.com>, "Robert Ross" <robbiz@cwo.com>, "Rina Venturini"
<rventurini@teamgsi.net>, "Richard Hyde" <rwhyde@duke-energy.com>, "Rachel
King" <rachel.king@elpaso.com>, "Phil Isenberg" <isenberg@hmot.com>, "Mike
Monagan" <mrmonagan@aol.com>, "Maureen O'Haren" <oharen@hmot.com>, "Marie
Moretti" <mmoretti@mccabeandcompany.net>, "Lynn Lednicky" <lale@dynegy.com>,
"Kent Palmerton" <kent.palmerton@williams.com>, "Katie Kaplan"
<kaplan@iepa.com>, "Kassandra Gough" <kgough@calpine.com>, "Julee Ball"
<jmball@ns.net>, "John Stout" <john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>, "John Larrea"
<john.g.larrea@williams.com>, "Joe Ronan" <joer@calpine.com>, "Jeff Dasovich"
<jeff.dasovich@enron.com>, "Jean Munoz" <jmunoz@mcnallytemple.com>, "Jan
Smutny Jones" <smutny@iepa.com>, "Jack Pigott" <jackp@calpine.com>, "Hedy
Govenar" <hgovenar@govadv.com>, "Greg Blue" <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "Fred Pownall"
<fred_pownall@ka-pow.com>, "Delaney Hunter" <dhunter@s-k-w.com>, "Chuck Cole"
<ccole@advocation-inc.com>, "Bev Hansen" <bhansen@lhom.com>, "Anne Kelly"
<kelly@hnks.com>, "Andy Brown" <abb@eslawfirm.com>, "John Norwood"
<janorwood@norped.com>, "Pete Conaty" <pcaceo@pacbell.net>, "Matt Kilroy"
<matt.kilroy@pge-corp.com>, "Cary Rudman" <cjrudman@softcom.net>, "Carolyn
McIntyre" <cmcintyre@sempra.com>, "Barbara LeVake" <blevake@syix.com>, "Paula
Soos" <psoos@covantaenergy.com>, "Pat Pape" <ppape@calpine.com>, "Mohammed
Alrai" <mohammeda@calpine.com>, "Kent Robertson" <kentr@calpine.com>,
"Katherine Potter" <katherip@calpine.com>, "Juan Rodriguez"
<juanr@calpine.com>, "Eileen Koch" <eileenk@calpine.com>, "Bill Highlander"
<highlander@calpine.com>, "Aymee Ramos" <aymeer@calpine.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Corbett Press Conference

This morning Assemblywoman Ellen Corbett held a press conference on her AB
128x.  Several print journalists and 3 TV cameras were present at the
conference.  Also of interest is that the Senate tax consultants and Burton's
staff were at the event.  Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson showed up late
and gave a few quotes to the media present.  A spokesman from Mirant also
gave a few interviews after the press conference.
According to Corbett's staff, they expect to handout the bill amendments at
the hearing.
Among Corbett's comments to the media present:
"This bill is not a negotiating tool.  I'm very serious about this bill.  I
want to see it through the process.  The Governor will sign a bill like this."
The following amendments are to be presented at the committee hearing today
as follows:
AB 128X
1) Creates a Tax on Excess Gross Receipts from Electrical Energy
Distribution (called a "tax on excess greed")
2) Imposes a tax on the first sale of electricity by generators and
middlemen.
3) Establishes as the measure for the tax, the amount by which the
gross receipts exceed a specified price ("the base price").  The measure of
tax is called the excess gross receipts.
4) Creates a 3-tier system of rates as follows:
a) Sales price more than the base price but not more than 150%
of the base price, tax rate = 50%
b) Sales price more than 150% of the base price but not more
than 200% of the base price, tax rate = 70%
c) Sales price more than 200% of the base price, tax rate = 90%
5) Creates a rebuttable presumption that the base price represents a
fair sales price.
6)  Adds a mechanism to require withholding of the tax by purchasers.
Residential consumers and small business are exempt.
7)  Requires sellers to file annual tax returns to report the tax on excess
gross receipts and pay any remaining tax due.
8)  The measure sunsets after five (5) years.
There will be a report after today's Assembly Rev & Tax Cmte hearing.
As opposed to SB 1x that returns the taxes raised to ratepayers, AB 128x
would "repay" the State's General Fund.

Chris Micheli, Esq.
Carpenter Snodgrass & Associates
1201 K Street, Suite 710
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 447-2251
FAX: (916) 445-5624
EMAIL: cmicheli@carpentersnodgrass.com


This is a copy of your message sent to plucci01@talkmatch.com -->

Testing my ability to receive emails'

Click the following link to view the sender's profile:
http://www.match.com/doubleblind/showprofile.asp?UserID=484948454C4B4E&trackingid=65685

The following is my profile text:

Hello, I'm a down to earth person that likes to laugh and have a good time. I work in downtown Denver as a commodities trader for a large energy trading house. I do enjoy my career but understand life needs to be kept in prospective and be balanced. I enjoy activities over sitting and watching, but I have been known to sit in front of the TV and watch football or college basketball all day. I'm looking for someone who enjoys life and doesn't take themselves too seriously.

*********************************************************

ADDITIONAL TIPS from Match.com:

Our anonymous re-mailer will strip away your real email address, so
that it will NOT appear in the 'From:' line.

You may also contact this person from their Match.com profile by
clicking 'Contact this person' and composing your message directly from the
site.

However:

* Check to ensure that your email address is not in the BODY of your
message as we are unable to remove these.

* Check to ensure that you REMOVE ANY AUTOMATIC SIGNATURE at the end of

your email. And note that you cannot use 'Cc:' or 'Bcc:' if you want
your email to remain anonymous.

Match.com does not monitor private email between members, nor are we
liable for the content of these messages. All members are bound by our
Match.com Service Agreement.


Hi Joannie --

Carrie is an Indiana commissioner and we have invited two other Indiana commissioners.  Assuming one of her colleagues, Judith Ripley or David Zeigner accept, there is not a need to send an alternate. We appreciate the offer though.

Thanks, MSA

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Williamson, Joannie
Sent:	Monday, July 23, 2001 11:47 AM
To:	Allen, Margaret
Subject:	FW: energy policy forum

FYI...

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Swanson-Hull, Camie" <CSwanson-Hull@urc.state.in.us>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Swanson-Hull+2C+20Camie+22+20+3CCSwanson-Hull+40urc+2Estate+2Ein+2Eus+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, July 23, 2001 10:47 AM
To:	Skilling, Jeff
Subject:	energy policy forum

Mr. Skilling,
Thank you for your kind invitation to participate in the interesting program that you are sponsoring in October.  Unfortunately, I have a conflicting commitment and will be unable to attend.  May I pass the information on to one of the other Commissioners here, or have you also invited others from our commission?
Thank you.
Camie Swanson-Hull


No problem Ruppie.  I am trying to find a date for tomorrow.  Will know
shortly after lunch.  I will let you know.

	Ryan.F.Ruppert@EXXON.sprint.com
	12/14/2000 09:30 AM

		 To: Gerald.Nemec@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Sorry

         Date: December 14, 2000
         From: Ruppert, Ryan F.                            R9RUPPE  - AMERICAS
           To: EXT-GERALD.NEMEC(A)ENRON.COM,               GERALDNE - FPEXMAIL
      Subject: Sorry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald,

Sorry for the call in the middle of the night.  My well is drilling and I
asked them to call me if they got an oil show.  The well should reach total
depth on Sunday so you might want to turn your ringer off in the bedroom
until then.

-Ryan

Ps.  Are you in for the Christmas Carol at the Alley tomorrow?  I need to get
rid of the tickets.

RYAN F. RUPPERT
West Texas Geoscience
U.S. West Production
ExxonMobil Production Co.


Hey!  I just wanted to let you guys know that I have a DHA meeting at 7:30am tomorrow morning, so I won't be in until about 9:15am.  Please call my cell phone if you need anything.  281-772-3542

Thanks!

Andrea


TJ has a copy if required while I'm out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Will, Lloyd
Sent: Fri 12/14/2001 8:25 AM
To: Black, Tamara Jae
Cc:
Subject: netco trading.xls

<< netco trading.xls >>


Frank- I would really like Jason Hotra from Harvard to meet you and the desk
(Philip, Steve, Ken, etc..)- if you could spare a few minutes during the day
- I can have him sit at the desk or meet for a bit after the market closes to
go through rockies/ socal.

Thanks,
Caroline


---------------------- Forwarded by Laura Harder/Corp/Enron on 11/27/2000
08:43 AM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Amanda Huble                           11/22/2000 10:47 AM

To: Becky Young/NA/Enron@Enron, Laura Harder/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jessica
Presas/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Ina Rangel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Airam Arteaga/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Kimberly Brown/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Please forward to your groups.

Reminder...

PIRA will be here giving a presentation on November 30th in EB32C2 at 3:30
p.m.  Attached are 2 versions  of the presentation.

Thank you,
Amanda Huble
Ext: 34384

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.


the missing attachment !!!!!!

Please note that these are the controls primarily associated with the Middle
Office.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike Jordan/LON/ECT on 15/06/2000 13:40
---------------------------

Mike Jordan
15/06/2000 13:34
To: John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT, Fernley
Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Doorstep meeting - additional action steps

From our meeting yesterday I noted the following additional action steps (
not recorded within report )

Immediate

Define a summary of fundamental controls on one page  - that can be reviewed
on a cross functional basis ( Commercial, Commercial Support and RAC - the
execute, control and review functions ) - timetable
draft summary schedule - done

Separately get business controllers and RAC management to rate each business
by control point ( Red, Amber or Green ) by next Thursday and arrange joint
meetings with Commercial on businesses that have a poor assessment or
significantly different assessments - Action Mike Jordan and Steve Young

Others as soon as possible
Follow up on status of investment required for Weather business in Oslo -
Action Mike Jordan
Investigate reporting of trades not captured on trade date within DPR on a
daily basis  - Action Mike Jordan
Establish accountability for existing process for creating authorised trader
list  - Action Steve Young
Change process for publishing authorisation list  - placing it on commercial
bulleting board - and reference location within DPR - Action Mike Jordan
Generate an update of status re Master ISDA - Action Steve Young and
investigate possibility of flagging this status within GCP  - Action Mike
Jordan
Determine current EOL straight through process rate ( STP ) across bridges to
risk management systems  - Action Mike Jordan
Define summary information on Coal/P&P etc businesses for inclusion in DPR
for supervisory review by John

Regards

mike


The curve files for Netco will need to be modified before they are used in the new environment.

    1)   On the Publish tab in the Curve File sheet.
Change the environment name on the 5th row to ermtp
Change the service name on the 5th row to 7525
Change the Network Address on the 5th row to ;239.44.16.1;

2) Then hit the   button on the publish sheet and save the new file.
If the sheet does not have the button, just save the file, close it, and bring it back up.

3)	Save your curves as normal

4)	Any questions or problems, please give me a call

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)>


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 03/31/2001
10:23 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. - Europe

	From:  Kirstee Hewitt                           03/28/2001 12:41 PM

To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Viacheslav Danilov/LON/ECT@ECT, Tanya Tamarchenko/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: VaR doc - London

Hi Vince,
As we discussed last week here is the VaR doc that I had originally started
at Xmas and has since been expanded with Stig's and Tanya's help.

We  would be very grateful for your comments.
Cheers
Kirstee


Lucy,

 I want to speak to Wade myself.  He can call me at work or home. Or if you
email me his number I will call him.
 I would like Gary to direct Wade on renovation tasks and you can give him
work orders for normal maintenance.

 I will call you tomorrow to discuss items from the office.  Do you need Mary
to come in on any more Fridays?  I think I
 can guess your answer.

 I might stop by this Friday.

Phillip


Please respond to Jennifer
---------------------- Forwarded by John Arnold/HOU/ECT on 01/26/2001 12:06
PM ---------------------------

	From:  Jennifer Fraser                           01/26/2001 11:04 AM

To: John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Eloy Escobar Review

Are you going to do this? I am happy to--- I just need you to print the
forms--- i'll do it and we can jointly sign and keep everyone happy. IF it's
okay with you I am going to give him his numbers
JF


In case you haven't received it already, attached is an electronic copy of
the plan issued by the CDWR recently for their power purchases


-----Original Message-----
From: 	David Heineke <dheineke@corustuscaloosa.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-David+20Heineke+20+3Cdheineke+40corustuscaloosa+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:44 AM
To:	'dhones1969@yahoo.com'; 'dfarmer@ECT.ENRON.com'; Dennis Acker; Jim Wallis; John Foster; Ricky Stewart
Subject:	FW: Subject: Survivor 2

The contestants ain't got a chance!

-----Original Message-----
From:	GRIFFIN, BARBARA [SMTP:GRIFFIN@LONESTARSTEEL.com]
<mailto:[SMTP:GRIFFIN@LONESTARSTEEL.com]>
Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:23 AM
To:	ALAN ALVESTAD (E-mail); Dheineke@tsteel <mailto:Dheineke@tsteel> .
COM Dheineke@tsteel <mailto:Dheineke@tsteel> . COM Heineke (E-mail);
K5GAT@AOL <mailto:K5GAT@AOL> . COM K5GAT@AOL <mailto:K5GAT@AOL> . COM com
(E-mail); Kim Howry (E-mail); Lynda Munkres (E-mail); lvan_johnson@hotmail
<mailto:lvan_johnson@hotmail> . com lvan_johnson@hotmail
<mailto:lvan_johnson@hotmail> . com com (E-mail); NealS@Hump
<mailto:NealS@Hump> . com NealS@Hump <mailto:NealS@Hump> . com com (E-mail);
PGordon@SFASU <mailto:PGordon@SFASU> . EDU PGordon@SFASU
<mailto:PGordon@SFASU> . EDU (E-mail); Raymond Parker (E-mail);
TEaker1065@aol <mailto:TEaker1065@aol> . com TEaker1065@aol
<mailto:TEaker1065@aol> . com com (E-mail); Virginia James (E-mail)
Subject:	FW: Subject: Survivor 2

-----Original Message-----
From:	Betty.Politte@claires.com <mailto:Betty.Politte@claires.com>
[mailto:Betty.Politte@claires.com]
<mailto:[mailto:Betty.Politte@claires.com]>
Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 7:36 PM
To:	eddieferguson@webtv.net <mailto:eddieferguson@webtv.net>
Subject:	Fwd:Subject: Survivor 2

Subject:	Survivor 2

A major network is planning the show "Survivor 2" this winter. In
response,
Texas is planning "Survivor: Texas Style." The contestants will
start in  Dallas, travel through Waco, Austin, San Antonio, over to
Houston,
and down to Brownsville. They will proceed up to Del Rio, on to El Paso,
then to Midland/Odessa, Lubbock, and Amarillo. From there, they proceed to
Abilene, and on to Ft. Worth and back to Dallas.
Each will be driving a pink Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm
gay,    I voted for Al Gore, and I'm here to confiscate your guns."
The first one to make it back to Dallas wins.


This in an automated e-mail sent out from the Commissioner.COM
web site.  Do not reply to this e-mail, but instead please visit
your league's site at http://football.commissioner.com/enron2000

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

Bill Kasemervisz requests the following transaction:.

  Add  Browns.

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

To approve this transaction, please go to your web site and
select Transactions, Requests in the Front Office.


Have you checked out eThink lately? If not, here is just a glimpse of what
you would have found.  Invest your mind!

Here,s What You,ve Been Missing on eMeet:

Category:  Science - Engineering - Technology
"I have some info on a new cost-saving technology for energy management, and
possibly bandwidth management, that might have application in some of Enron's
projects."
- John Gore, 1/14/00

Category: Bandwidth Trading
 "Dense wave division multiplexing is a process where multiple wavelengths of
light ride the same fiber run and effectively increase the amount of data you
can push down the fiber run."
- Jeremy Brown, 1/17/00

Category:  International Travel & Etiquette
"You can visit the capitals of Thailand in reverse order by traveling
straight north from Bangkok. Ayuthia is nice, Sukotahi is really lovely."
- Chris Harget, 2/18/00

Category:  How to make Enron THE Best Place to Work
"Any chance some of the Energizer space can be reconfigured to allow it to be
used for meetings, etc. during the non-eating periods of the day (2 p.m. on)?"
- Marc Andraca, 3/07/00

Don,t Miss This on eMeet:

We have created a new category:  "Keep Enron THE Most Innovative Company."
Be sure to visit ethink.enron.com to post your ideas and respond to the
suggestions of other employees!

Here,s What You,ve Been Missing on eSpeak:

For the answers, consult the Archives for the referenced eSpeak session!

"What  is Enron,s involvement in the upcoming Congressional and Presidential
elections?"
- Frank Wanderski, 3/16/00
Joe Hillings, Federal Government Affairs Session

"What new products or system features are being offered in the next release
of EOL?"
- Yvette Parker, 3/21/00
Louise Kitchen, EnronOnline Session

"If I wanted to create an employee orientation using video streaming, who
would I discuss this with at Enron?"
- Ann Park, 3/24/00
Ken Rice, EBS Session

"Is EES going to re-enter the residential market?"
- John D Reese 3/30/00
Lou Pai, EES Session

Don,t miss all our upcoming speakers on eSpeak!  Visit ethink.enron.com to
see what we have in store.


This warning is sent automatically to inform you that your mailbox is approaching the maximum size limit.
Your mailbox size is currently 80703 KB.

Mailbox size limits:

	When your mailbox reaches 75000 KB you will receive this message.To check the size of your mailbox:

  Right-click the mailbox (Outlook Today),
  Select Properties and click the Folder Size button.
  This method can be used on individual folders as well.

To make more space available, delete any items that are no longer needed such as Sent Items and Journal entries.

You must empty the Deleted Items folder after deleting items or the space will not be freed.

To turn Journaling off,
 click Tools | Options | Journaling Options and de-select all items.

See client Help for more information.


fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 01/04/2001 01:55
PM ---------------------------

michael.o.sandridge@us.abb.com on 01/04/2001 01:42:58 PM
To: ben.jacoby@enron.com, Kay.mann@enron.com
cc: david.onuscheck@us.abb.com, karla.hesketh@us.abb.com

Subject: Contract comments

Ben/Kay,
After reviewing the contract with Dave we found only a couple of points that
we
would like to mention;
1) 1.48 the Maximum Liability Amount should be $768,000 USD
2) The unit will not be delivered until the last 10% (ten percent) retention
is
paid and we will post the surety bond as shown in in Exhibit D
3) ABB would not buy back the unit except from Enron.

Please let me know if there is any way that we may further assist you.

MIKE


fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 12/17/2000
06:32 PM ---------------------------

Michael L Miller@ENRON
12/15/2000 03:53 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeff Donahue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Wes Colwell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roger Ondreko/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hope
Vargas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Charles Vetters/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin Kuykendall/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: 4Q Earnings from ENA Principal Investments

We have now refined our initial estimates for potential 4Q fair value
earnings on each of our portfolio investments:

Dais-Analytic ($8.27 MM) - DAC has signed an agreement with Lucky Goldstar of
Korea which includes a $5 MM minority equity investment at a pre-money
valuation equal to $147.9 MM.  The agreement has been signed, is legally
binding, can not be unilaterally terminated by LG and transfer of money will
happen as soon as LG receives Korean central bank approval.  (Note:  We could
take an additional $3.55 MM gain, or $11.8 MM aggregate, if we chose to
exercise our option to invest $4.5 MM in DAC prior to year end)

Encorp ($14.1 MM) - Encorp has received a term sheet from Ballentine Capital
which values the company at $100 MM pre-money.  Beacon Capital and Goldman
Sachs have both passed on making an investment at $100 MM.  Given current
market conditions, we believe a pre-money valuation of $90 MM is more
realistic and closer to what Ballentine will ultimately do the deal at.  The
$14.1 MM figure corresponds to a valuation of $90 MM.

Solo Energy ($1.5 MM) - the downturn in the equity markets has had its effect
on Solo's fund raising.  Chase H&Q has solicited a number of investors in the
market, including Beacon, Perseus, Stephens (Little Rock) and Ballentine and
all are interested and reviewing.  Charlie's sense is that the term sheets
that we should receive by year end will be at a valuation lower than the $80
MM that H&Q has been advertising to the company (and us).  The $1.5 MM figure
corresponds to a pre-money valuation of $60 MM, which we view as more
realistic.

Metering Technology Corp. ($1.0 MM) - Aqua International Partners has agreed
to invest $15 MM at a pre-money valuation of $45 MM.

Power Systems Mfg LLC ($0.72 MM) - the principals of PSM have agreed to sell
the company to Calpine for $43 MM, making our warrant worth $1.72 MM.  Enron
will receive cash for the warrant upon closing of the deal.  PSM's proceeds
will be paid out over a 2-3 year period.

Utiliquest - we learned in November that Utiliquest had lost its bid to
retain the Atlanta area locating business of BellSouth, Atlanta Gas & Light,
Metromedia (Cable TV) and Georgia Power.  This was obviously disappointing to
us - and symptomatic of the performance which led me to replace Utiliquest's
CEO just prior to the award of Atlanta bid (which went to STS, a subsidiary
of Dycom).  The initial indication from the company was that - while Atlanta
represented $20 MM in revenues (roughly 20% of total revenues) - there would
be a proportionately smaller change in EBITDA and the bottom line.  After
further analysis - conducted in connection with our planned divestiture - we
have determined that there will likely be a $2-3 MM reduction in EBITDA for
2000.  Our anticipated EBITDA exit multiple is 6-7x 2000 figures.  I need to
discuss a revaluation of Utiliquest in more detail with Kevin, Wes Colwell
and Andrea Reed.

Total comes to $25.6 MM plus whatever we determine is achievable on
Utiliquest.

Please call if you have any questions.

MLM


This deal was done with Greg Stockard.

D

Julie Meyers
03/13/2000 04:31 PM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Amoco Energy 2/00

Daren:

You put this in, do have a clue?

Julie

---------------------- Forwarded by Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT on 03/13/2000 04:30
PM ---------------------------

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Megan Parker @ ENRON                           03/13/2000 04:17 PM

To: Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Amoco Energy 2/00

We have a purchase deal in the system, 205116, for Feb. 2000 production that
Amoco does not show.  Can you tell me the trader's name at Amoco that the
deal was done with?

Megan


FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/28/2000 10:24
AM ---------------------------

Gregg Penman
09/28/2000 09:38 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Re: enovate - yes or no?

Thanks.

Re: Manlove - we are trying to get a meeting scheduled with key senior execs
at Peoples to discuss the structure in more detail.  My guess is that it will
happen some time after their Board meeting on October 4th.

Gregg

	From:  Kay Mann                           09/28/2000 09:22 AM

To: Gregg Penman/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: Re: enovate - yes or no?

I'm headed to a lengthy conference call, but I wanted you to have this info.

Anything going on with Manlove?

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 09/28/2000 09:21
AM ---------------------------

Deb Korkmas@ECT
09/28/2000 08:49 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: enovate - yes or no?

Yes, name change was filed on Sept 15.  Deb

Deb Korkmas
Enron North America Corp.
ENA Legal Dept.
1400 Smith Street, Room 3819
Houston, TX  77002
Phone:  713-853-5448
Fax:  713-646-3393

	Kay Mann@ENRON
	09/27/2000 06:29 PM

		 To: Deb Korkmas/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: enovate - yes or no?

So do we now have an Enovate/enovate?

Thanks,

Kay


Herman,

Attached is a revised form of Memorandum of Option for your review.  We have
revised it to be consistent with our form of Option to Purchase.

Please advise if these revisions are acceptable.

Thanks

Kathleen Carnahan
Enron North  America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3146d
Houston, TX 77002
Phone - (713) 345-3386
Fax - (713) 646-3037


Following please find the New EnronOnline Executive Summary.

EnronOnline Executive Summary for 10/12/00
Transaction Summary
External Transactions Today	3,418
Average Daily External Transactions (30 day Trailing Avg)	2,570
Total Life to Date Transactions*	355,048

EnronOnline Percentage of Entity's Total Transactions for 	10/12/00
Enron North America	75%
Enron Europe Limited	40%
GLOBAL PRODUCTS	33%
Enron Metals	6%

EnronOnline Percentage of Total Corporate Transactions
(30 day Trailing Avg)	43%

Gross Notional Value of EnronOnline Transactions	Total
Today	2,986,180,016
MTD	17,650,904,158
LTD	186,344,049,755
Average Daily Notional Value (30 Day Trailing Avg)	1,718,050,595

Notional Revenue from Physical Flows to Date	13,058,584,351

Counterparties, Users, and Products Offered
Counterparties having transacted to date	509
New Counterparties transacting for the first time today	2
Number of Products Offered Today	1,194
Total Number of External Users Logged on Today	2,662
Average # of External Users logged on (30 day Trailing Avg)	2,471


As promised but late.  Any comments please send them to myself and David.
Regards,
Jim


Louise,

I hope that everything is well with you.  Much has happened during the past two weeks and I will try to be as brief as possible.

?	Based on conversations and internal decisions that have occurred, Tom Byargeon and myself have decided to dissolve Production Offshore by the end of second quarter.  I have spoken with John regarding this commercial structural change and have also renegotiated the 2001 Upstream Products expected margin to $30 MM.  (The expected budget from Production Offshore was $20 MM out of the $50 MM for Upstream Products.)
?	I have attached a document that Tom has drafted outlining the remaining project responsibilities, market representation, and personnel redeployment.

The following individuals within Production Offshore have yet to be redeployed :

1. Tom Byargeon - He has been offered an opportunity to work with Randy Maffett, Vice President - Wholesale Origination, EGM.  Tom also will be meeting with Dave Duran tomorrow morning to discuss opportunities that exist within Generation Investments or Northeast Power Origination.

 In addition, I want him to consider leading the Ecommerce/ Producer One effort for Upstream Products.  I desperately need a dedicated senior commercial person with contract negotiations expertise that can also see the financing opportunities that exist for Producer segment (i.e., wellhead connects, metering and monitoring equipment, etc.) through a Producer One transaction.  However, Tom has surmised that higher commercial visibility will be achieved by working on the financing of large asset deals within EGM or perhaps, in Duran's group.  I have assured him that the commercialization of the back and mid office is just as important if not more important to Enron's upper management.  Plus, I feel the closing of these outsourcing transactions will be more numerous by the end of the year than the other origination opportunities offered.

I know that he greatly respects your opinion.  If you could contact him (x30650) or drop him an email with your commercial perspective, I am sure that the correspondence would be greatly appreciated.

2. Kevin Miller - mostly likely will focus on marketing and closing Producer ecommerce transactions.  In addition, Kevin has a very strong crude and processing background.  This experience would complement the Producer One effort as well support the processing needs of the Wellhead desk.  He could have career opportunities with EGM, but overall, is very enthusiastic about ENA's Producer ecommerce commercial platform.

3. Kenn Loch - has a very technical background suited for deepwater projects.  Since the responsibility for Mariner is within ECR, Allan Keel may be interested in his background.  Also, since the responsibility for the MEGS/Pluto deal should be transferred to ECR,  Kenn would be an appropriate resource for that transaction as well.

4. Lisa Druzbik -  is very familiar with the accounting details behind MEGS/ Pluto.  Has opportunities are within ECR and EES.  Most of her background is within the E&P sector.

?	I have spoken with Scott Josey about the impending dissolution of Production Offshore.  Since MEGS/Pluto is a deal with Mariner (and since Enron owns 97% of Mariner, the deal is analogous to doing a transaction with oneself), he concurs with me that the transaction should be evaluated with the overall restructure or potential sale of Mariner.  Should I transfer over to ECR all 2001 capital charges and associated earnings related to MEGS/Pluto?  Should this transfer occur as of the beginning of the year or at the end of second quarter? The YTD margin associated with this project is approximately $ 3 MM.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Mrha


Applied Finance - January 25 & 26, 2001 in EB552     Cost:  $700.00

If a better understanding of Enron's transactions (a deal) that involves
Enron's financial as well as commercial participation with another business
entity would help you do your job better - this course was designed for you.

This course will give you a firm grasp of basic finance but in the context of
Enron's commercial and financial transactions.
The objective of this class is not to teach you how to do a deal, but rather,
to help you understand how basic financial principals contribute to the
structure of a deal and provide you with insight to Enron deals in order that
you can make a contribution to the work that goes into putting one together.

To register for any of these classes, click here (), or call 713 853-0357.


As most of you have probably heard already, I am leaving Enron to pursue some
new endeavors.  I will be moving back home to Toronto and I'm going to take
some time off to do some travelling.  I plan to go back to school in January,
and after that.... we'll see what life has in store!

I wanted to thank all of you for the many wonderful experiences I have had
here at Enron.  It has been a pleasure working with and getting to know you
all.  I hope that if you're ever in Toronto you will drop me a line.

My last day of work will be June 30th, however, I will be staying in Houston
until the end of July.  I hope to see or speak to all of you before I leave,
but if I don't manage to, please keep in touch.  My e-mail address is
jennifer_sabine@yahoo.com.

Take care and good luck!
Jennifer


Bob, see the quote about $83 /5-yr power

GAC

Article 1   Next Article    Return to Headlines

Moody's:Won't Downgrade Calif Utils To Junk Before Jan 4

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Moody's Investors Service doesn't expect to reduce the
debt ratings of California's two largest utilities below investment grade
status before state regulators meet on a rate hike on Jan. 4.
But the ratings agency said in a press release Friday that it might still cut
the ratings of PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison
International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison next week to a level
short of speculative status, and set strict terms for what it would consider
a favorable ruling by regulators on Jan. 4.

"Moody's will continue to review for possible downgrade the ratings of
Southern California Edison Company and its parent, Edison International, and
the ratings of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its parent, PG&E
Corporation, and may take additional rating action next week prior to the
January 4th meeting," Moody's said. "However, it is not anticipated at this
point that any rating action taken prior to the January 4th meeting would
result in the ratings of the utilities or their respective parents falling
below investment grade."

Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have lost a combined $8
billion since May buying wholesale power at prices that far exceed the fixed
rates they're allowed to charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power
plants the utilities still own, but the net losses are substantial and
mounting. Both utilities have said they soon will become unable to continue
buying power for their customers if the situation persists.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned Wednesday that both utilities face
imminent default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status
unless California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission agreed rate hikes
were needed.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise," the commission said
in a written statement. "It is our intent to maintain the utilities' access
to capital on reasonable terms."

But the commission deferred a final ruling on rates until Jan. 4, pending
hearings on the matter scheduled for next week.

Standard & Poor's wasn't immediately available to comment on the decision.

Moody's said Friday that the PUC's decision was a "necessary first step" in
restoring the utilities to financial viability. Comments by the PUC and other
officials indicated their desire to maintain the utilities' investment-grade
status, Moody's said.

But Moody's set strict terms for what must come out of the PUC's Jan. 4
meeting if the utilities are to avoid being downgraded to speculative status.

"Specifically, at that meeting, the utilities need to obtain the right to
immediately raise rates by a sizeable amount and must obtain the unquestioned
and unambiguous ability to recover past and future wholesale procurement
costs," Moody's said. "The failure by the CPUC to act in a prompt and
constructive way around these two issues could result in the utilities'
ratings being downgraded to below investment grade."

Such a downgrade would hurt the utilities' ability to fund power purchases
and day-to-day operations, Moody's said.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

Article 2   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

POWER POINTS: Calif Utils Won't Fail; Competition Will
By Mark Golden

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

A Dow Jones Newswires Column <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Fans of the movie "Erin Brockovich" have been tempted
to fantasize about executives from California's two main investor-owned
utilities, PG&E Corp. (PCG) and Edison International (EIX), heading to
bankruptcy court.

Dream on.

True, this week the utilities didn't get either of the two things they need
to escape the astronomically expensive spot market for electricity in
California: a rate increase and long-term contracts with independent
generators at prices they can afford under new rates. With lending sources
virtually dry, both utilities have said they are about to run out of the cash
needed to continue buying electricity in the spot market.

But hearings on a rate increase are scheduled to resume next week followed by
the California Public Utilities Commission vote on Jan. 4, and long-term
contract negotiations are to resume Jan. 3.

Both negotiations are likely to succeed in keeping the companies afloat
because almost all parties would lose with the utilities under Chapter 11
protection and because the price to save the utilities isn't that high. The
rate increase decision was postponed Thursday because California Governor
Gray Davis and his CPUC are trying to give the corporations only what they
need to survive and not a penny more. If Davis succeeds - he is insisting on
an independent audit of the holding companies and all subsidiaries -
shareholders can expect to see their dividends cut.

Sorting out the finances of the $21 billion PG&E, which is the 73rd largest
U.S. company, and $10 billion Edison International must be daunting.

But here are the basics: First, the utilities have to get out of the spot
market. SCE charges residential and small commercial customers 12 cents a
kilowatt-hour, of which 6.6 cents - or $66 a megawatt-hour - goes for
electricity. The rest covers transmission and distribution, some other costs
and the utility's profit.

In the day-ahead and spot market, where SCE has been buying almost half the
power it needs, the utility has been paying about $350/MWh. Rates, obviously,
won't be tripled so that SCE can continue to buy power in the spot market.

But the company can purchase five-year supply contracts at about $78/MWh
currently, which it could do with a mere half-cent increase in rates. Since
the company is already making plenty of money on the coal-fired and nuclear
generators that it owns, a half-cent increase on all the electricity it sells
could be applied to all of its outside purchasing, which comes to an extra
$10 a megawatt-hour.

Edison International is in a more dire immediate cash situation because the
utility is two-thirds of the parent company, but Pacific Gas & Electric faces
a more difficult situation operationally. PG&E gets only 5.4 cents/KWh, or
$54/MWh, from customers for electricity, while wholesale prices in northern
California are more expensive than in southern California. Finally, PG&E has
to buy about two-thirds of the power it needs in the wholesale market,
compared to SCE's 50%, because it sold off more of its power plants, as
dictated by deregulation legislation, more quickly than SCE.

Still, PG&E could pick up five-year supply contracts at about $83/MWh. A
two-cent increase to its basic rate of 10 cents would give PG&E $30 more per
megawatt-hour - or $85/MWh - to spend on power purchases.

But a 20% increase may not be necessary. The governor's staff needs to find
out the details on the substantial long-term deals PG&E had the foresight to
sign back in October. Those deals were done at less than $55/MWh, and they
kick in Jan. 1.

The governor's staff may also look at the unexpectedly high profits from
SCE's and PG&E's nuclear power plants. The utilities have cut costs at the
plants, so instead of making just 6% return on capital, the utilities have
been getting a net gain of 30% on nuclear revenues, according to Bob
Finkelstein of The Utilities Reform Network. If the utilities say
deregulation decisions such as the rate freeze must be reexamined because
they are bankrupting the utilities, then, TURN says, the deregulation
decisions that have resulted in unexpected gains for the utilities should be
looked at, too.

Nevertheless, retail competition in California is dead for another five
years. The utilities get their modest rate increases with the insistence that
they lock up their needed supplies under long-term contracts. The contracts
will be approved by the CPUC, which means the utilities are guaranteed to be
paid for the costs even if wholesale power prices fall below $80/MWh in three
to four years, as expected.

The only way to ensure that the utilities get paid is to add a new
"non-bypassable" transition cost to customer bills for five years, which
means that even if a customer chooses an alternate power supplier, they will
still be sending money back to PG&E and Edison to pay for this year's
debacle.

The current non-bypassable charges, which are scheduled to end in March 2002,
are what has killed retail competition since 1997. Competitors can't offer
much in the way of savings, so almost nobody bothers to switch.

Electricity traders and regulators wonder why the utilities keep buying so
much power at the last minute through the Independent System Operator, which
will pay almost anything to keep the lights on. Right now, the ISO is paying
$700/MWh for power that readily could have been bought Thursday for $400/MWh.

This practice over the past six months has run up Edison's debt to a
projected $2.3 billion at the end of December and PG&E's to $4 billion.
(Edison overstates its real losses by 50%; PG&E, by 33%.)

So, for about $6 billion dollars, the utilities will get a rate increase and
four more years of protection from competition in their $20 billion business.

These guys are good.

Was all this intentional? Go ask Erin Brockovich.

-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; mark.golden@dowjones.com

Article 3   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Industry Watchers Confident About Rate Increase for California Utilities

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Business News

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

NEW YORK -- Some observers now believe that troubled California utilities
Edison International and PG&E Corp. will get some relief at the start of the
new year after state regulators at least opened the door to electricity-rate
increases the two utilities said they need to stay in business.
Many expect the California Public Utility Commission to authorize a rate
increase at a scheduled Jan. 4 meeting. ABN Amro Inc. analyst Daniel Ford was
so optimistic he upgraded Edison shares to "buy" from "hold."

Shares of the two companies, which own the state's largest utilties, hit
52-week lows Thursday. In midday trading Friday on the New York Stock
Exchange, PG&E (PCG), which owns Pacific Gas & Electric, was up $1.06, or 6%,
to $19.31 while Edison International (EIX), parent of Southern California
Edison, was flat at $14.94.

On Thursday, the California PUC tried to reassure jittery credit markets that
they won't let the state's big utilities go broke. Still they stopped short
of ordering the kind of immediate relief utilities and their lenders want:
rate increases big enough to cover exploding wholesale power costs in the
state's deregulated energy market.

Instead, the California PUC ordered audits of utility records and scheduled
hearings for next week, needed to provide a legal basis for eliminating a
rate freeze that has protected most consumers from spiraling wholesale power
costs.

Soaring power costs in supply-short California have produced a political
crisis in the state, which four years ago led the nation in deregulating its
power industry. Wholesale electricity for delivery Sunday and Monday in the
West sold for $200 to $400 a megawatt-hour Thursday, about 10 times its
year-ago level.

Edison Internaitonal's Southern California Edison unit and PG&E's Pacific Gas
and Electric Co. have said they are more than $8 billion in debt due to the
price they must pay for electricity and the inability to pass on the higher
costs to consumers due to a state-mandated freeze. Between one-third and
one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power plants the utilities
still own in the state, but the net losses are substantial and mounting.

Both utilities have said they soon will become unable to continue buying
power for their customers if the situation persists. Earlier this week
ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned that both utilities face imminent
default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status unless
California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

The utilities' deteriorating credit situation has left some generators
reluctant to supply power to California without guarantees they'll be paid.
The Department of Energy has issued an emergency order requiring power
suppliers in the West to sell uncommitted electricity to California on demand
until Dec. 28.

Consumer groups, which say the utilities are overstating their financial
woes, decried the PUC decision.

According to Mr. Ford, the utility's fate now rests in the hands of the
Standard & Poor's. He expects S&P to downgrade Edison's utility debt by "a
notch or two to keep politicians honest," but stop short of giving the
companies junk bond ratings.

Another ratings concern, Moody's Investors Service, said it doesn't expect to
reduce the debt ratings of the two utilities below investment grade status
before regulators meet on Jan. 4. Moody's said it might cut the ratings next
week to a level short of speculative status, and set strict terms for what it
would consider a favorable ruling by regulators.

Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

All Rights Reserved.

Article 5   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Consumer Grps Oppose Calif PUC Hint Will Raise Util Rates

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

<~> (This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Two consumer advocate groups Thursday objected to a
California Public Utilities Commission order suggesting it will decide Jan. 4
to increase retail electricity rates for customers of the state's two largest
investor-owned utilities.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise. It is our intent to
maintain the utilities' access to capital on reasonable terms," the order
says.

Spokesman Bob Finkelstein of San Francisco-based The Utility Reform Network
said such statements indicate the PUC is "kowtowing to Wall Street" rather
than protecting ratepayers.

Michael Shames, spokesman for San Diego-bas notion that rate increases are
inevitable, which isn't a position anyone in the consumer movement takes,"
Shames said.

The PUC will hold evidentiary hearings Dec. 27 and Dec. 28 on a rate
stabilization plan by Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California
Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The utilities have said they are more than $8 billion in debt due to an
inability to pass higes the PUC has something in mind to do, but they need to
claim they had a public process before doing it," Finkelstein said.

The PUC also will look into claims by the two consumer groups that the
utilities aren't as financially strapped as they say. The utilities' debt due
to "undercollections" is counterbalanced by a separate account of proceeds
from the sale of stranded assets, the consumer groups say.

-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
jessica.berthold@dowjones.RES1771

Calif Ruling On Pwr Rates Leaves Util Credit In Question

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~> By Andrew Dowell <~> Of
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- California regulators opened the door Thursday to the
retail rate hikes the state's two largest utilities say they need to stay in
business.

But they failed to take decisive action needed to settle the question of
whether PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International
(EIX) unit Southern California Edison will be able to sustain the mounting
costs of buying wholesale power for their customers.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned Wednesday that both utilities face
imminent default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status
unless California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission agreed rate hikes
were needed.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise," the commission said
in a written statement. "It is our intent to maintain the utilities' access
to capital on reasonable terms."

But the commission deferred a final ruling on rates until Jan. 4, pending
hearings on the matter scheduled for next week.

The utilities welcomed the possibility of a rate hike, but expressed concerns
that the commission hadn't acted decisively enough.

"This is a significant change in the commission's approach," said PG&E Corp.
spokesman Shawn Cooper. "The real question is whether the action they are
taking today will inspire confidence in the financial community to allow us
to continue to provide power to our customers. Hopefully, the financial
community will take the commission action seriously enough to wait until Dec.
27 and 28 to make a decision on our credit rating."

Southern California Edison said in a statement that it "wished the commission
had acted more decisively."

Standard & Poor's wasn't available to comment on how the PUC's action might
affect its outlook for the utilities.

Shares in PG&E Corp. and Edison International plunged to 52-week lows
Thursday ahead of the commission's ruling, which was expected.

     Utilities' Power-Market Losses Continue To Mount

Soaring power costs in supply-short California have produced a political
crisis in the state, which four years ago led the nation in deregulating its
electric utility industry. Wholesale electricity for delivery Sunday and
Monday in the West sold for $200-$400 a megawatt-hour Thursday, about 10
times its year-ago level.

The utilities have lost a combined $8 billion since May buying wholesale
power at such prices, which far exceed the fixed rates they're allowed to
charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power
plants the utilities still own in the state, but the net losses are
substantial and mounting. Both utilities have said they soon will become
unable to continue buying power for their customers if the situation
persists.

Southern California Edison, which said this week it won't be able to pay a
power bill that comes due Jan. 4, said in a statement Thursday that it will
soon adopt a "cash preservation" plan that could involve layoffs and cuts in
operations. Company executives were in talks with bankruptcy attorneys
Thursday to plan their next move, a Southern California Edison executive
said.

The utilities' deteriorating creditworthiness has left some generators
reluctant to supply power to California without guarantees they'll be paid.
The U.S. Department of Energy has issued an emergency order requiring power
suppliers in the West to sell uncommitted electricity to California on demand
until Dec. 28.

Consumer groups, which say the utilities are overstating their financial
woes, decried the PUC decision.

"The most disturbing part is this notion that rate increases are inevitable,"
said Michael Shames, spokesman for San Diego-based Utility Consumers Action
Network.

The utilities were seeking rate increases of up to 30%. State officials were
reluctant to accept anything beyond 10%, an amount analysts said is
insufficient.

The commission said it deferred its decision on the matter to create time for
evidentiary hearings and an independent audit to determine how much of an
increase is needed.

Consumer groups, however, were skeptical.

"It is clearly a sham procedural course that indicates the PUC has something
in mind to do, but they need to claim they had a public process before doing
it," said Bob Finkelstein, spokesman for The Utility Reform Network.

The Cambridge Energy Research Associates said Thursday that California faces
another three years of high electricity prices and possible blackouts,
because the state's piecemeal response to the power crisis has discouraged
the development of new generating capacity.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

(Jason Leopold, Mark Golden and Jessica Berthold contributed to this article.)

Article 7   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

SoCal Gas Inventories Low, But Interruptions Doubtful
By Pat Maio

12/22/2000
Dow Jones News Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES <~> (This story was originally published late
Thursday.) <~>
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Unlike the almost daily threats of rolling
blackouts from the electricity industry in California, the possibility of
natural gas interruptions is unlikely even though reserves are historically
low, said a company executive of Southern California Gas Co.

SoCal Gas is the gas distribution unit of San Diego-based Sempra Energy
(SRE), and serves 5 million customers.

Reserves of natural gas stored in four underground rock formations scattered
throughout Southern California are at lower levels than what SoCal Gas
normally maintains, said Anne Smith, vice president of customer service and
marketing at SoCal Gas, in a phone interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

SoCal Gas entered its winter season on Nov. 1 with 63 billion cubic feet of
gas in storage, about 30 Bcf less than its previous heating seasons, Smith
said.

The lower reserve levels are due to power plants in California siphoning out
the gas at unprecedented levels, she said.

The plants burn strictly gas, and are trying to meet the intense electrical
demand this winter after the state's certain source of power from hydro
generators in the Pacific Northwest had evaporated.

Lack of rain in the region this year is to blame for the hydro cutbacks,
Smith said.

As well, a cold snap in November, coupled with SoCal Gas's decision to buy
less gas this past summer for reserves, didn't help matters.

Smith isn't worried about the lower levels of gas in the company's storage
areas, which can hold up to 105 Bcf.

The cold weather in November forced SoCal Gas to pull out of storage about 13
Bcf in November, leaving a total of 50 Bcf, Smith said.

The stored gas is purchased as a hedge to protect the company from
fluctuations in natural gas prices -- which this month have soared to as high
as $60 per million British thermal units on the spot market.

For the most part, SoCal Gas imports its gas from out-of-state regions in
Texas and New Mexico via pipelines owned by El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPG) and
Enron Corp.'s (ENE) Transwestern pipeline.

El Paso and Transwestern are keeping up with demand, and report that their
pipelines are filled to the near the brim.

Over the past few weeks, Smith said it is pushing out through its system of
pipes about 3.45 Bcf to 3.5 Bcf of gas daily, to its customers.

"The way we see demand breakdown the last couple of weeks is generators using
about 1 Bcf a day, our core customers (4.8 million) about 1.5 Bcf and our
non-core" about 1 Bcf, she said. The non-core customers -- which number about
1,500 in total -- are industrial manufacturers who consume more than 250,000
therms of gas annually, Smith said.

In comparison, a home averages about 600 therms.

Smith's eyebrows have been raised by the rapid consumption of natural gas by
power plants, which use the commodity to run turbines for electrical
generation.

Historically electric power plants have consumed about 300 million to 400
million cubic feet a day of gas in SoCal Gas' service territory, she said.

"This is why we are seeing pipelines fuller than usual. There is continuing
demand by the electric generators," she said. "This is basically an increase
in demand for gas that has contributed to the national picture of why prices
(for gas) have gone up this year. Demand has outpaced production capacity,"
Smith explained.

A growing economy starved for electricity to run its Internet systems or
manufacturing businesses, have contributed to the reasons why gas prices have
soared this month, she said.

Power plant owners have passed along these higher gas costs to the utilities
where they sell their electricity.

This is partially why PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Edison
International's (EIX) Southern California Edison face financial insolvency
today.

They are having to borrow billions of dollars to pay for this higher-priced
electricity as part of the state's complex deregulation plan.

The power plants are owned by out-of-state companies like AES Corp. (AES),
Calpine Corp. (CPN) and Duke Energy Corp. (DUK).

The threat of rolling blackouts has several causes.

Some power plants run around the clock -- gobbling up the natural gas at a
rapid pace. But others have temporarily been shut down because environmental
laws prohibit them from emitting certain levels of pollutants annually.

SoCal Gas has managed to keep its gas costs relatively low by buying gas for
its core customers on long-term contracts at fixed prices.

This helps to insulate the company from price spikes on gas delivered to its
system at the California and Arizona and Nevada borders.

By buying gas this way, SoCal Gas was able to set a fixed charge of $6.53 per
MMBTU for its 4.8 million core customers in the month of December. A new
price is set to be established next week for January.

"We hope it holds steady in January," said Smith. "We are doing everything we
can."

-By Pat Maio, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3776;

patrick.maio@dowjones.com

Article 8   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

S&P:Diverse Holdings Insulate Generators From Calif Risk

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Independent generators selling power into California
face "extremely serious counterparty credit concerns," but the threat to
their financial positions from a default by one of the state's utilities is
mitigated by their positions in other power markets, Standard & Poor's said
Thursday.

The ratings agency affirmed its double-B-plus corporate credit and senior
unsecured debt ratings for one of those generators, Calpine Corp. (CPN), and
indicated that the positions of a number of other generators were similarly
stable.

Standard & Poor's, without commenting on ratings, said those generators
include Dynegy Inc. (DYN), The Williams Cos. (WMB), Reliant Energy Inc.
(REI), Southern Energy Inc. (SOE) and NRG Energy Inc. (NRG).

"Each company has a diverse asset portfolio that mitigates exposure to any
single market, such as California," S&P said. "Standard & Poor's has
concluded that the developers with merchant exposure to the California market
have sufficient financial liquidity to sustain long-term disruptions to their
markets."

S&P also said the generators have generally incorporated conservative pricing
assumptions well below California's current market prices.

The generators' main counterparties in California - PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit
Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International (EIX) unit Southern
California Edison - have lost a combined $8 billion buying wholesale power at
prices far higher than they are allowed to charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of those losses are offset by the utilities'
own profits from generating power in the state, but they are still
substantial and mounting. Both utilities have said they face a serious
liquidity crisis.

S&P said Thursday that both companies face imminent default unless California
officials immediately come up with a way to correct the imbalance between
their buying and selling price for power, and said it would likely downgrade
the utilities' debt ratings to junk-bond status even if they avoid
bankruptcy.

The California Public Utilities Commission met Thursday and opened the door
to rate hikes, but deferred a final decision to its Jan. 4 meeting.

S&P wasn't available to comment on its outlook for PG&E and SCE or the
generators following the PUC's decision.

About 1,284 net megawatts of Calpine's total 4,900 net megawatts of
generation is exposed to California counterparty risk, S&P said. Nonetheless,
only about $400 million of Calpine's approximate $2 billion revenues for 2000
have seen exposure to California's energy markets, the ratings agency said.
Calpine's receivables total only about $75 million, S&P said.

"The affirmation comes during a period of extremely serious counterparty
credit concerns for generators selling into the California power markets,"
S&P said of its decision regarding Calpine.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

Article 9   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Chapter 11 Filing May Give Calif Utils Breathing Room

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
By Jason Leopold

LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--If two of California's largest utilities file for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a move they said this week was possible, it
may give the companies some breathing room to allow for a much needed
internal reorganization, according to one California bankruptcy attorney.

"What Chapter 11 ultimately does is it allows a company to reorganize," said
Larry Peitzman, an attorney with the Southern California-based law firm of
Peitzman, Glassman and Whegg. "The whole purpose is to come up with a plan to
allow the company to service and pay back creditors and shareholders as much
as possible."

While in bankruptcy, a judge can order the state to raise the utilities
retail electricity rates if that would help the company generate revenue to
pay its creditors, Peitzman said.

Peitzman, who has worked on many large company bankruptcy cases in
California, said if PG&E Corp. unit (PCG) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and
Edison International unit (EIX) Southern California Edison file for
bankruptcy, the companies will be given an injunction by a court that will
prevent creditors from seizing the utilities assets, collecting money or
filing a lawsuit against the companies.

"Another reason to file for bankruptcy protection is the companies wouldn't
be forced to pay pre-bankruptcy debts if they have run up enormous bills,"
Peitzman said.

Executives at both PG&E and SoCal Edison said they may be forced to file for
bankruptcy protection because of a combined $8 billion debt in excess
wholesale power costs and the inability under state law to pass those costs
on to rate payers. However, between one-half and one-third of that money has
been paid into accounts held by the utilities to collect profits from the
generators they still own.

The utilities were hoping for an immediate rate hike Thursday by the state's
Public Utilities Commission, but commissioners said it would first hold
evidentiary hearings and conduct an internal audit of the companies. A rate
increase is still at least two weeks off, the commission said at its meeting.

   Utilities Can Conduct Business While In Bankruptcy

Peitzman said that while in bankruptcy, the companies could operate as a
"debtor in possession," which means the companies have the authority to
conduct business as usual without the consent of bankruptcy court. But if the
companies were to try and secure a loan, the loan would have to be approved
by a judge.

Although most Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases "can't survive," Peitzman said, the
state's two largest utilities - with millions of customers - may be an
exception.

"Inevitably they are going to continue to owe money because of the constant
shortfall they pay in (electricity costs) and what they charge their
customers," the attorney said. "But the bigger the company, the more likely
the company will survive. It will be devastating to lose such large
corporations."

If the companies fail to survive a Chapter 11 filing, the utilities' assets
would be liquidated to pay off their creditors, Peitzman said.

In a Chapter 11 filing, PG&E and SoCal Edison would put their creditors in
different classes and determine how much under the dollar each one would get
paid, Peitzman said.

"It can be as much as possible or less than 100 cents on the dollar," he
said.

In addition, any contracts that either companies held before a potential
bankruptcy filing would have to be honored regardless if the company can
fulfill its financial obligations to its counterpart, Peitzman said.

"That's one of the other benefits," he said. "It's called executory
contracts, which generally means both parties have material operations that
have yet to be performed. It may be long-term contracts and the company would
be able to enforce the other part to continue doing business. The other party
can't refuse to do business because of a stay."

Bankruptcy can last as long as a judge allows it, Peitzman said, pointing to
the Eastern Airlines bankruptcy case in the early 1980s which lasted for
years.

Neither company has indicated whether it will actually file for bankruptcy,
but SoCal Edison said in a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Tuesday that it may not be able to pay its January power bill if
its retail rates are not immediately raised.

-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
jason.leopold@dowjones.com

Article 10   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

National Desk; Section A
Trying to Shore Up Utilities, California Plans Rate Increase
By LAURA M. HOLSON

12/22/2000
The New York Times

Page Page 16, Column 1
c. 2000 New York Times Company

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 21 -- The California Public Utilities Commission said today
that a rate increase for consumers was likely and that over the next weeks it
would inspect the books of the two major utilities to decide how much was
reasonable.
The move is an effort in part to show Wall Street that California is
committed to ensuring the health of the state's utilities.

On Wednesday, the agency that rates the credit-worthiness of both the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison said that if
meaningful action was not taken by Friday, the two utilities were headed for
bankruptcy. The agency is expected to comment on the commission's action
soon.

Gov. Gray Davis has been meeting this week with utility executives and
consumer advocates to come to an agreement on the size of a rate increase.
Mr. Davis, a Democrat, is also seeking the advice of financial experts,
including Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, whom he is
expected to meet with next week.

Some people close to those discussions suggested that 10 percent would be a
palatable rate increase, but the utilities are asking for more. The
commission will hold hearings next week, and just how much consumers will
have to pay should be decided by Jan. 4.

Four years ago, California agreed to deregulate its utilities with the hope
that competition would lower rates for households and businesses. But this
year, prices for wholesale electricity and natural gas have skyrocketed,
forcing utilities to incur costs of more than $8 billion that they cannot
pass to consumers because rates are frozen until 2002.

In recent weeks, the utilities have tried to make a case that, without rate
increases, service to consumers is threatened. John Bryson, chief executive
of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison,
has taken the unusual step of warning consumers in television and newspaper
advertisements in Southern California and in Sacramento that blackouts are
inevitable unless order is imposed.

In response to the announcement by the commission today, Southern California
Edison said it expected additional cost cutting and measures to preserve cash
soon.

But not all the commissioners believed that today's announcement would be
enough to placate financial analysts and investors, many of whom buy utility
stocks because they are perceived to be less risky than, for example,
Internet stocks. Analysts have recently downgraded the stocks of both Pacific
Gas and Electric and California Edison, which are trading near 52-week lows,
over fears about California's energy woes.

''When I look at the newspapers and peruse the Internet I get the decided
impression that Wall Street has spoken,'' said Richard Bilas, a commissioner.
''I don't know if this decision goes far enough.''

Article 11   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Fitch Comments On California Electric Utilities

12/22/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 22, 2000--Fitch views the California Public
Utilities Commission's (CPUC) interim decision to initiate proceedings to
consider raising retail rates as just one of the steps necessary to salvage
credit quality for the state's two largest utilities, Southern California
Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Pac Gas). The CPUC is
expected to reach a decision on rate increases and recovery mechanisms during
the first week of January, at which time Fitch will assess the appropriate
ratings for these companies. The outstanding issue is whether rate increases
will sufficiently offset high wholesale power prices being paid by the
companies.
The companies' securities ratings are likely to weaken, unless 1) full
recovery is provided for the large monies paid by the utilities above
existing retail rates and 2) price stability is ensured for the regional
market. The utilities are unable to tap new credit until the rate decision is
executed. They do have, however, sufficient cash and existing credit to
support them through the decision period of the first week in January. If a
suitable rate structure is passed by the CPUC at that time, the utilities'
banks would be more likely to consider additional funding.

Liquidity will remain strained, however, to the extent that regional power
prices remain high. While Energy Secretary Richardson has ordered certain
power producers to sell into the California market, wholesale prices remain
high and are above retail rates. No additional federal action has been taken.

The CPUC's decision in early January is not expected to completely resolve
the utilities' future. Given the large costs incurred and numerous
constituent groups affected, Fitch envisions a longer-term scenario of
consecutive rate increases associated with a fundamental overhaul of
California's power market. In conjunction with the governor's active
involvement, the California legislature is evaluating potential actions to
restructure the state's power situation. Legislative action remains possible
over the next three months, and could impact debt ratings.

The Rating Watch Negative designation remains in place for Pac Gas, SCE and
its parent, Edison International. The current ratings are:

Southern California Edison:

-- First Mortgage Bonds,`A';

-- Senior Unsecured Debt,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+';

-- Commercial Paper,`F2'.

Edison International:

-- Senior Unsecured Debt,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+';

-- Commercial Paper,`F2'.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

-- First Mortgage Bonds,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+'.

EIX's ratings are also on Rating Watch Negative as approximately half of its
consolidated cash flow is provided by SCE. Fitch does not rate the securities
of Pac Gas' parent holding company, PG&E.

The ratings of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) are not pressured to
the extent of the utilities described above. Unlike the other utilities,
SDG&E is operating under a legislatively-imposed rate ceiling for residential
and small commercial loads. Its legislation also permits a balancing account
to accumulate uncollected power procurement costs. Less liquidity pressure
also exists at SDG&E due to its strong financial fundamentals (senior
unsecured debt rated 'AA-'). Fitch has a Rating Outlook Negative designation
on SDG&E's ratings due to potential increases in leverage while power
procurement costs are high. Sempra's ratings (senior unsecured debt rated
'A') have a stable outlook due to the strong and consistent cash flow derived
from its regulated natural gas distribution subsidiary, Southern California
Gas.

Based in Rosemead, California, SCE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Edison
International. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, California. SDG&E and its parent, Sempra Energy (SRE), are based
in San Diego, California.

CONTACT: Fitch Lori R. Woodland, 312/606-2309 (Chicago) Robert Hornick,
212/908-0523 (New York)
14:31 EST DECEMBER 22, 2000

Article 12   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

SCE Reacts to CPUC Interim Decision

12/21/2000
PR Newswire

(Copyright (c) 2000, PR Newswire)

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Southern California Edison reacted
to today's California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) interim decision
by stating that it wished the commission had acted more decisively but would
work with the commission to take definitive action to address the current
crisis by Jan. 4, 2001.
The company said it was encouraged by the language in the CPUC's interim
decision that committed the commission to: <~> " ... take expedited actions
to fulfill our statutory obligations to <~> ensure that the utilities can
provide service at just and reasonable <~> rates. In our view, that mandate
means that we must avoid continuing <~> conditions that may jeopardize the
utilities' creditworthiness and their <~> ability to continue to procure
energy on behalf of customers. Therefore, <~> we believe that retail rates in
California must begin to rise. It is our <~> intent to maintain the
utilities' access to capital on reasonable terms. <~> We recognize that this
will require that we act expeditiously to address <~> the new FERC-imposed
reality of unlimited wholesale prices."

Nevertheless, SCE underscored that any solution to the current crisis
requires prompt, meaningful and final action by the commission ending the
rate freeze, providing for the recovery of procurement costs, and increasing
rates to a level that will restore the creditworthiness of California's
investor- owned utilities.

SCE added that it anticipated announcing additional cost-reduction and
cash-preservation measures in the near term that would be necessary to
protect the company's financial integrity while maintaining customer service.

An Edison International company, Southern California Edison is one of the
nation's largest electric utilities, serving a population of more than 11
million via 4.3 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service
area within central, coastal and Southern California.

/CONTACT: Southern California Edison, Corporate Communications, 626-302-2255/
19:24 EST

Article 13   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Ambac Financial Group has Insured Exposure to Southern California Edison and
Pacific Gas & Electric

12/21/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2000--Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (Ambac)
announced today that it has $75.1 million in insured net par exposure
outstanding to Southern California Edison.
The bonds are secured by a first mortgage or lien on substantially all of the
property and franchises now owned by Southern California Edison. Ambac has
$72.6 million in insured net par exposure outstanding to Pacific Gas &
Electric. These bonds are also secured by a first mortgage lien. Both
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have been warned by
Standard & Poor's that their ratings might drop below investment grade.

"The secured nature of our exposure, coupled with the essentiality of the
services the companies provide, cause us to be confident that the likelihood
of any permanent material loss is remote," said Robert J. Genader, Vice
Chairman. "On the other side of the coin, this difficult situation serves as
a strong reminder as to the value of bond insurance," he continued.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding
company whose affiliates provide financial guarantees and financial services
to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac
Assurance Corporation is the principal operating subsidiary of Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Ambac Assurance, a leading guarantor of municipal and
structured finance obligations, has earned triple-A ratings, the highest
ratings available from Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Standard & Poor's
Ratings Group, Fitch and Rating and Investment Information, Inc. Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(ticker symbol ABK).

CONTACT: Ambac Financial Group, Inc., New York Brian S. Moore, 212/208-3333
bmoore@ambac.com Website:www.ambac.com
16:37 EST DECEMBER 21, 2000

Article 14   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Corrects and Replaces Previous Announcement,
BW2354, NY-AMBAC-FINANCIAL

12/21/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

Business Editors
NOTE: The following news release replaces and corrects the

previous Ambac Financial Group, Inc. news release, which

ran earlier Thursday on Business Wire, BW2354

(NY-AMBAC-FINANCIAL)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2000--

Ambac Financial Group has Insured Exposure to Southern

California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (Ambac) announced today that it has $75.1 million
in insured net par exposure outstanding to Southern California Edison.

The bonds are secured by a first mortgage or lien on substantially all of the
property and franchises now owned by Southern California Edison. Ambac has
$72.6 million in insured net par exposure outstanding to Pacific Gas &
Electric. These bonds are also secured by a first mortgage lien. Both
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have been warned by
Standard & Poor's that their ratings might drop below investment grade.

"The secured nature of our exposure, coupled with the essentiality of the
services the companies provide, cause us to be confident that the likelihood
of any permanent material loss is remote," said Robert J. Genader, Vice
Chairman. "On the other side of the coin, this difficult situation serves as
a strong reminder as to the value of bond insurance," he continued.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding
company whose affiliates provide financial guarantees and financial services
to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac
Assurance Corporation is the principal operating subsidiary of Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Ambac Assurance, a leading guarantor of municipal and
structured finance obligations, has earned triple-A ratings, the highest
ratings available from Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Standard & Poor's
Ratings Group, Fitch and Rating and Investment Information, Inc. Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(ticker symbol ABK).

CONTACT: Ambac Financial Group, Inc., New York Brian S. Moore, 212/208-3333
bmoore@ambac.com Website:www.ambac.com
16:36 EST DECEMBER 21, 2000

Article 18   Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Calif. puts IOUs' request for rate hikes on hold

12/11/2000
Megawatt Daily

(c) Copyright 2000 Pasha Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) were
disappointed Thursday in their bid to gain permission for a rate increase to
go into effect Jan. 1.
State regulators denied the utilities' request that they take immediate
action to approve the rate increases, saying that the requests are
"premature."

While regulators did not outright reject the utilities petitions, they
declined to implement the remedies requested until the cases can be reviewed
further at a later date.

The president of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Loretta Lynch, issued
two rulings at the commission's meeting Thursday "suspend[ing] the schedule
in the Rate Stabilization Plan applications recently filed by [PG&E and
SoCalEd]."

Both utilities filed papers separately with the PUC stating that they had
fulfilled the criteria set for ending a rate freeze imposed on them under
California's electric industry restructuring statute. The law allowed for a
transition period, during which the utilities were to pay off any "stranded
costs" related to investments in generation assets.

By keeping prices frozen at 1993 levels, legislators and utility
representatives who expected wholesale power prices would fall, thought the
measure would give the companies a chance to pay off those costs by a March
31, 2002, deadline. Instead, prices shot up and the utilities were left with
the responsibility to supply power to their customers while paying the
difference between high wholesale prices and lower retail rates.

Claiming "undercollections" totaling over $5 billion between them, the
utilities say they want the price freeze lifted and retail rates increased.
Last month, SoCalEd asked for permission for a 10% increase and PG&E for a
22% increase in its rates. ADP

 Display as:  Full Article Keywords in Context Full Article Plus Indexing
Return to Headlines

Copyright , 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.


Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com
----- Forwarded by Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT on 06/30/2000 10:40 AM -----

	"Cameron, John" <johncameron@DWT.COM>
	06/30/2000 10:27 AM

		 To: "'Carol St Clair'" <Carol.St.Clair@enron.com>
		 cc: "Mitchell, Holly" <hollymitchell@dwt.com>
		 Subject: RE: ISDA Draft

Thanks, Carol.  My phone numbers appear below.  Also, please copy Holly
Mitchell on everything you send.  Her e-mail address appears above in the cc
box.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol St Clair [SMTP:Carol.St.Clair@enron.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:25 AM
> To: Cameron, John
> Cc: Tana Jones
> Subject: ISDA Draft
>
>
>
> John:
> I understand from Tana Jones that we are going to try to put an ISDA in
> place
> today.  We should be sending you the draft shortly.  Please call me
> directly
> with any comments or questions that you may have.  Please pass the
> information
> below  to anyone else that may be working on this from your end.  Thanks.
> I
> look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Carol St. Clair
> EB 3892
> 713-853-3989 (Phone)
> 713-646-3393 (Fax)
> carol.st.clair@enron.com
>