----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/30/2001 06:41 PM -----

	Jean Munoz <jmunoz@mcnallytemple.com>
	03/30/2001 01:31 PM

		 To: "'Andy Brown (E-mail)'" <ABB@eslawfirm.com>, "'B Brown Andy (E-mail)'"
<andybrwn@earthlink.net>, "'Baker Carolyn (E-mail)'"
<cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "'Bob Escalante (E-mail)'"
<rescalante@riobravo-gm.com>, "'Bob Weisenmiller (E-mail)'"
<rbw@mrwassoc.com>, "'Curtis Kebler (E-mail)'"
<curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Dean. Nistetter (E-mail)"
<Dean.Nistetter@dynegy.com>, "'Douglas Kerner (E-mail)'" <DKK@eslawfirm.com>,
"'Greg Blue (E-mail)'" <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "'Jan Smutny-Jones (E-mail)'"
<smutny@iepa.com>, "'Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)'" <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>,
"'Joe Ronan (E-mail)'" <joer@calpine.com>, "'John Larrea (E-mail)'"
<john.g.larrea@williams.com>, "'John Stout (E-mail)'"
<John_H_Stout@reliantenergy.com>, "'Julee Malinowski-Ball (E-mail)'"
<jmball@ns.net>, "'Kassandra Gough (E-mail)'" <kgough@calpine.com>, "'kent
Palmerton (E-mail)'" <kent.palmerton@williams.com>, "'Lynn Lednicky
(E-mail)'" <lale@dynegy.com>, "Marie Moretti (E-mail 2)"
<mmoretti@mccabeandcompany.net>, "'Marty Wilson (E-mail)'"
<mwilson@pstrategies.com>, "'McNally Ray (E-mail)'"
<rmcnally@mcnallytemple.com>, "''Nam Nguyen' (E-mail)'"
<nam.nguyen@powersrc.com>, "'Norton Kelli (E-mail)'"
<knorton@mcnallytemple.com>, "'Paula Hall-Collins (E-mail)'"
<paula.hall-collins@williams.com>, "'Pigott Jack (E-mail)'"
<jackp@calpine.com>, "'Richard Hyde (E-mail)'" <rwhyde@duke-energy.com>,
"'Roger Pelote (E-mail)'" <roger.pelote@williams.com>, "'Stephanie-Newell
(E-mail)'" <stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>, "'Sue Mara (E-mail)'"
<smara@enron.com>, "'Tom Ross (E-mail)'" <tross@mcnallytemple.com>, "Tom
Williams (E-mail)" <tcwillia@duke-energy.com>, "'Alex Sugaoka (E-mail)'"
<alex.sugaoka@uaecorp.com>, "'Bill Carlson (E-mail)'"
<william_carlson@wastemanagement.com>, "'Bill Woods (E-mail)'"
<billw@calpine.com>, "'Bob Ellery (E-mail)'" <bellery@spi-ind.com>, "'Bob
Gates (E-mail)'" <bob.gates@enron.com>, "'Cody Carter (E-mail)'"
<cody.carter@williams.com>, "'Curt Hatton (E-mail)'"
<Curt.Hatton@gen.pge.com>, "'David Parquet'" <david.parquet@enron.com>,
"'Dean Gosselin (E-mail)'" <dean_gosselin@fpl.com>, "'Doug Fernley (E-mail)'"
<fernley.doug@epenergy.com>, "'Duane Nelsen (E-mail)'"
<dnelsen@gwfpower.com>, "'Ed Tomeo (E-mail)'" <ed.tomeo@uaecorp.com>,
"'Eileen Koch (E-mail)'" <eileenk@calpine.com>, "'Eric Eisenman (E-mail)'"
<eric.eisenman@gen.pge.com>, "'Frank DeRosa (E-mail)'"
<frank.derosa@gen.pge.com>, "Frazier Blaylock (E-mail)"
<frazier_blaylock@ogden-energy.com>, "'Hap Boyd (E-mail)'"
<Hap_Boyd@enron.com>, "'Hawks Jack (E-mail)'" <jack.hawks@gen.pge.com>, "'Jim
Willey (E-mail)'" <elliottsa@earthlink.net>, "'Joe Greco (E-mail)'"
<jgreco@caithnessenergy.com>, "'Jonathan Weisgall (E-mail)'"
<jweisgall@aol.com>, "'Kate Castillo (E-mail)'" <CCastillo@riobravo-gm.com>,
"'Kelly Lloyd (E-mail)'" <kellyl@enxco.com>, "'Ken Hoffman (E-mail)'"
<khoffman@caithnessenergy.com>, "'Kent Fickett (E-mail)'"
<kfickett@usgen.com>, "'Lynn Lednicky (E-mail)'"
<lynn.a.lednicky@dynegy.com>, "'Marty McFadden (E-mail)'"
<marty_mcfadden@ogden-energy.com>, "'Paula Soos'"
<paula_soos@ogden-energy.com>, "'Randy Hickok (E-mail)'"
<rjhickok@duke-energy.com>, "Rick S. Koebbe (E-mail)"
<rskoebbe@powerworksinc.com>, "'Rob Lamkin (E-mail)'"
<rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>, "'Ross Ain (E-mail)'" <ain@worldnet.att.net>,
"'Steve Iliff'" <siliff@riobravo-gm.com>, "'Steve Ponder (E-mail)'"
<steve_ponder@fpl.com>, "'Tony Wetzel (E-mail)'" <twetzel@thermoecotek.com>,
"'William Hall (E-mail)'" <wfhall2@duke-energy.com>,
<trusso@mcnallytemple.com>, <sadlersa@earthlink.net>, <mstultz@epsa.org>,
<rtemple@mcnallytemple.com>, <tracy.fairchild@edelman.com>,
<megan.beiser@edelman.com>, <deborah.fiorito@dynegy.com>, <lchurch@epsa.org>,
Katie Kaplan <kaplan@iepa.com>, <tcwillia@duke-energy.com>,
<rwhyde@duke-energy.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Commerce Committee Letter

FYI, if you haven't already seen this, Congressional Democrats on the
Commerce Committee are leading an effort to send the attached letter to
President Bush.

Thanks,
Jean

--
Jean Munoz
McNally Temple Associates, Inc.
916-447-8186
916-447-6326 (fx)

______________________________________________________________________________
____
>     The Californian Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Reps.
> Waxman, Eshoo, Capps, and Harman would like to encourage the Caucus to
> sign the attached letter to the President urging the President to
> intervene at FERC.  The letter asks the President to support the
> Governor's request regarding wholesale electricity sales this summer and
> to investigate recent allegations of overcharges.
>
>                         March 29, 2001
>
>     The Honorable George W. Bush
>     The President
>     The White House
>     Washington, DC
>
>     Dear Mr. President:
>
>         We are writing because our constituents and millions of
> Americans across the West need your intervention at the Federal Energy
> Regulatory Commission (FERC) in order to address serious problems with the
> Western energy market.
>
>         As you know, California has been experiencing an electricity
> crisis that has resulted in blackouts throughout the state, inconvenienced
> millions of citizens and businesses, and disrupted the state's and
> region's economy.  Indeed, this crisis seriously threatens to cause
> long-term damage to the economy of California, the Western region, and
> perhaps the entire country.
>
>         The crisis is the result of a dysfunctional energy market
> where wholesale prices of electricity have spiked exorbitantly.  For
> example, wholesale prices on December 15, 2000, ranged from $429 per Mwh
> to $565 per Mwh, compared to prices from $12 per Mwh to $29 per Mwh one
> year earlier.  Wholesale prices have jumped as high as $1400 per Mwh.  In
> fact, the California Independent System Operator (ISO), the state's power
> grid operator, has projected that electricity which cost $7 billion in
> 1999 will cost $70 billion this year.  These skyrocketing prices can only
> partly be explained by natural gas price increases and increased energy
> demand.
>
>         These exorbitant price spikes have led FERC Commissioner
> William L. Massey to state on February 8, 2001:
>
>         These high prices serve only to continue a massive wealth
> transfer out of the region.  Is it worth dragging down an entire regional
> economy, or perhaps even the national economy, for the theoretical purity
> of unfettered price signals?  I say no.  I call on my fellow commissioners
> to consider a time out now.  It's our statutory obligation. . . .  FERC's
> timidity  and hands-off approach is eroding consumer confidence and
> destroying the consensus that heretofore supported a market based
> approach.
>
>
>         The dysfunctional nature of the market has apparently
> allowed it to be manipulated.  The California ISO last week presented FERC
> with findings of a comprehensive study of pricing data in California's
> wholesale electricity market over the last 10 months.  According to the
> Los Angeles Times, the ISO's study found "evidence of market manipulation
> and consistent patterns of bidding far above costs" and that "suppliers
> commonly offered electricity at twice their costs."  The ISO has estimated
> the cost of the potential overcharges between May 2000 and last month are
> high as $6.3 billion.
>
>         Unfortunately, FERC actions have fallen far too short.  To
> date, FERC has not aggressively worked to address market manipulations,
> despite finding last fall that wholesale prices were not "just and
> reasonable."  Nor is FERC apparently willing to seriously consider
> addressing runaway wholesale rates.
>
>         The state of California is taking heroic measures, but this
> is an issue California cannot address alone.  In a February 28, 2001,
> meeting with the California delegation, FERC Chairman Curt Hebert
> confirmed the widespread understanding that the California market is not
> working.  He called the California market "broken," and acknowledged the
> regional problems posed by the market.  Additionally, Chairman Hebert
> stated that "I don't think there is any way California can pull itself out
> of this thing alone."  As Mr. Hebert knows, California has no authority
> over wholesale electricity sales.  These sales fall solely within the
> jurisdiction of the federal government.
>
>         Despite FERC's recognition that California cannot address
> this problem alone, FERC seems unwilling to assist California and the
> West.  FERC's March 9th order sets the arbitrary expectation that unjust
> and unreasonable prices cannot occur in the absence of a Stage 3
> Emergency.  Energy economist Severin Borenstein has stated that this
> expectation "defies economic logic."  The March 9th order is also
> inconsistent with FERC's December 15 order and ignores the fact that when
> market power exists, prices can be unreasonable even when supply is not
> within 1.5% of demand.
>
>         Mr. President, you have the authority to rein in the impacts
> of this dysfunctional market and protect the citizens of California from
> exorbitant wholesale price spikes.  In October 2000, when you were in
> California, you stated, "I believe so strongly that part of this region is
> going to suffer unless you have a president who is willing to tell the
> FERC to do what is right for the consumer."  Now, we are respectfully
> calling upon you to do just that.
>
>         This is not a partisan issue.  At the Western Governors
> Association meeting in early February, eight Western governors -- three
> Democrats and five Republicans -- requested that the Administration
> immediately impose wholesale price caps throughout the region.  Governor
> Davis of California, Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon, and Governor Locke of
> Washington have now reiterated this request to FERC with a short-term
> pragmatic proposal that will preserve adequate incentives to attract
additional generation.
>
>         We believe that electricity generators should make a
> reasonable profit and that these profits should be sufficient to encourage
> the development of needed generation.  Federal action to temporarily
> intervene in California's failed wholesale market can accommodate these
> needs.  Governors Davis, Kitzhaber, and Locke have referenced Commissioner
> Massey's suggestion of a temporary cost-based price cap on spot market
> sales in the Western interconnection, combined with an exemption for new
> generation sources to ensure that new sources of energy are encouraged.
> Such an approach could reinstate consumer confidence in wholesale sales,
> ensure generators receive sufficient market signals, and prevent future
economic hemorrhaging in the West.

        Mr. President, we request that you help protect California's
economy, and indeed that of the Western region and the nation.  Please
support the Governors' request on wholesale rates, investigate the recent
allegations of overcharges, and act to prevent a dysfunctional electricity
market from damaging our constituents and a major engine of the nation's
economy.

                        Sincerely,


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

The charts are now available on the web by clicking on the hot link(s)
contained in this email. If for any reason you are unable to receive the
charts via the web, please contact me via email and I will email the charts
to you as attachments.

The distillate and unleaded charts to follow.

Crude     http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/crude25.pdf
Natural Gas     http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/ngas25.pdf

Nat Gas Strip Matrix
http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/StripmatrixNG25.pdf
Nat Gas Spread Matrix
http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/SpreadmatrixNG25.pdf

Crude and Products Spread Matrix
http://www.carrfut.com/research/Energy1/SpreadmatrixCL25.pdf

Carr Futures
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606  USA
Tel:  312-368-6149
Fax:  312-368-2281
soblander@carrfut.com
http://www.carrfut.com


Enron employees may find the current circumstances stressful.  We want to remind you that Enron's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is still available and currently offering services to assist you and your family.

Group Discussions
Beginning this week, Enron's EAP provider, Innovative Resources Group, will be facilitating group discussions for employees who are interested in attending. These sessions are designed to address the challenges employees may be facing and to suggest ways to minimize the impact of stress on employees and their families. These sessions will be held on Wednesday, January 30 and Thursday, January 31 at the following times in EB32C2:

	9:00 am -- 10:00 am
	11:00 am -- 12:00 pm
	1:30  pm --  2:30 pm
	3:30 pm --   4:30 pm

No advance registration is necessary -- simply come to EB32C2 at the scheduled day and time that is most convenient for you.

Onsite Confidential Counseling / 24 Hour Hotline
EAP Counselors are available for individual, confidential appointments onsite in the Enron Building or at a variety of neighborhood locations.  Counselors are also available via telephone 24 hours a day, seven days a week for Enron employees in all locations.  The EAP counseling service is provided at no cost to employees and their family members.  To schedule an appointment or speak with a counselor, please call the onsite office at 713-853-6057 or the 24-hour number at 1-800-345-1391.

Informational Brochures
Additional information about EAP programs will be available in the Body Shop, the Health Center on the third floor of Enron Center North and soon in the common kitchen areas on all floors of the Enron Buildings.

Websites
The following links may also provide helpful information:
www.stress.org -- This is the website of the American Institute of Stress. The site provides general information on stress management and links to other related sites.
www.wellnessjunction.com -- This website has been developed by Health Resources Publishing and provides targeted information on trends in wellness and health promotion.


The following are some of the proposed amendments to SBX2 78, in concept.
The amendments were developed by the Administration and Assembly Democratic
leadership and have not been finalized, nor have they been run past the
Senate in full detail.  It is unlikely that the Assembly will take the bill
up this week.

Direct Access: SBX2 78 will contain the final DA provisions from ABX2 82
which are located in Water Code Section 80110.  The amendments, in short,
provide that customers may switch during open enrollment periods provided
that there is enough head room and in proportion to the customer class.  The
Assembly has apparently convinced the Treasurer that DA can exist provided
there are non-bypassable charges and specified exit fees.

Threshold: The payment threshold will be lowered to 20 kw for 100% of the
undercollection despite the Senate's objections.  Lowering the threshold to
20 kw will probably force some of the liberal Democrats off the bill but
will bring even more of the moderate Democrats on to the bill.

Tax Refund: SCE will keep the $400 million projected tax refund and not have
that amount applied towards the bonding amount.

Easements: The easements are currently in the bill, however, they may need
to come out in order to secure moderate Democratic votes.

Renewable Portfolio Standard:  The RPS from ABX2 82 will be included in SBX2
78.


Thanks much for the comments. Here's my preliminary response:

1. Done, and will add a definition of Effective Date
2. Will propose change to city.
3. OK - done.
4. Power plants are normally deemed to be factories for this purpose.
5. They promise to send us each a card and fruit cake each Christmas (just
kidding). Your point is understood, but this is a small commercial point
relative to the overall deal.
6. Will propose change to city.
7. Ties to definition of Effective Date, which we will propose as requiring
the passage of a resolution.
8. Sections will be added.

I'll send you the redraft as soon as we get it. Thanks again.

Ben

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Bills, Lisa
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:42 PM
To: Mann, Kay; Jacoby, Ben
Cc: Krimsky, Steven; Fleenor, William; Engeldorf, Roseann
Subject: RE: Deerfield development agreement

I have since met with Ben on this agreement but wanted to let you see my
comments as you are incorporating Deerfield's changes.  I was in meetings all
day and just realized that I never sent this out.

Finance comments.  I have left a message with Rose asking what her comments
to you were so we could coordinate.  Since I haven't heard from her yet I
will provide these and follow-up if there are any others which need
mentioning after I speak with her.

1.  The Effective Date needs to change to "2001"

2.  In Section 2 Landscaping: To avoid any accounting issues raised by
Accounting, it would be very helpful and along the intent as you indicated to
Billy, if you would add at the beginning: "After commencement of construction
of the Facility but prior to the issuance of a CofO......."

3.  Section 4 needs to have a global search done to change all the "PBEC"s to
"DBEC"s.

4.  Section 6:  Is the Facility truly deemed a "Factory" for permitting fees
or are we changing the normal classification for a power plant in this
agreement?

5.  Section 7(b):  Will we be charging the City for the easement for their
cellular tower?  What is the consideration otherwise for doing so since we
are paying them all sorts of money for the other items for which we are using
the City?

 Extra period at the end of this Section.

6.  In the Termination Section can we put in the language from Pompano Beach
which said that if the Agreement is terminated, all parties relieved of their
obligations and an instrument would be recorded with County (offset to
initial recordation of Agreement) indicating that Ag terminated and all
obligations of the parties have been released?

7.  Does the City need to obtain any approvals prior to execution or at any
other time to execute and have this be a valid agreement on their part?

8.  I noted that there is no Notices section nor Counterparts section.  Are
they truly not needed here?  Execution occurring in same place on same doc?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Wednesday, June  6, 2001 9:09 AM
To: Fleenor, William
Cc: Jacoby, Ben; Krimsky, Steven; Bills, Lisa
Subject: RE: Deerfield development agreement

Billy,

It is expected that by the time the hard costs referenced in #2 are incurred,
the project will be in E Next (or its successor/take out vehicle) since
construction will be nearly complete.  Costs incurred in #3 should be Phase 2
E Next costs, since this should be in the construction period, although it
could be immediately prior to that time.

Lisa, I skipped Rose on this email since she is out of town, and reviewed
this agreement before she left.

Kay

From: William Fleenor/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/04/2001 09:46 AM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: RE: Deerfield development agreement

See comments therein.

 << File: Deerfield development ag May 31.DOC >>

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:01 PM
To: Fleenor, William
Subject: Deerfield development agreement

Hi Billy,

Can you take a look at this since the Hermanator is out?

Thanks,

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/01/2001 02:00
PM ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Kay Mann
05/31/2001 06:48 PM
To: Lisa Bills/Enron@EnronXGate, Herman Manis/Enron@EnronXGate, Roseann
Engeldorf/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Ben Jacoby/Enron@EnronXGate, Steven Krimsky/Enron@EnronXGate

Subject: Deerfield development agreement

Hello.

The commercial team  has asked that I forward this document to you for
review.  It is a development agreement for a project in Florida.  We have
attempted to address the accounting/E-Next issues, but please advise of any
desired changes.

Thank you,

Kay

 << File: Deerfield development ag May 31.DOC >>

PS  Pardon the formatting.  It will be cleaned up by those with the ability
to do so.


Please be sure your are in attendance or let me know if you can't attend so
that I can make Dave aware.

This is a reminder !!!!!  There will be a Friday Meeting October 13, 2000.

    Date:  October 13, 2000
      Friday

    Time:   2:30 pm - 4:30 pm

    Location:  30C1

    Topic:   ENA Management Committee

If you have any questions or conflicts, please feel free to call me (3-0643).

Thanks,

Kay 3-0643


Vince,

All's okay with Jeff Shankman re. charging us for one of your managers.

Let's move forward on this as soon as possible--I have some momentum building and need to keep pushing our group ahead.

When you designate someone from your group for this role I would like to involve him in the hiring of their own support team.  We already have a lead on a good quant. analyst and would like the input of whomever you select for this new role.

Thank you very much for your help and support.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Shankman, Jeffrey A.
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:32 PM
To: Andrews, Jeff
Subject: RE: quantitative research role in EGM fundys

yes

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrews, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:28 PM
To: Shankman, Jeffrey A.
Subject: quantitative research role in EGM fundys

Jeff,

Per our conversation earlier this month I discussed with Vince Kaminski the possibility of getting a quant. guy on permanent loan to our group to help manage the more complex analyses I want our guys to be doing.

Vince is amenable to letting us have one of his managers.  However, because is group is stretched thin and he wants to keep his headcount flat, he would want to hire a replacement and charge the manager we get to us.

I would also want to hire an analyst to help this quant. guy with general research ideas and data gathering.

Is this acceptable to you?

Jeff


This is a high-quality quantiative finance site...

http://www.wilmott.com/


Dave, the fundy's report is saying that both Kaiser plants are closed, the one in Mead and the other is in Tacoma... are they not buying gas from us on a monthly basis and if so, is this for process?

BT


Notes from Bryson conversation with Ken Lay:

Urged us to "stay at the table".

Says teams in Washington have all the demand curves from the utilities (from
which to calculate offering prices).

QF meeting starts at 7:00 pm tonight.
says average cost of QFs today is 15?/kwh (amounts to 30% of supply).
believes that cost can be brought down significantly if gas is purchased
forward (perhaps by state entity).

Says all utility generation (another 30%), mostly hydro and nuclear is cost
based at  4?/kwh.

If suppliers come in at 5.5? (or even 6?), there is room under the 7? new
commodity rate component to recover securitized costs (amounts to about 40%
of SCE supply).

Says good progress was made today.  Believes they may have a framework this
evening.

Believes 5.5? is causing problem; maybe room to squeeze it up (perhaps as
high as 6.0?).

Thinks governor will slightly increase rates (or pay more at government
facilities) if the parties can get 97% of the way to a solution.

Thinks it's nearly a "done deal" that DWR (state entity) will buy power.

Says securitization may be harder to get.

Bryson's questions to Ken (and Ken's to us):  Are we willing to forbear
payment of amounts owed to us and continue to sell power to the utilities
over the next several weeks.  Ken realizes that Bryson may be overstating the
progress made, and made no commitments to Bryson.

Let's discuss at 10:30 call tomorrow.


Please see attached.

 - ER011577.1
 - IN01-3.1


Marie and Sara,
CSFB - Europe contact number for Robert Daborn.
Sheila

-----Original Message-----
From: Hopley, Kimberly
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:19 AM
To: Glover, Sheila
Subject: RE: ECT Invesmtents Inc

SG, FYI - Robert can be contacted on +44 207 883 8359 (direct line)

-----Original Message-----
From: Glover, Sheila
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:11 PM
To: Shackleton, Sara; Heard, Marie
Cc: Hopley, Kimberly; Brogan, Theresa T.
Subject: FW: ECT Invesmtents Inc

Sara and Marie,
CSFB Europe requires information to open an account.  We have an account with CSFB Corporation - NY. Would you please review their requirements?  Do we have a problem with any of them?

Please do not hesitate to call if questions.  I will get Robert Daborn's telephone number.
Thanks,
Sheila

-----Original Message-----
From: Hopley, Kimberly
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:04 AM
To: Glover, Sheila
Cc: Brogan, Theresa T.
Subject: FW: ECT Invesmtents Inc

SG,

I called CSFB (Robert Daborn CSFB Compliance) yesterday because they issued yet another confirm in the name of ECT Investments PLC and not ECT Inv Inc. (We thought this matter had been resolved on their side but apparently not).

Below I have attached an email that I received from Robert.  The email contains a word document that requires an authorized Enron person's signature.

Please let me know if I can do anything from this side to resolve this matter.

Many thanks
Kimberly

-----Original Message-----
From: Daborn, Robert [mailto:robert.daborn@csfb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:18 PM
To: Hopley, Kimberly
Subject: RE: ECT Invesmtents Inc

Kimberly,

Further to our conversation of earlier today it would appear that trades
have been incorrectly allocated to an existing Enron account. This existing
account has been opened with CSFB for several years and it may well be the
case that it is the correct entity for certain transactions between our two
corporations.

However, I note that for transactions executed by yourself the correct
booking entity should be ETC Investments Inc (ETC). Whilst ETC is an
existing client of CSFB Corporation - NY it is not currently set up as a
client of CSFB Equities / CSFB Europe Ltd.

In order that your account can be set up and trades booked correctly I would
appreciate it if you could provide CSFB with following information:

1) Confirmation that ETC is a wholly / majority owned subsidiary of Enron
Corp. This can be evidenced by providing CSFB with a copy of Enron's Annual
Report / Audited Financial Statement and Accounts or confirmed in writing by
Enron on Enron letterhead

2) Confirmation of the registered address of ETC

3) Completed and signed authorisation document attached below.

The information requested above is required to meet our UK Regulatory &
Legal obligations and is not to my knowledge retained by our New York
office.

Please accept my apologies for any delay you've experienced in resolving
this issue but by providing the information requested we should be in a
position to make the requisite changes.

Kind Regards

Rob Daborn
Legal & Compliance
CREDIT | FIRST
SUISSE | BOSTON

Tel: 44(0) 207 883 8359
Fax: 44(0) 207 888 4883
E Mail: Robert.Daborn@CSFB.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Hopley, Kimberly [mailto:kimberly.hopley@enron.com]
Sent: 18 September 2001 16:54
To: robert.daborn@csfb.com
Subject: ECT Invesmtents Inc

Robert,

As discussed per our telephone conversation earlier today :

Please would you amend your records so that confirms issued to us are in
the name of   ECT Investments Inc and not Enron Investments PLC.

Please confirm

Thanks and regards,

Kimberly Hopley
Financial Trading
Tel : +44(0)20 7783 2644
Fax : +44(0)20 7783 1913
Email : kimberly.hopley@enron.com

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

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information.  No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.
Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message is
indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an offer to
deal at any price quoted.
Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as
preliminary only and subject to our formal written confirmation.


Sally -

I think we probably need to meet about this today.  (Peggy, Beth (Shona),  and myself).  Apparently,  the Canadian power trader has been building a very large gas position over the last two weeks.  There are two issues in my view:

1.) Canada set up post ID's to run through enpower and not pick up the positions on the gas side in US dollars.  We are therefore unable to capture the positions for a net Natural gas position.

2.)  These gas books were set up, and somewhere the communication broke down between Canada,  the controls group,  and my group.  Clearly,  we have to put new procedures in place if 150 bcf short can just "slip through the cracks."

---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT on 05/10/2001 07:29 AM ---------------------------
From:	Frank Hayden/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/09/2001 05:41 PM
To:	David Port/ENRON@enronXgate
cc:	Vladimir Gorny/ENRON@enronXgate, LaCrecia Davenport/ENRON@enronXgate, Chris Abel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:	Canada

Canada has a very large natural gas position that appears to have not been captured in value at risk. (Approx short 150bcf price, a total short 250bcf if we include the basis leg.)  For example, the gas desk alone has a total position for today of short 283bcf, Zufferli nearly 50% of the total position

We simulated ad hoc VAR, and looking at the NYMEX position alone VAR is approx $7MM.
Added to Canadian power VAR,  risk is approx. $13MM, it adds about $3MM of risk to the entire power portfolio.

However, to the gas portfolio it adds approx. $6MM of risk, giving us a VAR of $87.5, a limit violation had it been captured and included in VAR.

I'm unclear as to how books can be created and yet not mapped into VAR.

Frank


On the one NE and Southeast orders:

Feel good, guys.  After getting Sarah's call, the traders, including Kevin
and Dana, said "Awesome" "Great Job" "Way to go" "You've got to feel good",
plus some whoops for Gov't Affairs!!  Clearly, the most happy yelling I've
heard about FERC orders in a long time!


Harry.  Tamara is finishing a model that give impact according to rate
design.

It is far more difficult to model the effects of behaviour change that will
ocur with higher prices in the summer.  I spoke with David Roberts (EAM) and
ran this structure by him and he is of the same opinion as I that:
Very high rates from 12noon to 6PM do not encourage DSM because:
The risk of installing capital in time for June,July, Aug, Sep is significant
when the timing is short and each month lost decreases the value of the
investment by 1/4
Very high rates from 12noon to 6PM will result in behaviour changes by
changing behaviour more than DSM.  ie.  They will turn up the temperature for
these hours.
Very high rates for 12noon to 6PM encourage curtailment activities but not as
much load shifting.  ie a 2 part rate would encourage doing your annual plant
turnaround in Aug ($250/MWh signal) more than the CPUC proposal for August
($110/MWh signal).
Very high rates starting in June, would be difficult to optimize, given the
lack of certainty today about whether the rates will be pasted and the short
lead time.

The rate design I have proposed below gives large price signals in the summer
and the winter, than those proposed by CPUC, while lessening the impact to
Enron tariff book.

Price Signals Comparison

	Summer
	(PGE=Jun-Oct, SCE=May-Sep)	Summer 	Winter	Winter
CPUC Proposal	On Peak - 12noon to 6PM WD	Off  Peak 	On Peak	Off Peak
       PGE E19 Secondary	$370/MWh	$75/MWh	$75/MWh	$75/MWh
       SCE TOU 8 Secondary	$145/MWh	$122/MWh	$122/MWh	$122/MWh
2 Part RTP Proposal
       PGE E19 Secondary	$290/MWh based on Apr 1 NP15	$150/MWh based on Apr 1 NP15	$180/MWh based
on Q4 Apr 1 NP15	$131/MWh based on Q4  Apr 1 NP15
       SCE TOU 8 Secondary	$157/MWh based on Apr 1 SP15	$122/MWh	$156/MWh based on Q4 Apr 1
NP15	$98/MWh

Lets see if we can get together with the DSM people today.

Scott

From: Harry Kingerski@ENRON on 04/03/2001 07:40 AM
To: Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, Tamara
Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron
Subject: Re: Draft Testimony re PGE/SCE for Discussion

I still think it is imperative that we use our book position, by rate
schedule and time period (on-peak, off-peak) , to quantify the sensitivity to
different types of rate designs.  For instance, if there is a large increase
in summer on-peak, how much of the increase can we avoid with aggressive DSM,
etc.  Can we look at this quantification today?

	Scott Stoness@EES
	04/02/2001 09:34 PM

		 To: James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES
		 cc: Don Black, Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES, harry kingerski
		 Subject: Draft Testimony re PGE/SCE for Discussion

Harry and I are meeting tomorrow.  I would like any feedback you have related
to the following:

Based on our position we would prefer:
Later surcharges
Lower surcharges
Surcharges that are lower in the summer (flatter is better because it is
closer, the NPV effects and our rapidly diminishing position)

The proposal below could either result in:
Delay of a month while they consider this complicated affair (low likelihood)
Lower surcharge if we can convince people that market rates are $300/MWh for
a year when they are actually $200.  We would only get a $20/MWh increase, as
compared to a $30/MWh increase.  ie (1-90%) times $300/MWh yields $30/MWh is
our story when the actural is (1-90%)times $200/MWh yields $20/MWh.
The Enron rates below are effectively much flatter than the CPUC proposal.
Thus we would be better off if accepted.
Additionally if our noise causes a flat $30/MWh increase to replace the CPUC
proposal, we are better off.

Additionally,
we could sell hedging on the 10% exposed to markets.
DSM related to capital investments should be less risky.

The risks to Enron are:
Proposal makes it easy to hit the large customers with a lower baseline (ie
75% instead of 90%)
Would make DSM more risky.  DSM providers would have to buy hedges to proceed.

The questions to answer are:
Could Enron provide witnesses without drawing more negatives
Would a partner tow the Enron line
---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Stoness/HOU/EES on 04/02/2001 09:22
PM ---------------------------

Scott Stoness
04/02/2001 09:21 PM
To: Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES
cc: harry kingerski
Subject: Draft Testimony re PGE/SCE for Discussion

Summary:
The CPUC should implement two part RTP/TOU rates for PGE/SCE.  A two part
rate is a rate where customers pay their historical rate for consumption of
normal load and pay market value for consumption incremental (or decremental)
to normal load.
The CPUC should define normal consumption as consumption over and above 90%
of historical 2000 consumption.
The CPUC should define the hourly rate as the highest hourly price paid by
DWR for spot purchases in that hour.
In the event that implementation of two part RTP/TOU rates is complicated to
design, the $30/MWh surcharge should be applied to all customers until the
implementation of two part RTP/TOU rates is possible.
The current draft design, of the CPUC, is discriminatory to large customers.
The current draft design, of the CPUC, does not provide appropriate price
signals.
The current draft design, of the CPUC, results in rate increases to large
customers that are unneccessarly high.
The current draft design, of the CPUC, results in rate increases to large
customers, that are far in excess of those which the CPUC intended.
The current draft design, of the CPUC, results is static and does not respond
to changing market conditions.

Design Goals:
The CPUC should design rates that:
Give appropriate price signals to customers to consume / conserve energy as
as close to marginal price as possible in as many hours as possible.
Treat all rate classes in a fair and consistent manner.
Achieve targeted revenue requirements.
Are easy to administer and understand.

Summary of CPUC Illustrative Design:
The CPUC has proposed rates that move on peak pricing in the summer close to
marginal rates:
Draft proposal provides marginal price signal of about $370/MWh for E19
Secondary from in Summer Weekdays from noon to 6PM
Draft proposal provides marginal price signal of about $75/MWh for E19
Secondary from in all other hours.
Critique based on Design Goals:
Draft proposals move toward marginal rates but fall short.
The rates for power, Mar 30 2001, based on DJ-NP15, on peak is $181.94/MWh.
The rates for power, Mar 30 2001, based on DJ-NP15, off peak is $93.46/MWh.
The proposed marginal rates for E19 Secondary, is $75/MWh for on peak and off
peak.
This rate design will not encourage investments in assets that result in
lower consumption in the winter or in off peak periods.
 Draft proposal falls short on treating customers on a consistent basis:
E20 Transmission Voltage customers will experience a 87% rate increase.
E19 Secondary voltage customers will experience a 41% rate increase.
A10 Medium General Service customers will experience a 20% rate increase.
A1 Small L&P customers will experience a 16% rate increase.
The marginal price signal for A10 will be $121/MWh vs $370/MWh for E-20
transmission in the on peak summer.
The marginal price signal for E10 wills be 107/MWh vs $55/MWh for E-20
transmission in the off peak periods.
PGE has a longer summer period than SCE.  This results in a 69% increase for
SCE TOU-8-Sub as compared to 87% increases for PGE E20 Transmission rate.
The proposal also results in far different marginal price signals for SCE
customers than PGE customers.  For example the on peak rate for SCE TOU-8-Sub
is $128/MWh as compared to PGE E20 Transmission rate of $374/MWh.
Draft proposal does do a good job of recovering $2.2b of revenue.
Draft proposal require some implementation but given that the surcharge
increase does not ocur until May for PGE and June for SCE, it should be
possible to implement.

Enron Proposed Rates:
Enron proposes:
Two part real time pricing time of use rate,
Usage up to 90% of historical use would be billed at historical rates.
Usage incremental or decremental to 90% of historical use, would be billed at
DJ-NP15 On Peak and DJ-NP15 Off Peak, where customers has real time metering.
Usage incremental or decremental to 90% of historical use, would be billed at
DJ-NP15 On Peak and DJ-NP15 Off Peak averaged over the month, where customers
has time of use metering.
Usage incremental or decremental to 90% of historical use, would be billed at
45% of DJ-NP15 On Peak and 55% of DJ-NP15 Off Peak averaged over the month,
where customers has just energy metering.
Critique based on Design Goals:
Enron proposals charge all customer at very close  to marginal rates.
Thus, within the constraints of using Dow Jones, the rates should be very
close to the actual marginal rates.
The rates will not be exact because they are:
Determined on the previous day
Ony differentiate between on and off peak, as compared to hour by hour.
To the extent that the customer does not have real time metering capability,
the rates will be determined on a class average basis.
However, the rates be far superior to the CPUC draft design because:
They give better price signals to night consumption
They give better signals to weekend consumption
They give better signals to winter consumption
They are self correcting in that they do not require predetermination of
marginal costs.  For example, if summer costs are lower, the rate will be
lower.
The Enron proposal will motivate DSM activities in winter, summer and off
peak.
Enron proposal results in similar rate structure and impact regardless of
utility and rate class.
The Enron proposal results in a similar concept for commerical and industrial
as with residential.  AB1X provides that residential customers that consume
energy below normal rates will not have increased rates.  This design also
achieves the same effect for commercial and industrial customers.
Draft proposal does do a good job of recovering $2.2b of revenue but even
more importantly it ensures tracking of costs.
Setting the normal load at 90% of historical load results in a $30/MWh
increase if the market value for the entire year is $300/MWh.
In the event that the market value for the entire year is less than $300/MWh,
the resulting cost decreases will offset the lost revenue.
The Enron proposed rate design structure is flexi ble enough that it can
easily be changed to achieve greater or lessor revenue to achieve price
signals and revenue targets.
The revenue outcome is less certain than the CPUC draft design however the
impact should be more certain because the revenue will automatically go up
when the costs go up.
Draft proposal require greater implementation details than the CPUC design
but such extra costs are worthwhile.
The Enron proposal requires:
Determination of historical loads for large customers
Determination of class consumption profiles for demand metered customers
Determination of class consumption profiles for energy metered customers
Determination of customer profiles in the event that the customers is a new
customer
Then Enron proposal has the following negatives:
Some customers who have reduced load from historical levels will be better
off even though they have not changed their behaviour in response to the new
price signals
The rates will require greater administrative costs since they are different
for each customer.
The rates may take more work to put in place for the utility
The rates will result in similar customers paying dissimilar rates, depending
upon the historical consumption of the customers

Q.  In the event that it is not possible to implement the Enron rates by June
1, 2001, what would you propose a an interim solution:
A.  The CPUC draft rates are so flawed, that it would be superior to just
implement a flat $30/MWh surcharge to all customers.  This approach would be
fairer and simpler.

Q.  Who would pay for the decremental consumption of customers?
A.  The DWR will incur a decline in their costs equal to the decrease in
rates of the utilities.  The are indifferent to buy more generation or
selling less energy to customers.  Thus the DWR should be willing to pay for
decremental consumption.  In the event that the DWR is not agreeable to
paying for decremental consumption, the utility should be allowed to borrow
such funds and have the costs amortized for the next 10 years.  In the event
that the utility is unable to fund decremental consumption, the normal load
could be defined 85% of historical and the CPUC could eliminate credits
resulting from decremental consumption.  Such solution would discourage
conservation below 15% but would not be expected to diminish the
effectiveness of the Enron proposed rates.

Q.  Why is DJ-NP15 the right index to choose?
A.  DJ-NP15 and DJ-SP15 are availble for each weekday for on and off peak
pricing.  The index is a mathematical average of trades in the previous day
for today.  The DJ index is compiled based on the information provided by
many of the large trading companies including Enron.  The numbers provided by
the participants are subject to audit.  Thus DJ is the best avaible
information available for energy pricing.

Q.  What index is suitable for weekends?
A. Enron proposes that the average DJ-NP15 off peak energy charges for friday
and monday be used to determine the weekend rates for the purpose of rate
setting.


-----Original Message-----
From: Moore, Kevin G.
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:45 AM
To: Rangel, Ina; Young, Becky; Brown, Kimberly; Hogan, Irena D.; Villarreal, Alexandra; Jones, Carmella; Coneway, Betty J.
Cc: Roberts, Mike A.; Bennett, Steve; Ryan, David; Stevens, Adam; Smith, William; Crenshaw, Shirley; Kaminski, Vince J
Subject: FW: Freez Notis Presentation
Importance: Low

                        Freez- Notis  Presentation

                                                      Winter Outlook

When  : October  8th, 2001

Time   :  9:00 a.m.

Location  -  EB32C2

Please asst , inform your groups ........

more info...comimg soon.

                                           Thanks

                                       Kevin Moore


---------------------- Forwarded by Carey M Metz/HOU/ECT on 06/13/2000 08:13
AM ---------------------------

"Maillet, Lisa" <LMaillet@anpower.com> on 06/13/2000 07:42:32 AM
To: Enron-Carey Metz <carey.m.metz@enron.com>, Peter Ash <PAsh@anpower.com>,
"PG&E-Biggs, Brian" <brian.biggs@gt.pge.com>, Sally Manning
<SMANNING@anpower.com>, Trey Christensen <TChristensen@anpower.com>,
TXU-David Avila <davila1@txu.com>, Vivian Liedtke <VLiedtke@anpower.com>
cc:
Subject: Midlothian forecast

 <<061300 short.xls>>

13th = 57,000
14th = 59,000

 - 061300 short.xls


---------------------- Forwarded by Judy Hernandez/HOU/ECT on 10/26/2000
11:36 AM ---------------------------

Shauncy Mathews
10/26/2000 10:22 AM
To: Janet Warri/NA/Enron@Enron, Leticia Flores/NA/Enron@Enron, Lisa
Shoemake/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Hernandez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elida
Aguilar/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:
Subject: I Picked you

---------------------- Forwarded by Shauncy Mathews/HOU/ECT on 10/26/2000
10:21 AM ---------------------------

	Elida Aguilar @ ENRON

	10/26/2000 08:48:03 AM

To: bheiman@worldnet.att.net, PFlores@corestaff.com, Lori
Boutte/Corp/Enron@Enron, Albernita Travis/Corp/Enron@Enron, Shauncy
Mathews/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: I Picked you

----- Forwarded by Elida Aguilar/Corp/Enron on 10/26/2000 08:46 AM -----

	Rose Rivera@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
	10/26/2000 08:41 AM

		 To: Jan Dunn/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Debbie
Lucadou/HOU/EES@EES, Denissa Arredondo/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Elida
Aguilar/Corp/Enron@ECT, acontreras@appleorthodontix.com, Amanda
Camacho/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Veronica
Quintana/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc:
		 Subject: I Picked you

----- Forwarded by Rose Rivera/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 10/26/2000 08:40 AM -----

	Irma Fuentes@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
	10/26/2000 08:35 AM

		 To: Rose Rivera/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Frances
Garcia/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Cynthia U
Espinoza/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Patricia
Moreno-EECC/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, G G Garcia/NA/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: I Picked you

I picked YOU!!!   Has nothing to do that you are all my only friends!!!!
Really.
----- Forwarded by Irma Fuentes/Enron Communications on 10/26/00 08:32 AM
-----

	G G Garcia@ENRON
	10/26/00 07:58 AM

		 To: Belinda Trevino/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Irma Fuentes@ENRON
COMMUNICATIONS, Debbie Lucadou/HOU/EES@EES, Irma Rodriguez/NA/Enron@Enron,
Bonnie Allen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc:
		 Subject: I Picked you

> -----Original Message-----
>
>   > "I Picked You"
> >  > My instructions were to send this to four people that I wanted God
to
> >  > bless and I picked you.
> >  >
> >  > Please pass this to four people you want to be blessed as well as
the
> >  > person who sent it to you. This prayer is powerful and there is
> >  > nothing attached, please do not  break this pattern; prayer is one
of
> =
> >  the
> >  > best gifts we receive. There is no cost but a lot of rewards, let's
> >  > continue
> >  > to pray for one another.   God bless and  have a nice day!
> >  >
> >  > "Father, I ask you to bless my friends, relatives and e-mail buddies
> >  > reading this right now.  Show them a new revelation of your love and
> >  > power.  Holy Spirit, I ask you to minister to their spirit at this
> very
> >  > moment.  Where there is pain, give them your peace and mercy.  Where
> >  > there is self-doubt, release a renewed confidence through your
grace,
> >  > In Jesus precious Name." Amen >>
>
>


Please find attached this week's publication of the Global Markets Monitor
for 08 December 2000.

Maureen Raymond-Castaneda and
Gwyn Koepke


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 12/15/2000
05:22 PM ---------------------------

Zimin Lu
12/15/2000 05:11 PM
To: Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: WTI models

Stinson and Vince,

I finalized the presentation for John Lavorato, he said he is ready
to present it  to Greg.  He is happy with the work we provided.

I will be on vocation starting next week.  I attached the simulation models
here in case that you need them.  The OC version deals with open-close
trading and CC version deals with continuous trading.

Should you have any questions, or need to run different scenarios, please
call me at home.  Otherwise, I will see you next year.

Merry Chrismas and Happy New Year !

Zimin


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Tamarchenko, Tanya
Sent:	Friday, May 18, 2001 3:20 PM
To:	Hayden, Frank; Kaminski, Vince J
Subject:

Frank and Vince,
I added 2 paragraphs to Frank's document (in blue print).
Please review,

Tanya


As per John's request.
----- Forwarded by Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT on 07/12/2000 03:11 PM -----

	Jarrod Cyprow
	07/11/2000 05:47 PM

		 To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Ondarza/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Media General Confirm

I have attached a final copy of the Media General Confirmation.


Back By Popular Demand
Ziff Energy Group Presents
Gas Storage 2002
Redefining the Fundamentals:
Is Gas Still in the Storage Game?
February 6 & 7
Houston - Four Seasons Hotel
Power drives storage, will a recession affect plant and storage facility development?  Will gas prices likewise continue to fall?
How can we afford to store gas when dealing with year-round price volatility?
What's the bottom line comparison between high deliverability salt and reservoir storage?
Will new technology improve storage economics?
What new storage projects are in the works?
Get answers to these questions and more at Ziff's annual storage conference. Hear industry leaders from across North America share their expertise and experiences as storage providers, power producers, utilities, pipelines, government and energy traders. Watch for more details, coming soon.
If your company would like to participate as a sponsor or in project displays, please contact Debralee Fernets at (403) 265-0600 or
e-mail us at gasconference@ziffenergy.com.


Tana I have converted the document into word, so I don't know why it's
saving the attachment as a wpd.  See if you can open it and how it looks,
call me.

 - BTB501!.WPD


Access to the Attorney Forms directory (O:\Legal\ATTY.FMS) has been secured
for "read only" access.  Please contact Erica Braden, Sheri Cromwell, Taffy
Milligan, Pat Radford or Brenda Whitehead to assist you with:

saving a form to Word 2000  (some forms are losing footers, etc. until saved
in the 2000 format--this will be done on an "as needed" basis);

replacing a form with an updated version (section head approval required
before "dropping" the revised document into the directory); or

deleting a form from the directory (section head approval required).

Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.


INDIA: Enron, India panel to meet on May 23.
Reuters English News Service, 05/11/01

INDIAN RENEGOTIATION COMMITTEE MEETS WITH DABHOL POWER CO
Asia Pulse, 05/11/01

Enron's Dabhol to Meet Indian Panel Again on May 23 (Update1)
Bloomberg, 05/11/01

No more track pants its a whole new line
The Economic Times, 05/11/01

Enrons Broadband Solutions to seek new IDC partner
The Economic Times, 05/11/01

COMPANIES & FINANCE UK: BG benefits from increased energy prices
Financial Times; May 11, 2001

India: DPC-MSEB slugfest: Needed, a conciliatory approach
Business Line (The Hindu), 05/11/01

Enron to relocate DPC managers abroad
The Economic Times, 05/11/01

India: Dabhol: Back to the table
Business Line (The Hindu), 05/11/01

DPC mounts pressure on lenders for PPA termination
Business Standard, 05/11/01

Military nominees say corporate ties won't influence decisions
Associated Press Newswires, 05/10/01

INDIA: Enron, India panel to meet on May 23.

05/11/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

BOMBAY, May 11 (Reuters) - The Indian unit of Enron Corp and an Indian
government panel will meet again on May 23 to continue talks on the U.S.
energy giant's embattled $2.9 billion Dabhol Power Project.
"We discussed issues for two hours and have agreed to meet again on May 23 to
discuss them further," said Vinay Mohanlal, energy secretary of the
government of the western state of Mahrashtra, where Dabhol is located.
Dabhol officials on Friday met a special committee appointed by the Indian
government to renegotiate the Dabhol project which has been mired in
controversy over high costs and payment defaults.
Wade Cline, chief executive of Enron India, told newsmen he had no comments
to offer.

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

INDIAN RENEGOTIATION COMMITTEE MEETS WITH DABHOL POWER CO

05/11/2001
Asia Pulse
(c) Copyright 2001 Asia Pulse PTE Ltd.

MUMBAI, May 11 Asia Pulse - The renegotiation committee, headed by former
bureaucrat Madhav Godbole, has held a meeting lasting over two hours with
Enron-promoted Dabhol Power Company (DPC) officials to renegotiate the Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) and agreed to meet again on May 23.
Soon after the meeting, Enron India managing director K Wade Cline told
waiting reporters that "discussions with the panel went on fine".
Asked if pre-termination notice was being issued, Wade said "no comments".
Wade was accomanpanied by DPC president Neil McGregor and vice presidents
Sanjeev Khandekar and Mukesh Tyagi.
Lal said that DPC lenders were not present at today's meeting but had
nominated an observer, A G Karkhanis, a former executive director of
Industrial Development Bank of India.
Asked if DPC was ready for renogtiations, Lal said "the very fact that we are
meeting again means a lot".
The federal government's representative A V Gokak could not attend the
meeting as he had been given very short notice about his appointment, Lal
said.
(PTI) 11-05 1956

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

Enron's Dabhol to Meet Indian Panel Again on May 23 (Update1)
2001-05-11 07:23 (New York)

Enron's Dabhol to Meet Indian Panel Again on May 23 (Update1)

     (Adds details starting in the fourth paragraph.)

     Mumbai, May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp.'s Dabhol Power Co.
will meet with a negotiating committee from India's Maharashtra
state regarding a dispute over 3 billion rupees ($64 million) in
unpaid bills on May 23, an official said.
     ``We met today and have agreed to meet again on May 23,''
said Vinay Mohan Lal, the principal energy secretary from
Maharashtra. ``They (Enron officials) have agreed to come.''
     The two-hour meeting ended without agreement. Lal denied that
Dabhol Power Co., 65 percent owned by Enron, the world's biggest
energy trader, threatened to cancel power supply contracts. Dabhol
managing director Wade Cline and chief executive Neil Mcgregor,
who attended the meeting, wouldn't comment.
     The fate of Dabhol, the biggest foreign investment in India,
holds the key to further overseas investment in India's power
industry. Four foreign power companies, including Electricite de
France, Europe's largest, have pulled out of Indian power projects
worth $3 billion, citing long delays and the slow pace of reforms.
     Dabhol, which runs a 740 megawatt plant, is owed unpaid bills
for December and January by the state's electricity board, its
only customer.
     The board said Dabhol's electricity price is more than double
the rate it pays for power from other Indian generators. Because
it must pay for power whether it uses it or not, rates have risen
as high as nine times the price of power from alternative sources
such as Tata Power Co.

                             Defaults

     The defaults spurred Dabhol to invoke payment guarantees by
India's federal and the state government. The company on April 25
authorized its management to cancel contracts to sell power to the
board, a move Dabhol is yet to make.
     India wants to double its power capacity to 200,000 megawatts
over the next ten years. It needs $100 billion to do that, and is
relying mainly on foreign companies.
     Construction of Dabhol's power project was delayed for about
three years until December 1996 because of legal battles with
local governments and environmentalists.
     The project was canceled after a change of state government,
though Enron revived it after agreeing to cut power prices by 22
percent and to sell a 30 percent stake to the state.

--Ravil Shirodkar and Sumit Sharma in the Mumbai newsroom (91-22)
233 9029 or rshirodkar@bloomberg.net /mmd/rb

No more track pants its a whole new line
J Padmapriya

05/11/2001
The Economic Times
Copyright (C) 2001 The Economic Times; Source: World Reporter (TM)

RAILWAYS IS now poised to chug along on a different track. Cashstrapped, it
sees huge untapped potential in its plans of building a long-term telecom
business.
Chances of the railways setting up cyber cafes, bagging a cellular licence or
getting into rural telephony are, therefore, not too farfetched.
Though a beginning has been made with the railways creating a public sector
unit and christening it Railtel, the new business is still to get off the
drawing board.
The delays notwithstanding, McKinsey & Co have come out with a detailed
gameplan for Railtel to cash in on Railways huge right-of-way advantage.
Mckinsey has been appointed by the Railways to prepare a financial and
technical plan for Railtel.
The fate of Railtel is stuck at the Group of Ministers level, who are
debating whether to allow the Railways to hold 51 or 26 per cent stake in its
subsidiary.
The consultants say that a strong strategic partner is critical for Railtels
success and delays in getting into the business would lead to Railways losing
the early bird advantage.
As it is, national highways also offer similar right of way options to
private players keen on establishing their own infrastructure. Besides, state
highways offer right of way for free.
Forecasting a business of over Rs 1,500 crore by 2005, the consultants say
Railtel should focus on long-distance bandwidth, corporate and wholesale
voice and ISP/data services markets.
The first phase would involve laying the optic fibre cable network across
33,000 km, of which only about 15,000 km would be commercially viable.
The second course would be to enter the voice and ISP markets by acquiring
the national long distance operations and ISP licences as soon as its
commercially viable linkage of metros is completed. The consultants have
proposed a smart-build strategy for building the OFC backbone.
According to this, Railtel would auction the contract to lay fibre along
packages of specific routes on an exclusive but time-bound basis to private
players in return for dark fibre strands to build a low-cost backbone.
Several players like BPL, Tata, Enron and Bharti are believed to be keen on
this arrangement, Mckinsey says.
Railways USP is its 64,000 km route, 7,000 railway stations of which hundreds
are in the commercial business districts. Mckinsey says that the last mile
success for Railtel would be to establish customized services for corporate
clients in these CBDs.
For instance, Railways can establish links at Nariman Point, Worli, Navi
Mumbai or Bandra thanks to the presence of railway stations or terminals.
Similarly, the commercial districts and software parks in Hyderabad,
Bangalore, Pune and Chennai could be targeted for corporate clients with
value-added services.
Projections of earnings from ISP/data services is at Rs 517 crore over the
next five years and revenues from long distance voice services stand at Rs
516 crore over the same period of time, the report says.
Thats not all. Railways core position in long distance bandwidth, voice and
data services creates a strong platform for step out businesses. Here, the
consultants say Railtel could branch out into systems and network services,
retail, basic and mobile telephony and retail physical infrastructure
services.
Quite clearly, Railways have a natural advantage in going ahead full steam in
the telecom sector.

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

Enrons Broadband Solutions to seek new IDC partner
Sangeeta Kulkarni & Anto T Joseph

05/11/2001
The Economic Times
Copyright (C) 2001 The Economic Times; Source: World Reporter (TM)

MUMBAI
BROADBAND Solutions, Enrons 100 per cent subsidiary, is struggling to sell
the stake in the companys Mumbai Internet Data Centre. Early this year, BSPL
was in dialogue with Asian Frontiers, a company backed by venture capital
fund Walden International, for seeking partnership in its Mumbai IDC.
However, talks with Asian Frontiers have been called off and BSPL is now on
the look out for a new partner for its Mumbai IDC. Asian Frontiers, it is
learnt, has plans to set up a data centre of its own.
We are on the look-out for a new partner for building our data centre
business, as talks with Asian Frontiers have not fructified. If the company
fails to identify a new partner for the IDC at this stage, it will continue
with its plans for IDCs in Mumbai and other metros, Enron Indias senior
vice-president, Hemant Luthra told ET
Broadband Solutions has a 80,000 sq ft server farm in Mumbai at its lower
Parel facility that offers services such as web-hosting, co-location,
mirroring, data management and storage facilities.
After folding up its optic fibre cable business, Enron transferred several
officials to its IDC in Mumbai.
Pugmarks Interweb, a domain-based web hosting services company that Enron
allied with, has a partnership with the latter for marketing its services
through Enrons IDC. Pugmarks is currently hosting its services from the
Exodus data centre in Chicago.
According to the non-exclusive memorandum of understanding with Enron India,
Pugmarks can market Web development and ecommerce services through the IDC.
However, Enron officials have a different story to tell. They state that
Pugmarks is the companys channel partner that will help them with customer
acquisition.

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

		COMPANIES & FINANCE UK: BG benefits from increased energy prices
Financial Times; May 11, 2001
By MATTHEW JONES

		BG, the oil and gas exploration and production company, reported a 12 per
cent rise in underlying first-quarter profits on the back of continuing high
energy prices, production growth and cost reductions.
		Profit after tax but before exceptionals rose from Pounds 121m to Pounds 136m
- at the high end of analysts' expectations - on turnover up from Pounds 555m
to Pounds 726m.
		The outcome was buoyed by gas prices that have more than doubled in the past
year.
		Nevertheless, Frank Chapman, chief executive, said he was "very pleased" with
the underlying growth. "Excluding the impact of changes in oil and gas
prices, our operating profit would have risen 21 per cent," he said.
		He said BG was on track to achieve its targets for production growth and
capital returns. The company has pledged to deliver a 20 per cent pre-tax
return on average capital employed and a 16 per cent rise in average annual
production compared with 1999 levels by the end of 2003.
		Operating profit in the quarter increased 30 per cent from Pounds 178m to
Pounds 232m.
		BG demerged from its regulated pipelines business last October to concentrate
on growth overseas. Comparisons with the first quarter of last year were
based on pro forma figures for continuing operations.
		The company took a one-off gain of Pounds 51m following the sale of a 24.5
per cent share of Phoenix Natural Gas, the Northern Ireland distribution
company, and post-tax compensation of Pounds 36m following a dispute with a
subsidiary of Enron, the US energy trader.
		This compared with an exceptional gain of Pounds 285m in the first quarter of
last year on the sale of a 25 per cent stake in Dynergy, the US energy
company.
		The results were also aided by significant increases in liquefied natural gas
and transmission and distribution sales, together with a 4 per cent reduction
in lifting costs for oil and gas.
		Operating profit from LNG rose from Pounds 5m to Pounds 20m while
transmission and distribution profits jumped from Pounds 1m to Pounds 8m.
Exploration and production operating profits were Pounds 171m (Pounds 152m).
		Total hydrocarbon production volumes grew by a modest 2 per cent to the
equivalent of 27.2m barrels of oil. However, Iain Reid, analyst at UBS
Warburg, pointed out that production would accelerate during the rest of the
year. The group's 12.5 per cent share of the Elgin field in the UK North Sea
and 40 per cent stake in the Rosetta field in Egypt both came onstream during
the quarter.
		"Unlike the oil majors, BG's earnings will remain at or above current levels
as the oil price comes down," he said.
		Capital expenditure grew from Pounds 177m in the first quarter of last year
to Pounds 219m, in line with BG's plan to spend Pounds 5bn on development
between 1999 and 2003.
		The shares rose 2p to 271 3/4p.

India: DPC-MSEB slugfest: Needed, a conciliatory approach

05/11/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire

THE ROW between Dabhol Power Corporation (DPC) and the MSEB/Maharashtra
Government/Union Government has reached a flashpoint. At a DPC board meeting
in London, the Managing Director and President/CEO were authorised to take a
decision to wind up the project at an "appropriate time".
Though the DPC team agreed to meet the Godbole Committee on re-negotiating
the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), things are far from clear.
The project's termination will place huge payment liabilities on the
MSEB/Maharashtra Government/Centre by way of compensation claims (running
into several thousand crore rupees), the aggravation of the power deficit in
the State, increased NPAs in financial institutions, adverse impact on
companies/units with business links with DPC, loss of employment and
attendant social problems.
It may be recalled that DPC was the only project, among the eight fast track
IPPs that has seen the light of day. If this is also wound up, it will have a
debilitating effect on foreign direct investment (FDI) which has already
suffered on account of policies and delays in various approvals/clearances.
Enron is currently implementing an ambitious project to set up a terminal for
handling imported LNG. Apart from replacing naphtha in DPC-I, this will be
used as fuel in phase II which is likely to be commissioned next year. The
project involves import of 5 million tonnes of LNG, 2 million tonnes of which
will be used by DPC I and II and the remainder will be made available to
other projects, including the fertiliser sector.
Due to a severe shortage of domestic gas and the exorbitant cost of other
fuels such as naphtha, imported LNG is a favourite considering its low cost.
In the fertiliser sector, the ERC has recommended that all naphtha and
fuel-oil-based plants switch to imported LNG to improve cost-competitiveness
in the emerging liberalised environment. LNG will also help gas-based units
feeling the pinch of short supply domestically.
Against this backdrop, if the DPC power project is terminated, a major source
of guaranteed offtake of LNG on a long-term basis will disappear from the
scene. For, it is not likely that the LNG project will be taken up. This will
affect the overall availability of LNG, hurting the fortunes of industries
such as fertilisers and power.
The genesis of the present crisis lies in the high cost of power supplied by
DPC and the MSEB's inability to pay its bills. It is the inevitable outcome
of a cost plus system of power tariff - both with respect to the fixed and
the variable component - incorporated in the PPA.
The MSEB/Maharashtra Government signed the deal with eyes open and the Centre
also provided a counter-guarantee!
Having consciously become a party to the deal, things need to be taken in
stride. It would be imprudent, at this stage, to lay the blame for the
consequential problems on DPC/Enron. Unfortunately, our side has adopted a
confrontationist attitude, amply reflected in the MSEB's decision to lodge a
claim for Rs 401 crore with DPC because the latter could not supply
electricity for a couple of hours in January.
Considering that the termination of the Dabhol project will be detrimental to
Indian interests, a conciliatory atmosphere should replace the present mood
of mutual bitterness. The setting up of a committee on re-negotiating terms
with DPC is a good thing. But there is also the need to avoid frequent
outbursts, charges/accusations and so on.
In the circumstances, the vexatious problem of high cost power should be
approached in two parts. First, we need to carefully assess the role of the
MSEB/Maharashtra. Second, the need for necessary adjustment/changes in
various charges to reduce the tariff should be impressed upon DPC.
Needless to say, both parties should take that action concurrently in a
spirit of mutual accommodation.
We need to clearly understand that under the PPA, the fixed charges have to
be necessarily paid irrespective of the quantum of power drawn by the MSEB.
For DPC Phase-I, these are Rs 1,050 crore per annum or Rs 87.5 crore a month.
After the commissioning of Phase-II, the charges will be Rs 3,500 crore per
annum or Rs 292 crore a month.
Depending on the quantum of the power drawn, the incidence per unit basis
will vary. Thus, at 80 per cent generation capacity of DPC-I, or 5,186
million units per annum, the fixed charges will be Rs 2.02 per kWh. For both
DPC-I and II, at 80 per cent load, or 15,067 million units per annum, these
will work out to Rs 2.32 per kWh.
If, on the other hand, the offtake of power is only a third of the generation
capacity, or 2,139 million units on an annualised basis, then for DPC-I the
fixed charges would be Rs 4.91 per kWh. Under a similar scenario, with the
operation of Phase-II, the per unit incidence would be Rs 5.63 per kWh.
DPC-I now uses naphtha as fuel. On the basis of its prevailing price, the
variable cost component works out to about Rs 2.2 per kWh. Together with
fixed charges corresponding to drawal at 80 per cent load, the total cost to
the MSEB is Rs 4.2 per kWh. However, if the offtake is restricted to a third,
the cost would zoom to Rs 7.1 per kWh.
From next year on, the entire project would operate on imported LNG.
This being cheaper ($3.75 per million BTU against about $6 per million BTU
for naphtha), the variable cost will go down to Rs 1.3 per kWh.
Together with fixed charges at 80 per cent, the total cost of power will be
Rs 3.62 per kWh. In the event only a third of the capacity is drawn, the cost
will zoom to Rs 6.93 per kWh.
Clearly, it is possible to contain the cost of power supplied by Dabhol at Rs
3.5-4 per kWh if, the MSEB draws the optimum load. There seems to be no other
way of bringing about a meaningful reduction in cost, other than a
significant increase in the offtake of electricity by the MSEB from the
present low level.
The demand-supply scenario for power in Maharashtra justifies the
accommodation of entire supplies from DPC at optimum load. For 2001-02, the
total requirement is estimated at 70,127 million units. Supply from MSEB's
own generating stations and sources other than DPC being about 57,000 million
units, there will still be an uncovered gap of 13,127 million units, which is
higher than the supply from DPC-I at 80 per cent load.
Notwithstanding the above, if the MSEB is not able to lift power at the
optimum load, it is because its precarious financial health limits its
ability to make payments. This, in turn, is because of supply of electricity
to agriculture and households at subsidised rates and high transmission and
distribution losses (power theft). Without tackling these two problems on a
war footing, we cannot easily come out of the Dabhol imbroglio.
Besides yielding benefits by significantly lowering per unit cost, the above
steps will also help build confidence with DPC, especially considering its
consequential ability to optimally utilise generating capacity. The
negotiating committee can then leverage this to seek from DPC a meaningful
reduction, particularly in the fixed charges.
Under the PPA, all liabilities towards foreign capital - servicing of loans
and return on equity - are denominated in dollars/forex.
In the event of the rupee's depreciation, this automatically results in the
increased burden on the MSEB. This is contrary to established business
practices the worldover and needs to be rectified by freezing all foreign
currency liabilities with reference to the exchange rate prevailing at the
time of commissioning of the project.
Likewise, with fuel cost, efforts should be made to protect the variable
component of tariff from the rupee's depreciation. The DPC should be in a
position to absorb its effect especially considering that the actual fuel
consumption is lower than the norm used for arriving at variable cost.
- Uttam Gupta
(The author is Chief Economist, Fertiliser Association of India. The views
expressed are personal.)

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

Enron to relocate DPC managers abroad
Anto T Joseph

05/11/2001
The Economic Times
Copyright (C) 2001 The Economic Times; Source: World Reporter (TM)

MUMBAI
WITH confrontation with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board deepening by
the day, Enron is starting the process of re-locating senior officials to its
operations in other countries.
Company sources said its multinational parent is working towards absorbing
manegerial talent at its Indian subsidiary in its operations abroad. The
company is expected to give a choice to its remaining staff whether to
continue with the company abroad or opt for a golden handshake.
Many senior officials currently working with Enron are planning to stay with
the company, no matter which country they are re-located to.
Enron is a professionally-run company, and tops the chart of the best-run
global companies, annually brought out by Fortune. Unfortunately, the company
could not pursue its projects in India, and has decided to fold up its
operations in the country, said a senior Enron official, who expects to be
transferred either to Houston or London.
The whole process of re-locating the Indian staff is expected to be completed
within a month or two.
An Enron spokesperson refused to comment on these developments.
Company sources also said a new VRS is on the anvil for the Dabhol Power
Company staff.
The Houston-based energy giant has pulled out of all its existing projects in
India except the Dabhol power project, which is currently in the thick of
controversy.
The other group companies Metgas (which was setting up a liquefied natural
gas pipeline in Maharashtra ), and Enron Broadband Solutions (which was
laying an optic fibre cable network across the country) have already
virtually folded up operations.
The other group company Enron Oil & Gas (India) which is a joint venture
between Reliance and ONGC, is currently in the process of selling its stake.
Enron, which had earlier proposed to set up a few more power projects in
India, has already decided to drop these plans, after it ran into a series of
payment problems with MSEB.
Enron has already got rid of around 50-60 people by way of a successful
voluntary retirement scheme. Enron India now has a little over a dozen
employees on its rolls.
The focus of Enron Corp, which occupies the seventh position on the Fortune
500 list in terms of revenues (with over $100 bn) has shifted to trading. A
lions share of its turnover came from its trading activities all over the
world, especially in the US market.

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

India: Dabhol: Back to the table

05/11/2001
Business Line (The Hindu)
Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd (KSL); Source: World Reporter (TM) -
Asia Intelligence Wire

MUMBAI, May 10. MANY turbulent years later, when Enron sits across the
negotiating table tomorrow, several people would remember the day it stepped
into the "liberalised" India, promising power, growth and greenbacks.
They would also remember 1995, when Ms Rebecca Mark, the high-profile
go-getter of Enron, talked out the "sinking project clear out of the Arabian
sea". Undoubtedly, throughout the decade it has been here, Enron has shown
tremendous tenacity and stamina in completing the Dabhol power project.
And now, just as the stacks of the second phase of the project were about to
begin spewing smoke, the players are back at the table - "let's talk what's
wrong".
This time, however, Enron makes its "courtesy visit" to the Godbole panel
knowing fully well it can afford to talk holding an axe over the project.
In 1995, when the Shiv Sena Government cancelled the DPC project, Enron
pulled arbitration and simultaneously started renegotiating the power
purchase agreement with the Negotiating Group of the Maharashtra Government.
Several "hard bargains" later, the project was revived with a "$330-million
reduction in capital cost and a 201-MW increase in the gross output".
However, nothing had changed fundamentally and most of the "problems"
continued to plague the project. The negotiation details were not available
and only a summary report was given.
Even though there were protests, and cases filed against the company, the
project went on and things quietened for a while. That is, till phase I of
the plant went on stream and MSEB started paying through its nose for the
power purchased (or not purchased).
As one anti-Enron activist put it: "The enormity of the trap fully manifested
then." Inevitably, the board defaulted and that triggered off another chain
reaction.
It has come a full circle to arbitration, conciliation and negotiation.
However, this time around it appears Enron has the upper hand especially
since the damage wreaked will be most on Indian financial institutions and
Governments.
The financial institutions are going ape because they had committed funds to
the project, not strictly considering its merits but bowing to political
pressure, say officials. They say that the Government backing was
"instrumental" in their taking the exposure. They want the project to
continue because that is the best way for them to get their money back.
MSEB is really cheesed off because it is caught between carrying out the
"social obligations" of those in power and the rigours of doing business in
the open market. Adding insult to injury are the barbs of being inept and
unbusinesslike and talk of reform school.
In the melee, the Centre - the one player capable of making any decisive
difference to the issue - has maintained more or less a studied silence.
It is understood to be reluctant to get too deep into the matter for fear of
contracting another "headache". It wants the other three - the State
Government, MSEB and DPC - to thrash it out among themselves.
But they want the Centre to talk shop. Enron does not appear interested in
hanging around running a multi-billion- dollar power plant, even though it
has consistently denied so. It also has not categorically ruled out the
sell-out option.
The end-game is getting more convoluted with all the players clinging on to
even the pawns. Enron has already said it does not agree with the interim
report of the Energy Review Committee headed by Dr Madhav Godbole, which had
suggested some workable solutions, never mind if they were really tough.
Enron is hesitant to compromise on its returns, institutions cannot reduce
interest rates beyond a limit, MSEB is adamant on "going by the book", and
the Centre is mum. The going is getting tougher...the tough should get going.
- Dinesh Narayanan

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

DPC mounts pressure on lenders for PPA termination
S Ravindran Mumbai

05/11/2001
Business Standard
3
Copyright (c) Business Standard

The Enron-promoted Dabhol Power Company (DPC) has stepped up pressure on
lenders to permit it, without further delay, to terminate the power purchase
agreement (PPA) with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB).
The company has reportedly told the lenders that there should not be any
delay in serving the termination notice as the engineering procurement and
construction (EPC) contractor Bechtel has threatened to pull out of the
project on June 11. Bechtel holds 10 per cent stake in the project.
The lenders are, however, not yet ready to back DPC's demand. They are of the
opinion that phase two of the project should be completed first. The MSEB
decision to clear the April bill (Rs 139 crore) has also come as a shot in
the arm for lenders.
"Financially, phase two is 93 per cent completed while 97 per cent of the
physical construction is over. The lenders want the project to be completed
without any cost and time overrun. At this juncture, if the PPA termination
notice is served, it will preclude any further disbursements by the lenders,"
a source said.
A DPC spokesperson declined to comment on the development.
A fully completed phase two will be in the lenders' interest as they will
inherit the project if it is terminated.
The lenders have first charge on the assets of DPC. A fully completed project
will enable the lenders to find a buyer and secure a better valuation.
The domestic lenders however argued against termination as their exposure to
the project is not backed by the counter guarantee.

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

Military nominees say corporate ties won't influence decisions
By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON
Associated Press Writer

05/10/2001
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Three top executives of major corporations nominated by
President Bush as civilian heads of the nation's armed forces said Thursday
that their corporate ties would not influence how the Pentagon doles out big
defense contracts.
At their confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, all
three testified that they would consider disqualifying themselves from
decisions that involved their corporate connections after Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., raised the issue.
"If there's a conflict with prior knowledge or involvement, then I would
certainly recuse myself," said Gordon England, the executive vice president
of General Dynamics and Bush's pick to be Navy secretary. "But if there is no
conflict, I certainly would not plan to do that, sir."
James G. Roche, Bush's pick for Air Force secretary, and retired Brig. Gen.
Thomas E. White, nominated as Army secretary, also agreed to recuse
themselves if they felt there was a clear conflict of interest.
Roche is the corporate vice president of Northrop Grumman Corp. and White is
the vice chairman of Enron Energy Services. General Dynamics and Northrop
Grumman are among the nation's top defense contractors.
Democrats were not so certain the nominees could remain impartial.
"This is just more of the president filling posts with big business buddies
who, without question, will make sure that the nation's contracts benefit
their mutual friends," said Marcy Woodman, a Democratic policy analyst based
in Washington. "Even if they recuse themselves, their underlings will know
which company they better award a contract to."
Roche, a 23-year Navy veteran, was a Democratic aide for the Senate Armed
Services Committee from 1983 to 1984, and was a senior staffer for the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence from 1979 to 1981.
White, who served in the Army for 23 years, has served as chairman and chief
executive officer of Enron Operations Corp. and as chairman and chief
executive of Enron Power Corp. since joining Enron in 1990. He was executive
assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell when Powell headed the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration.
England, the Navy nominee, has worked for General Dynamics since 1980, except
for four years when he served as president of Lockheed Fort Worth, as a
program manager for Amecom (Litton Industries) and as chief executive of GRE
Consultants.
Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman, said recusal might be the best
option in some cases.
"There needs to be a sense of confidence by the American people that these
are honorable men that are making these decisions," Quigley said. "If there
comes a point where there's a recusal or something like that necessary to
create that public confidence, I'm sure that will be the case. I also think
there's all kinds of checks and balances built into the system to make sure
that the public confidence in those officials remains high."
The hearing will continue into next week.

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


This request has been pending your approval for  41 days.  Please click http://itcapps.corp.enron.com/srrs/auth/emailLink.asp?ID=000000000057285&Page=Approval to review and act upon this request.

Request ID          : 000000000057285
Request Create Date : 8/30/01 5:59:30 PM
Requested For       : erik.simpson@enron.com
Resource Name       : Market Data Kobra Power
Resource Type       : Applications


WHOA.  We are not wiring money, we are receiving money.  This should occur
either Jan 12 or 15.

Minor detail.

Kay

	From:  Kathleen Carnahan                           01/03/2001 12:06 PM

To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Escrow Agreement

Citibank just confirmed that they will also accept faxed signatures on the
Escrow Agreement.  Have you approved it yet?  If so, and we let accounting
know to wire the funds to Citibank before 2:00, we can get the $ in the
Escrow Account by tomorrow.  Otherwise, the funds will not get there until
Friday.

K-


Hi Dale,

Did you just do a tolling agreement re: LV?  I'm looking for forms, and
thought I'd check.

Thanks,

Kay


Dear Tracy Geaccone:

There was a problem with your recent online bill payment to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Your payment for loan number 4778250 for $2,678.70 scheduled for payment on 09/14/2001 was returned.

Your business is important to us and we understand that there may be extenuating circumstances that caused a problem with your payment. Please contact our Online Service Center at 1-800-357-6675 for assistance. You may also visit the web site at http://www.ebpp.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/ for an e-mail link to our Online Service Center. We will respond within 24 hours.

Sincerely,

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Online Service Center


?

?

?Please find attached draft testimony of (1) the Open Season process and (2)
benefits to California production, sponsored by Indicated Producers in the
GIR Proceeding.? We are continuing to refine the drafts and look forward to
receiving your comments.? Please include Christine Jun and Amie King in your
replies:? chj@aelaw.com and ack@aelaw.com.??

?

??????????? Evie Elsesser

?

?
 - Open Season Testimony 042800.doc
 - CA Production Testimony 042800.doc


----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 12/29/2000 08:04 AM -----

	"Brian Patterson" <brianp@aiglincoln.com.pl>
	09/18/2000 09:23 AM
	Please respond to "Brian Patterson"

		 To: <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re:

Dude,

We are having another baby in November, but I think I told you that when I
spoke with you in June.  I would like to chat just to catch up. Office
number is (48 22)528-5000 and Home is (48 22)642-8902.  Looking forward to
it.

Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: <Richard.B.Sanders@enron.com>
To: Brian Patterson <brianp@aiglincoln.com.pl>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 2:37 PM

>
> Somehow, I have lost your telephone no.    I was going to call you to get
> an update---or do you have anything to tell me?
>
>


AGA for 10/6/00 is 62


confirmed for nov 2.  same location and call in # in ny
room 5G in houston
please let me know when you have an attendance list. thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ellis, Steve (Houston)
> Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 11:44 AM
> To:	'Stacy Carey'; Bunkin, Steven; Siedenburg, Amy
> Cc:	Ruth Ainslie; Scott Marra; Janette Elberton; Mark Haedicke; Mark
> Taylor; 'Sager, Elizabeth'
> Subject:	RE: Rescheduled ISDA Energy and Developing Products
> Committee Meeting on October 23
>
> I've rescheduled room 5G in Houston for Nov. 2.
>
> Amy - will you reschedule the room in NY? Let me know and I will change
> the video calendar.
>
> Steve Ellis
> Regional Technology Manager
> Goldman Sachs Houston
> 713.654.8489
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Carey [mailto:SCAREY@ISDA.ORG]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:10 AM
> To: Bunkin, Steven
> Cc: Ruth Ainslie; Stacy Carey; Scott Marra; Janette Elberton; Mark
> Haedicke; Mark Taylor; 'Sager, Elizabeth'
> Subject: Rescheduled ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee
> Meeting on October 23
>
>
> Hello All -- unfortunately we have had to reschedule the October 23, 2001
> meeting to Friday, November 2, 2001.
>
> Bob and Amy -- could we graciously impose upon Goldman again to see if the
> video conferencing facilities might be available on Nov. 2 from 11:00 a.m.
> -
> 12:30 p.m. (EST)/10:00 - 11:30 a.m.(Central)
>
> Many thanks! -- Stacy
>
> Stacy Carey
> Policy Director
> International Swaps and Derivatives Association
> 600 5th Avenue, 27th Floor
> Rockefeller Center
> New York, NY  10020
> (212) 332-1202 ph
> (212) 332-1212 fax
> (917) 543-9622 cell
> scarey@isda.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siedenburg, Amy [mailto:amy.siedenburg@gs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: 'Stacy Carey'
> Cc: Ellis, Steve (Houston)
> Subject: RE: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting -
> October
>
>
> the only room available in ny w/ video capability is 32 old slip room 23B1
> -
> it holds 12 people. thats all i could do
> in houston the room is 5c
>
> the call in #s are
> Domestic:  1-877-718-6588 -passcode 20952
> International:  212-902-0992- Passcode 2-0952
>
> let me know if you need anything else
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Carey [mailto:SCAREY@ISDA.ORG]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: Amy Siedenburg
> Subject: RE: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting -
> October
>
>
> Amy -- We should plan on about 15-20 people in each location based on the
> July 27 meeting.  We will need a call-in number for domestic and
> international, if possible.  -- Many thanks! -- Stacy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siedenburg, Amy [mailto:amy.siedenburg@gs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: 'Stacy Carey'
> Subject: RE: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting -
> October
>
>
> how many people will be attending in ny and in houston
> also, will you need a call in #
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Carey [mailto:SCAREY@ISDA.ORG]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 9:22 AM
> To: Bob Mancini; Amy Siedenburg
> Cc: Bunkin, Steven; Stacy Carey
> Subject: RE: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting -
> October
>
>
> thank you -- stacy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mancini, Robert [mailto:robert.mancini@gs.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 7:26 PM
> To: 'amy.siedenburg@gs.com'
> Cc: Bunkin, Steven; 'scarey@isda.org'
> Subject: Fw: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting -
> October
>
>
> Please inquire asap
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stacy Carey <SCAREY@ISDA.ORG>
> To: Bob Mancini <robert.mancini@gs.com>; 'STEVEN BUNKIN'
> <steven.bunkin@gs.com>; Amy Siedenburg <amy.siedenburg@gs.com>
> Sent: Mon Sep 24 15:01:20 2001
> Subject: ISDA Energy and Developing Products Committee Meeting - October
>
> Hello All -- hope everyone is well!  We are thinking of scheduling the
> next
> Energy and Developing Products Committee meeting on October 23 from 10:00
> -
> Noon and was wondering if your video conferencing facilities might be
> available for this meeting in NY and Houston? Many Thanks -- Stacy
>
> Stacy Carey
> Policy Director
> International Swaps and Derivatives Association
> 600 5th Avenue, 27th Floor
> Rockefeller Center
> New York, NY  10020
> (212) 332-1202 ph
> (212) 332-1212 fax
> (917) 543-9622 cell
> scarey@isda.org


Kay:

I added some language to the intro of section 1 a that worked last time with
Herman. Please disregard the earlier Pompano agreement. Let me know what you
think.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Jacoby, Ben
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:40 PM
To: Mann, Kay
Subject: Enron Pompano Developers Agreement

Kay:

Attached are my changes to the Pompano Agreement. I reviewed the last version
dated 4-19 which was approved internally (copy also attached), and made
changes back to that draft where I felt appropriate.

The only section I did not add back in was the termination section. From a
commercial perspective, I think we're better off leaving it out as we then
have in effect a free option on the site (as a developers agreement is
required to obtain building permits).

Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Ben


EFF_DT PORTFOLIO_ID DOWN95
2/2/01  MANAGEMENT-COAL 0
2/2/01  MANAGEMENT-CRD 0
2/2/01  MANAGEMENT-GAS 1,994,567.
2/2/01  MANAGEMENT-PWR 176,818.
2/2/01  AGG-MANAGEMENT 2,077,056.


> > <<TEEF.JPG>>

******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from El Paso
Energy Corporation 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 notify the sender.
******************************************************************

 - TEEF.JPG


I couldn't remember if I forwarded this to you, so here 'tis.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 10/12/2000 05:58
PM ---------------------------

"Heather Brown" <hbrown@bracepatt.com> on 10/11/2000 01:25:55 PM
To: <kay.mann@enron.com>
cc: <cdade@bracepatt.com>, "Eyvette Lopez" <elopez@bracepatt.com>

Subject: Enovate Credit Agreement

Kay,

Please find attached for your review a Closing Documents list and a very
preliminary draft of the Enovate Credit Agreement.  Once you have had a
chance to review the attached with your business people, let's set up a call
to discuss structure/changes/etc.  In addition to confirming the basics
(lending entity, interest rate, term), we will need to discuss financial
covenants

Please call me at 713.221.1419 regarding the foregoing.

Regards,

Heather

 - Checklist.doc
 - CreditAgmt.doc