gngr
713-853-7751
----- Forwarded by Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron on 02/19/2001 09:09 PM -----

	Richard Shapiro
	02/16/2001 04:55 PM

		 To: Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: California Dreaming !

Please send to entire group.
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 02/16/2001
04:55 PM ---------------------------

Peggy Mahoney@EES
02/16/2001 04:38 PM
To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Eric
Thode/Corp/Enron@ENRON, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: California Dreaming !

In case you guys missed this.....
---------------------- Forwarded by Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES on 02/16/2001 04:37
PM ---------------------------

Delia Walters
02/16/2001 09:47 AM
To: Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: California Dreaming !

I thought that you would appreciate this.

 - California+power.jpg


Carol-

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate the process.

John

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	St. Clair, Carol
Sent:	Monday, November 05, 2001 10:50 AM
To:	Hodge, Jeffrey T.; Viverito, John
Subject:	FW: Enron  /  Conoco

 << File: Letter of Credit Draft Enron.doc >> << File: Enron 11 02.xls >> Jeff and/or John:
We are researching what we have with Conoco.  I may need your help on this.

Carol St. Clair
EB 4539
713-853-3989 (phone)
713-646-8537 (fax)
281-382-1943 (cell phone)
8774545506 (pager)
281-890-8862 (home fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bradford, William S.
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2001 9:55 AM
To: St. Clair, Carol
Subject: FW: Enron / Conoco

FYI

-----Original Message-----
From: Curry, Ken
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:01 PM
To: Bradford, William S.
Subject: FW: Enron / Conoco

Bill,
Here is the message I received from Conoco.  I spoke to Gayle Hayter and Greg Finn (I know both from the IECA).
Gayle's title is Senior Treasury Analyst, Phone (281) 293-3594
Greg's title is Supervisor, Corporate Credit & Financial Services, Phone (281) 293-6897
Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
Thanks,
    Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Hayter, Gayle C. [mailto:Gayle.C.Hayter@conoco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 2:38 PM
To: Curry, Ken
Cc: Durbin, John E.; Hixon, Steven L.; Frahm, Robert E. (Bob); Davis, M.
Eric; Romero, Donald G.; Bennett, Rex W.; Hunter, James E. (Jim);
Romasko, Dan R.; Cornwell, Dennis A.; Finn, Greg
Subject: Enron / Conoco

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Hayter, Gayle C.
> Sent:	Friday, November 02, 2001 2:15 PM
> To:	Finn, Greg
> Subject:	Enron
>
>
> Ken, per our conversation this morning, the attached Excel file contains
> the net Enron exposure identified by Conoco.  Please review and advise the
> numbers as per Enron's records.  Conoco is requesting a letter of credit
> as security for all Enron and subsidiaries exposure to Conoco Inc. and its
> subsidiaries.  Our exposure estimates assume that a netting agreement is
> put in place with Enron Reserves Acquisition Company to cover crude
> activity.  It also assumes a netting agreement is put in place with Enron
> North America to cover gas activity.
>
> An LC format acceptable to Conoco is attached.  The LC should secure the
> value of the identified exposure and should cover a one year term.  If the
> LC should ever need to be drawn,  required documents should include only
> the draft and a signed statement.
>
>
>  <<Letter of Credit Draft Enron.doc>>  <<Enron 11 02.xls>>
>
>
> Gayle C. Hayter
> Credit Risk Management
> Natural Gas and Power
> Phone: 281 293 3594
> Fax: 281 293 6947
>


Here are the positions that you requested from John.


Here is the turbine availability sheet.  I confirmed that there are 3 GE 7
FA's.
Ben
3-7998


>
>

 - frogpult.exe


per our conversation
---------------------- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 03/08/2000
04:02 PM ---------------------------

Lynn Aven@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
03/03/2000 07:11 AM
To: Sara Shackleton@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:
Subject: A new form of Bingo.

Here it is.

Lynn
---------------------- Forwarded by Lynn Aven/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 03/03/2000
07:16 AM ---------------------------

"Hoffman, Catherine" <HoffmanC@EpEnergy.com> on 09/14/99 02:36:58 PM
To: "'Franck, Vic       tbs via internet'" <vic_franck@tennecotbs.com>,
"'Cleaver, Mark'" <mark.cleaver@trw.com>, Lynn
Aven/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: A new form of Bingo.

>      This is very appropriate game for playing while bored off your nut at
>
>      meetings.
>
>     <<bingo.doc>>

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please forward
the message to EMAdmin@epenergy.com
**********************************************************************
 - bingo.doc


Not much here I have to work Saturday and Sunday dayshifts, which kind of
sucks however, I am usually ok to go out until like 10-11 on nights like that
as Saturdays are not too busy.  Is Bailey 3 now?


It has been announced among the staff at FERC that Nora Brownell has chosen some of her personal office staff.

Jamie Simler - has electric, gas and oil background at OMTR (as well as, she is expected to be an technical advisor on electric matters
Mary Morton - has been working most recently on Calif. electric matters in OGC, she is expected to be a legal advisor on electric matters.

Those are the two announced staff but there is strong rumor that Jim Petersen will be the third member of Commissioner Brownell's staff.  His background is mostly gas rates in OMTR, but he is also an attorney.

Lisa Yoho has told me that the staff will not be specifically assigned to electric or gas, but rather will divide work by cases.

No more news on Chairman Woods' specific office staff.  Of course, he has already been joined by Allison Silverstein from Texas and she is acting as a chief of staff.


I will be leaving the office today at 2:15 to take the kids in for their flu
shots.

Samantha M. Boyd
Sr. Legal Specialist
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith, EB3802A
Houston, TX  77002
Phone:  (713) 853-9188
Fax:  (713) 646-3490
email:  samantha.boyd@enron.com

__________________


You are the woman!


My understanding is that we want to take forward our cooperative effort with
PNG insofar as it involves education and information sharing, but that
capital investment is probably not in the cards.  As you probably know,
Christopher Hunt is coming back to Singapore to meet with the commercial
teams next week to outline Enron's commercial strategy in the region, and I
suggest that you and I get together by phone soon thereafter.  Chris tells me
you two have already spoken today.  Feel free to call me sooner if you wish,
but I think Chris can paint a more complete picture than me, and then we can
talk.   mcs

David Merrill@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
10/02/2000 16:40
To: Mark Schroeder@ECT, Terence H Thorn/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: Draft PGN/Pertamina Singapore Gas Transportation Agreement

FYI.  The PGN Indonesia partnership is letting us give drafting advice on
PGN's Gas
Transportation Agreement to Singapore.  The Indonesia to Singapore
project is on track and PGN would like us to apply to be the strategic
investor required by the Asian Development Bank.   ADB requirements
would favor us because ADB is looking for transmission competency in
the investor, not only price.  The partnership lets us demonstrate the
competency.   See e-mail yesterday on the other three areas PGN
encouraged Enron to invest in with them, including a marketing company.

---------------------- Forwarded by David Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
02/11/2000 12:32 AM ---------------------------

David Merrill
02/10/2000 05:45 AM
To: Robert Neustaedter/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Christopher B
Hunt/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Repit Suliyono/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Jane
Wilson/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Paul Adair@ECT

Subject: Draft PGN/Pertamina Singapore Gas Transportation Agreement

Chris:  This is concrete confirmation of one of the items we discussed this
morning:
that we are advising PGN on the language of their draft Gas Transportation
Agreement
for gas to Singapore - an agreement between Pertamina, PGN, and Santa
Fe/Gulf.
So Enron are advising on this agreement.   Re your question about guaranteed
volume,
it appears there are to be capacity entitlements for the shipper though these
are
blank in this draft.

Robert:  this is for your review and suggestions for PGN.   Please check
whether
I am right that there will be a minimum guaranteed quantity for the
shipper.   PGN
said it would probably be 350mmcf/day, if I understood them correctly.

Let me know if I can help.   They need our comments asap -- before the
workshop.

David
---------------------- Forwarded by David Merrill/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
02/10/2000 07:27 PM ---------------------------

Heri Yusup <yusuph@yahoo.com> on 02/10/2000 01:24:20 AM
To: david.merrill@enron.com
cc: repit.suliyono@enron.com

Subject: Draft Gas Transportation Agreement

Dear David,

As per discussed with Pak Widyatmiko at PGN yesterday,
I enclosed the draft of Gas transportation document
for your perusal.
If you have problen in receiving this document please
let me know by email.

Regards,

Heri
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
 - GTSA.doc


Attached is the weekly ECT Litigation report.


Paul:  What is this deal from Russell Dyke?  I'm baffled.  Sara


----- Forwarded by Tana Jones/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000 04:41 PM -----

	Bradley Diebner
	11/02/2000 04:41 PM

		 To: Karen Lambert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Samuel
Schott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bernice Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Brant Reves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Debbie R Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT, Lesli Campbell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia
Clark/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mary G Gosnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Enron Europe Global
Contracts and Facilities, Enron Europe Global CounterParty, Stephanie
Sever/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bradley Diebner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacey
Richardson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Adnan Patel/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Claudia Clark/HOU/ECT@ECT, William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa
Lees/HOU/ECT@ECT, Juana Fayett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jana Morse/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Trang Le/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul Maley/LON/ECT@ECT, Sonya Clarke/LON/ECT@ECT, Lee
Munden/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Davies/LON/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: EOL Credit Responses 11/02/00

The EOL approvals for 11/02/00 are attached below.

Regards,
bd


Attached is an excel workbook detailing TW's October PNR activity. Below is a summary of the activity.

	Buyer				PO #	POI		Dekatherm 	Rate/Dth 	 Invoice Amount
	Calpine Energy Services		27507	78151	 	13,000 	 	$0.3883 	 $5,047.90

If you have any questions, please call me.


Tai Woo,

Here are the c-codes for the CrudeAPO.  'Sig' is the spot
volatility meaning the price volatility within the delivery period.
You should consult  with Pavel for the definition of this "extra"
parameters.   We
would like to see the Position Monitor once you get it running.
We might have some additional suggestions.

Paulo,

Why don't we have a documentation on CrudeAPO you worked on ?
I can not find it in Exotica help file.   Please supply that to Tai, thanks.

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

From: Tai Woo/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/02/2001 09:55 AM
To: Paulo Issler/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Kara Maloney/ENRON@enronXgate, Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Asian Option for Pavel

This morning, Zimin told me that Pavel is using a special model in evaluating
his Asian option portfolio.
He asked me to talk to you in order to access to the code so that I can see
the difference made to the model.

As I cannot find the doc. describing this model, please tell me what that new
input parameter 'Sig' is.

Thanks,


I remember that the last time I tried to send you this org chart, we had some problems opening it.  I printed it out, just in case it happens again.  I really can't remember if you were ever able to open the file at the end of everything or not.  Anyhow, I'm coming over with the hard copy in just a second.
Laura


Prebon
Mark Fischer
Changed 547680/681 to APB

Chris Mallory
547716

Amerex
Mark Fischer
Killed 547637

Diana Scholtes
Says 547287 is definitely only 25 mw

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
03/12/2001 02:37 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: 3/12 Checkout

PREBON

Mark Fischer
deal 547680- Prebon does not recognize
deal 547681- Prebon does not recognize

Chris Mallory
I am missing the following deal per Prebon:
Enron buys from Merrill Lynch 25 mw of April'01 Sp-15  peak hours at $209.00

AMEREX WEST

Mark Fischer
deal 547637 and deal 547678- Amerex only recognizes one deal.

Diana Scholtes
deal 547287
Amerex shows 50 mw and Enpower has 25 mw..

BLOOMBERG

All deals checked out fine.


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

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

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

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

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

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

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject:

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

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

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

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

Our assessment of the supply/demand picture in California.

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

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

Regards,
Ken

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

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

2. Key Barriers to Distributed Generation

Excessive and Unnecessary Utility Stand-by Charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of the Source of the Credit Risk Issue

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

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

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

Options to Resolve Concerns Regarding Credit Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


i don't like this. we must make a decision. rick

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Carson, Rick L.
Sent:	Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:38 PM
To:	Buy, Rick; Gorte, David
Subject:	DASH Classification - "Proceed - See Other RAC Comments"

As we discussed yesterday, in our review of our DASH recommendation vs. actual performance we found 36 DASHes that have been approved since late 1999 that carry the recommendation "Proceed - See Other RAC Comments".  Typically the RAC Comments describe substantial issues that must be resolved if the transaction is to be successful.

Given RAC's increased visability and accountability for portfolio performance, perhaps a more forceful description than "See Other RAC Comments" would be desirable which could be  something like:

		"Issues - Sr. Management Approval Required"

Therefore, the four DASH categories would be as follows:

	___  Proceed with Transaction

	____ Issues - Sr. Management Approval Required

	____ Returns Below Capital Price

	____ Do Not Proceed

The "See other RAC Comments" could be used as a footnote with an asterisk placed on any of the above categories where we wanted to call the reader's attention to our comment section.  We would, however, eliminate "See other RAC Comments"  as an official DASH classification category.

Please let me know what you think.  We can instantly make this change or any variation you would like in both the DASH Template and Library.
							Regards!
							Rick C.


thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vu, Truong
Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 9:26 AM
To:	Love, Phillip M.
Subject:	RE: unarchive post id

It will be available around 11AM today
Truong

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Love, Phillip M.
> Sent:	Thursday, October 11, 2001 8:48 AM
> To:	Vu, Truong
> Subject:	unarchive post id
>
> can you unarchive post id 1280448.  Thanks.
> PL
>


yes,  I'm in Houston today and tomorrow and I am available any time except
for between 10:30 and 12 today

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:32 AM
To: Krause, Greg
Subject: Re: SDEC: Certosa Holdings Option Agreement

Don't know the answers. We need to visit with Herman Manis to get his buy-in
on an approach.  I have a call in to him on another transaction, so I'll
ask.  Are you in Houston today?

ckm

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/24/2001 09:26 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: SDEC: Certosa Holdings Option Agreement

Does the first option need to expire or can we terminate prior to expiration
and concurrent with execution of a new option agreement?  I got a call from
the owner of Certosa Holdings pleading for help on reimbursement of those
legal fees.   If we are going to pay a flat fee and renegotiate this
agreement, I think we need to do so quickly.   Regardless, I need to tell
them something soon.  They are getting desparate.  I've a call in to Taffy
Milligan. AEW's assistant to locate the Shutts & Bowen invoice.

I understand we have engaged Shutts & Bowen in Tallahassee to review some
property tax issue.  Cound this be an avenue to avoid this on balance sheet
hard cost thang?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:43 AM
To: Krause, Greg
Subject: RE: AEW's backup

Unless the first option expires (and the original premium is expensed), you
add the original payment to the renewal premium to determine the percentage.
If we can't beat the percentage game, we can have the land on the balance
sheet and that won't put the entire project on it.  Don't ask me to splain
that, because I can't.  If the land is going to be on the balance sheet, you
would think that it would be better to have $1.3 on than $4.2.  However, one
thing I don't know (haven't asked) is what the environmental restrictions are
with our financing vehicle.  I don't know if the land has to be clean before
it can go into the vehicle.  I can ask.  If it is required to be clean, then
you may be back to the $4.2 anyway.

Kay

PS.  Feel like Alice in Wonderland  yet?

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/23/2001 07:14 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Kathleen Carnahan/ENRON@enronXgate

Subject: RE: AEW's backup

Yes we do want to renew the option through September of next year and we will
need to persuade them to lower the option premium.  Her is a thought:  the
land fill closure cost is approximately $2.9 million.  Could we create a new
option agreement that states that the strike price is $4.2 million ($1.3 the
original strike price plus the cost of land fill closure cost) so we could
pay an option premium of up to $210,000 (5% of $4.2 million).  At closing, we
reduce the purchase price by the costs yet to be incurred in the closing the
land fill.  Since Certosa Holdings will not start the closure until they are
assured that we will exercise the option if even then, the net cost to us
would drop back to  the original strike price.  Could we get this past the
accountants?

Only the memorandum of option was recorded.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:40 PM
To: Krause, Greg
Cc: Carnahan, Kathleen
Subject: RE: AEW's backup

I've skimmed it.  I see that the option expires August 9th.  Are we planning
to renew it?  If so maybe we can renew early and fix what we can to preserve
some optionality (no pun intended) and cover the fee issue.  Might take too
long to address the immediate issue.

I don't see anyway we can get around the balance sheet issue unless we let
the option expire and then reoption, but in that case the option payment
would have to be smaller (acct says an option of 5% creates a problem as it
would be considered a down payment).  Just fyi.

Kathleen, was the option recorded, or just a memo of option, or neither?  I'm
just wondering what is public info.

Herman is out of the office today, but I can discuss the fee issue to get his
vote.

More to come...

ckm

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/23/2001 02:19 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: RE: AEW's backup

I think the invoice was for between $20,000 and $30,000, but I can't
remember.  AEW has the invoice.  This probably will not be the final as we
will need to work with them in discussions with DERM on delaying the landfill
closure and in moving jurisdiction of the project from CZAB to the County
Commissioners.   I think Shutts & Bowen (who may get stiffed by their client
if this deal blows up) and Certosa Holdings would be open to any suggestions
and we need to renegotiate the option anyway.  Shall I call and suggest this
this flat fee for retooling the option agreement to them or shall we do it
together?  I,m not sure I could explain to them acequately the idiosyncrasies
of our accounting requirements.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:00 PM
To: Krause, Greg
Subject: RE: AEW's backup

How much is it and should this be the final amount?  One thought I have is
that maybe we can retool the option agreement so that we pay them a flat fee,
which is enough to cover the expenditures.  Don't know if this works, but it
is one thought.  What do you think?

Kay

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/23/2001 01:50 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: RE: AEW's backup

One more thing on the SDEC project:  According to the option agreement we
executed last October, we agreed to reimburse Certosa Holdings for actual
third party costs that they incurred in support of our necessary
applications, submittals and in seeking local approval.  Several weeks ago,
we recieved an invoice from Shutts & Bowen, attorney for Certosa Holdings
requesting reimbursement pursuant to the contract.  I forwarded this invoice
on th Ann Elizabeth not necessarily to pay for but to review considering this
whole soft cost hard cost discussion.  I recieved another call this morning
from Shutts & Bowen asking about the invoice.  What should I do?
 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:03 AM
To: Krause, Greg
Subject: RE: AEW's backup

Greg,

You can call me on whatever you have, including Midway, SDEC and Medley
Dunn.  If I have a problem getting to something, I'll find help.

Kay

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/23/2001 10:50 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: RE: AEW's backup

Kay,

Ann Elizabeth did not provide a designated hitter for the South Dade Energy
Center (Dade Development Company LLC is Optionee, Certosa Holdings is
Optionor) nor did she provide one for tne Medley Dunn project.  I have been
told that the Dunns are considering backing off their ultimatums that they
gave Ann Elizabeth and I regarding taxes to the town and assumption of
enviromental liability.  Who do I talk to about the Dunn contract while Ann
Elizabeth is out?
 -----Original Message-----
From:  White, Ann Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:33 PM
To: gkrause@enron.com; Krimsky, Steven; Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ENRON; Carnahan,
Kathleen
Cc: Milligan, Taffy
Subject: AEW's backup

Kay Mann is the designated hitter for the Pompano and Deerfied projects while
I'm on vacation.  I've given her a down load of the status of Greg and
Steve's projects.  Chris Boehler at A&K will be the designated hitter for
Midway.  I'm not going to check my voice mail while I'm gone but, if
necessary, here are the contact numbers while I'm gone.

Walter and Marlena Schilling  011-49-8218-89351 schilling.jun@freenet.de

Monika and Bernhard Steinacher 011-49-8232-8932 m.steinacher@schwabmuenchen.de

If you call, Walter and Bernhard and Bernhard's daughter, Susanne, speak very
good English.  Monika's isn't bad.  Marlena may get flustered and hang up on
you.

Best of luck at Deerfield and hope to see Pompano on track when I get back in
the office on June 11th.  Kay is planning on going to Florida on June 12 for
the moratorium hearing and the rezoning hearing.


my bad.


10 minute average data from met towers and pictures showing met tower data on
visupro screen


schedule
----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 01/21/2001 02:49 PM -----

	Kathy Dodgen@EES
	01/19/2001 05:56 PM

		 To: Kenneth Lay/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jeff Skilling/Corp/Enron@ENRON, David W
Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES, Rick Buy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg
Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Frevert/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen S Owens@ees@EES, John
J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Vicki
Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc: Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kay
Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carol Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Karen K Heathman/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Liz M Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nicki Daw/NA/Enron@Enron, Karen Owens/HOU/EES@EES,
Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES
		 Subject: California Action and Next Steps Meeting. Monday, January 22

From Dan Leff:

A California discussion meeting has been scheduled for Monday, January 22,
immediately following the Executive Committee Meeting (approximately 12
p.m.).
Thank you.

Dan Leff

Rosalee - Can you please let me know if the Board Room is available for this
meeting (it's late Friday afternoon and I am unable to find out this
information).   I will call you on Monday.  Thanks for your help.

Kathy Dodgen
3-6077


Call-in Program for Council of the Americas members only

Hon. Anthony S. Harrington
U.S. Ambassador to Brazil
Friday, October 27, 2000
12:30 - 1:30 p.m. (EDT)

 - ccharringtonann.doc