Mary,

Set forth below are the provisions that should be included in a margin
agreement whereby ENA will borrow funds from a non-U.S. entity (i.e., ABN
AMRO) and make payments of principal and interest pursuant to the borrowing.
As you'll note, the language provides that ENA will only be required to make
(and be liable for) payments of interest that are net of any U.S. withholding
tax and, thus, ABN AMRO will bear the burden of any U.S. withholding tax.

All payments under this Agreement shall be made without any deduction or
withholding for or on account of any Tax unless such deduction or withholding
is required by any applicable law, as modified by the practice of any
relevant governmental revenue authority, then in effect.  If a party is so
required to deduct or withhold, then that party ("X") shall (a) pay to the
relevant authorities the full amount required to be withheld promptly upon
the earlier of determining that such deduction or withholding is required or
receiving notice that such amount has been assessed against Y, (b) pay and be
liable to Y for only the net amount owed after reduction for any Tax, and (c)
promptly forward to Y an official receipt (or a copy thereof), or other
documentation reasonably acceptable to Y, evidencing such payment to such
authorities.

"Tax" means any present or future tax, levy, impost, duty, charge, assessment
or fee of any nature (including interest, penalties, and additions thereto)
that is imposed by any government or other taxing authority in respect of any
payment under this Agreement.

Please contact me at ext. 35777 with any questions.

Best regards,

Jeff

MARY COOK
07/14/2000 11:18 AM
To: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana
Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Jeff Blumenthal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jason Peters/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Margin Lines:   Bank One and ABN

Bank One Line is closing today, with give up agreement to be finalized early
next week.  If there is any particular "file" processing for credit lines
applicable to this group, please advise.  Otherwise, I will have file with
originals set up and provided to Kay Young for central file room.

ABN further comments are due Monday and phone conference indicates very few
issues.  Should close next week.

By copy to Jeff, please provide tax comments on ABN on Monday.  Thank you.
Mary


Hey Brenda,

I was wondering if you guys went to Disney World yet.  We went and had a good
time, although it was very hot.

Let me know.


Let me know what you think.


I do not.

	Enron Energy Services

	From:  Deborah DeFforge                           07/18/2000 08:34 AM
	Phone No: 713.853.9474
  713.646.2621 - Facsimile
  EB1293

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: ORG CHART

Do either of you have an updated org chart depicting EES, ENA and EBS?  Thank
you!

d2


Hi Eric,
?
I have a check for $630 but no local bank.? I  would like to have cash.?
Would you please cash a personal check for this  amount and I'll endorse the
other check over to you?? Sure would appreciate  it.
?
Have a great day.? Love you,  Mom


Notice to Members No. 01-190
June 7, 2001

REMINDER ) THIRD NOTICE

To:
All NYMEX Division Members
All COMEX Division Members

From:
Neal Wolkoff, Executive Vice President

Re:
Changes to Audit Trail Summary Fine Structure-NYMEX & COMEX Divisions

Modification of &Clear-out Period8

The Board of Directors has approved modifications to the fine structure for
one-minute trade time submission for both NYMEX and COMEX Divisions.
Presently members falling below the 80% timely submission standard are issued
escalating warning letters and fines unless and until they clear out their
record by being in compliance for six consecutive months.  After six months,
the member returns to a &warning letter8 level.  Effective immediately, this
&clear-out period8 is reduced from six months to four months.  One-minute
trade timing statistics for the month ending April 30, 2001 will reflect this
modification.

Implementation of One-Minute Trade-Time Classes

The Board also accepted the recommendation of the Compliance Review Committee
and Floor Committee to adopt a training program for members facing one-minute
trade time fines on the NYMEX Division.  The purpose of the program is to
improve Exchange trade submission timing through member education by
identifying individual issues, tailoring individual solutions and statistical
follow-up.  Training will be conducted on Thursday, June 14, Tuesday, July
10, and Wednesday, August 15, 2001 by a team comprised of Committee Members
and Compliance Staff with the assistance of the Training and Education
Committee.  You may sign up for these classes at the Corrections Windows on
the 3rd and 5th floors, or by contacting Lois S. Shapiro, Associate
Compliance Counsel, at (212) 299-2853.  The June 14, 2001 class will be held
in the Seminar Room on the 10th floor at 3:45 p.m.  Plan to stay until 6:00
p.m.  Credit will not be given to anyone who does not attend the entire class.

As incentive, any member attending any one class will be allowed to &do over8
up to two subsequent months in which their trade time rates are between 70%
and 79%.  The member will still have to complete four violation-free months
before his record is &cleared out8 but he may take up to six months to do
so.  Members may take one class per year.

Audit Trail Classes

? Purpose:   to improve pit card submission statistics Exchange-wide by
reducing the number of individual members falling below the 80% standard for
timely pit card submission and to facilitate their return to a &warning
letter8 level.

? Members who have received a warning letter or a fine for pit card
violations may:

_ Attend an audit trail class, to be offered on June 14, July10, and August
15, 2001, with future dates to be determined by the Floor
Committee/Compliance Review Committee.  The class will be an intensive
discussion of pit card problems and pitfalls.  Materials will focus on how
the audit trail works and successful strategies for achieving a passing
percentage.  Members will be required to analyze their own trading style in
light of the material presented and pinpoint areas in which they need to
improve.  Members will also be required to outline a plan for raising their
pit card performance rates.  Each plan will be discussed with the group and
members will receive feedback from Floor Committee and Compliance Review
Committee Members, and Compliance and Floor Department Staff.  Members
attending classes are strongly encouraged to bring their clerks with them!

_ Upon completion of the class, members will be allowed to &do over8 up to
two subse-quent months in which their timely submission rates fall between
70% and 79%.  No fine or warning letter will be issued for a &do over8 month,
but the month will not count as a passing month.  A member who falls below
70% will receive a fine or warning letter.

_ The benefit to the member will be that the month that would have counted as
a failing month will not count at all, as long as the member achieved at
least a 70% rate.  Members still need four problem-free months to return to a
warning letter stage.  A member who has been problem-free for 3 months would
benefit by &doing over8 a fourth (and possibly a fifth) failing month, thus
having the opportunity to return to the warning letter stage despite
intervening failing months.  A member who falls below 70% before achieving
four problem-free months will receive a fine or a warning letter, as
appropriate.  The member can still use a second &do over8 month as long as he
meets all the above criteria.

_ Staff will follow up with members attending the classes.  Members will
receive a breakdown of their most recent audit trail fine.  They will also be
invited to discuss their percentages with staff on an individual basis.
Further, staff will supply daily or weekly statistics to any member by e-mail
or telephone upon request.

_ Members are eligible for only one class per year.  A member must take a
class to take advantage of the benefits listed herein.  Classes will be
offered on June 14, July 10 and August 15, 2001, and the program will apply
to the next full month of audit trail statistics.  The Compliance Review
Committee and the Floor Committee will evaluate the results of this program
before deciding whether to extend this program into 2002.

Incorporation of Spreads into One-Minute
Trade Time &Pit Card8 Statistics for NYMEX Division

Present one-minute trade time &pit card8 statistics do not include spread
times.  During the most recent NYMEX Rule Enforcement Review--the CFTC audit
of the Exchange,s Compliance programs and procedures--the CFTC recommended
that the NYMEX Division incorporate spread trades into the one-minute time
statistics.  The CFTC has made this recommendation in the past and the
Exchange has committed to respond to it. The COMEX Division one-minute trade
time statistics already include spreads.

NYMEX Division Members should note that intra-commodity spread trades will be
incorporated into pit card one-minute trade time accuracy rates after a
&phase in8 process of approximately 90 days.  In order to avoid substandard
percentages once spreads are incorporated, members must make sure that their
spread prints are price reported in order to ensure that the Price Change
Register for spreads is accurate.  If a spread print is not reported, you
will not be credited with timely submission of pit cards, even if you throw
the trade into the pit in a timely manner.

Pit card statistics for outright trades are presently posted on the NYMEX
floor on a weekly basis.  Compliance Staff will continue to post statistics
for outright trades and will additionally post the statistics for spread
trades.  These spread trade statistics are for information only so that you
can assess your pit card submission rate in advance of incorporation of
spreads in the one-minute trade time submission percentages.  For information
purposes, the seller of the spread is considered to be the party who sells
the premium month.  In the case where the spread trades flat, the seller is
the party who sells the nearby month.

If you have any questions about this information, please call Nancy Minett,
Compliance Counsel, at (212) 299-2940, or Thomas LaSala, Vice President
Compliance, at (212) 299-2897.

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=sara.shackleton@enron.com&
refdoc=(01-190)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


Thank you for your prompt response.  I have arranged the following time and
date for the East Midstream QBR:

  Date:  August 16, 2000

  Time:  1:00 pm - 4:00 pm

  Location: 3321

  Topic:  East Midstream QBR

Please mark your calendar and plan to attend.

Thanks,

Kay 3-0643


Gag me. But if you really want to - ok. If you get off early, we might see a movie...
Beth Cherry
___________
Sr. Creative Consultant
EnFORM Technology
713.350.1860

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason.Wolfe@enron.com [mailto:Jason.Wolfe@enron.com ]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:18 PM
To: Beth.Cherry@enform.com
Subject: RE:
How about Skewers?
    -----Original Message-----
   From:   "Cherry, Beth" <Beth.Cherry@enform.com>@ENRON
   Sent:   Monday, October 29, 2001 3:13 PM
   To:     Wolfe, Jason
   Subject:  RE:
   You are a piece, you dolt. A "flawed" piece. Where do you want to have
   dinner?
   Beth Cherry
   ___________
   Sr. Creative Consultant
   EnFORM Technology
   713.350.1860
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Jason.Wolfe@enron.com [mailto:Jason.Wolfe@enron.com  << File:
   mailto:Jason.Wolfe@enron.com  >> ]
   Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:14 PM
   To: Beth.Cherry@enform.com
   Subject: RE:
   fascinating. I'd like to work at getting a piece
       -----Original Message-----
      From:   "Cherry, Beth" <Beth.Cherry@enform.com>@ENRON
      Sent:   Monday, October 29, 2001 3:06 PM
      To:     Wolfe, Jason
      Subject:
      My Romantic Horoscope for Today:
      The pieces of a two-piece puzzle just don't seem to want to fit
      together. You've tried countless angles, jerry-riggings and creative
      solutions, but you keep coming up short. Perhaps the answer, then, is
   to
      work with the flaws between the pieces as well as the pieces
   themselves.
      Beth Cherry
      ___________
      Sr. Creative Consultant
      EnFORM Technology
      713.350.1860
   **********************************************************************
   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.
   **********************************************************************


Start Date: 4/27/01; HourAhead hour: 8;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001042708.txt


Jim Steffes forwarded to Janet late Monday the recommended organization and budget($ 6.4 million total for both companies). Jim should be the primary point of contact on both the budget and Gov't Affairs organization for ENA/EES( I'll address remainder of issues with Whalley, kean, and Fallon). As an aside, it's possible the $6.4 million could be reduced somewhat as we begin to mitigate legacy real estate issues and also  consider locating the Houston-based staff in the above-referenced organization in available space with the business unit(s). Thanks.


Steve,

No problem.

I shall spend Friday working on reviews.

Vince

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Leppard, Steve
Sent:	Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:57 AM
Subject:	PRC reviewers

Hi

My reviewers have already been nominated, but I wonder if I could solicit some "unsolicited feedback" from you?

Many thanks,
Steve


We had another DAPSA deal come through from the London
office...is this to be handled the same was as the last one...
let me know...thanks...mgg


GADSDEN RESEARCH SERVICES'
FERCwatch
 Issued December 6, 2001

See docket numbers assigned to PG&E filings below...
Copies of the PG&E Reorganization Plan Regulatory Filings still available on CD-ROM or hardcopy!  Call 202-210-4771 or e-mail grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net>.

The reorganization filings made by PG&E on November 30, 2001 are still not available through FERC's Public Reference Room!  When finally available through Public Reference, hardcopies of these filings (approximately 9500 pages total) will cost 25 cents per page or nearly $2400 in copy charges alone!  Adding the hourly rate service charges of other research services will increase your cost to nearly $3000 for these filings!

GRS/FERCwatch has copies available now on CD-ROM or we can print hardcopies for you.
The cost of the CD-ROM (including all the filings listed below) is $100 plus delivery.
Printed copies are 15 cents per page plus delivery and service charges ($45 service charge for the complete set; $15 to $30 for partial sets).

To request a copy of the following filings on CD-ROM or hardcopy, please call 202-210-4771 or send e-mail to grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net>.
_______________________________________

FERC has assigned docket numbers to the PG&E Reorganization filings (with the exception of the Section 7 gas related filings) as follows:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E Corporation, on behalf of subsidiaries Electric Generation LLC, ETrans LLC and GTrans LLC, Docket Nos. EC02-31-000, EL02-36-000 and CP02-36-000 -- Application for corporate restructuring and reorganizing under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and requests for related declaratory orders under Sections 201 and 305 of the FPA and Section 12 of the Natural Gas Act.  Also reaffirms the commitment by ETrans to join a multi-state Western regional transmission organization (RTO), while continuing to participate in the CAISO until FERC approves such an RTO.  [PDF FORMAT; 2763 pages]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E Corporation, on behalf of subsidiaries Electric Generation LLC, ETrans LLC and GTrans LLC, Docket No. ES02-17-000 -- Section 204 application for authorization for the reorganized utility, as well as the new business units (ETrans, GTrans, and Gen), to issue securities and assume liabilities necessary for these business lines' service as public utilities.  [PDF FORMAT; 113 PAGES]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and ETrans LLC, Docket No. ER02-455-000 -- Section 205 application submitting agreements between PG&E, ETrans and Electric Generation LLC.  [PDF FORMAT; 593 pages]

Electric Generation LLC, Docket No. ER02-456-000 -- Section 205 application submitting a Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement with PG&E, a 12-year bilateral contract between Gen and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the 7,100 megawatts of power generated from Diablo Canyon, hydroelectric facilities, and irrigation district agreements.  Also submits a market-based rate schedule and interim code of conduct.  [PDF FORMAT; 3111 pages]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and ETrans LLC, et al., Docket Nos. P-2118, et al. -- Section 8 joint application for the transfer of 11 transmission line-only licenses from PG&E to ETrans.  Additionally, PG&E filed applications for the transfer of licenses for the 26 hydroelectric projects licensed solely or partially to PG&E from PG&E to limited liability company subsidiaries of Electric Generation LLC.  [PDF FORMAT; 1627 pages]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. CP02-000; Standard Pacific Gas Line Incorporated, Docket No. CP02-__000; GTrans LLC, Docket No. CP02-__-000; and PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest, Docket Nos. CP02-__-000 -- Application pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA for approvals from FERC to transfer Pacific Gas and Electric Company's natural gas transmission and storage assets to GTrans. GTrans will operate approximately 6,300 miles of transmission pipelines and three gas storage facilities. The filing also allows GTrans or the utility to purchase 2.6 miles of the PG&E Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline near the California-Oregon border, creating a new market center that will facilitate competition and eliminate additional fees charged to move gas between pipelines.  [MS WORD, PDF FORMAT, MS EXCEL; approx. 1100 pages]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 and 50-323, OL-DPR-82 -- Application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act for the transfer of the operating licenses for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 to Electric Generation LLC with ownership assigned to a wholly-owned subsidiary, Diablo Canyon LLC.  [PDF FORMAT; 131 pages]

_______________________________________

GRS' FERCwatch e-mail notification is a free courtesy service of Gadsden Research Services, energy research and document retrieval specialists.  Periodically (generally once or twice weekly), GRS will broadcast FERCwatch with descriptions of major FERC issuances or filings such as rulemakings, policy statements, mergers, new rate filings, major rate changes, and certificate filings.

GRS can provide hardcopies of any of the above listed items at nominal charges; for document requests or estimates of charges, please reply to grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net> or call 202.210.4771 (toll free, 1.877.544.4771).

For an e-mailed copy of a brochure of GRS services and rates for FERC and other federal agency research please e-mail your request to grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net>.  For a mailed copy, please include your name, firm name and street address.  For a faxed copy, please include your fax number.

The FERCwatch subscription list is used for the sole purpose of providing information on FERC and energy industry activity and will not be sold or otherwise distributed to any other business or organization.  For additions or removal from the FERCwatch notification list, please reply to grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net>.

Send suggestions on how the GRS' FERCwatch can better serve the energy community to grs4ferc@starpower.net <mailto:grs4ferc@starpower.net>.


The Rockies index language looks good.  We need to separate the southern
border PG&E trades from the southern border socal and Socal trades.  All
Socal trades (except KRS, which we have none at this time) go under Socal and
southern border - socal wacogs, while the PG&E topock/southern border - PG&E
trades go under the Southern border, PG&E wacog.  Please make the change to
the sheet and forward a copy to me before emailing.

Thanks,
Mike


ok... here is the scoop.  Wedding ceremony at 5:00pm at Grace Presbyterian
Church - Beltway and Westheimer in the Chapel.  Reception following at the
Majestic Metro - a map will be provided at the wedding.  Let me know if you
can make it and... if you are bringing a date.  Hope you can make it....
I'll be sure and save a dance for you - HA!


From: Mark Whitney
TheLaw.net Corporation
Homepage: http://www.thelaw.net
Remove: http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm

  By late November folks aren't thinking about legal research, they're thinking about food. Our answer:

--discount subscriptions to TheLaw.net for the month of November by up to 20%
--send you something sharp and something sweet

  Subscribe to TheLaw.net before the end of November and we'll immediately direct the farm families of the Cabot Creamery in Cabot, Vermont, to ship you a pint of their pure Vermont Maple Syrup and a pound of their Vintage Vermont Cheddar. See, http://www.cabotcheese.com
see also http://www.thelaw.net/cabotoffer.htm

?AND SAVE 20% ON THELAW.NET CONVENIENCE EDITION!

  Just $395 (save $100!) on TheLaw.net Convenience Edition. TheLaw.net is a custom legal browser. It is very easy to use. $395 covers you for a year. You have unlimited access to everything. Install at work at home and on your laptop and feel-free to hand the software off to your trusted assistant at no extra charge. And did we mention there's a 30-day unconditional money back guarantee.

  Our Small Office Special is on sale, too, and the prices for multi-user Workgroups look even more attractive. See, http://www.thelaw.net/subscribe.htm

  Of course, our large competitors' databases have been a work in progress for generations. But, times have changed. A judicial opinion does not take on greater precedential value merely because it's fed to you via a WestLaw pipeline. It just costs more to read it. If you take a look at the searchable case law database you'll have UNLIMITED access to with TheLaw.net we stack up quite nicely, particularly when you consider the price.
See, http://www.thelaw.net/caselawgrid.htm

  By deploying TheLaw.net in your world you may discover that:

----your online productivity increases ten fold
----the list of expensive subscription items is much shorter
----it makes sense to turn to the big guns only when you cannot otherwise find the answer elsewhere, faster, cheaper.

?UNRESOLVED MANAGEMENT ISSUES

  Are you one of the select few who wants for little or nothing, or are you in a pick-and-choose mode with the overwhelming majority of your colleagues when it comes to choosing legal research resources?

     --What do you do when you have to research across state lines?

     --What do you do with a Federal question that properly demands a national look across all thirteen Federal circuits?

     --Our subscribers snicker to themselves, click a checkbox to search all states or all Federal and they pay not one thin additional dime for the privilege. (See covered jurisdictions listed below the signature line.)

"I AM IN MY SWEATS DOING BILLABLE RESEARCH. I LOVE IT!"

     And there you have our new favorite quote, from a new subscriber leaving a large firm to start her own thing. We have others; lots of them. See, http://www.thelaw.net/references.htm

     What's not to like?

--TheLaw.net is less than $1 a day for an individual annual subscription to our Solo Edition. Even less per day, per workgroup user. See, http://www.thelaw.net/susbcribe.htm

--Enter a statutory cite into the search engine, and pop up cases construing that item, in one mouse click. See, http://www.thelaw.net/statutes.htm

--Have a case citation you need to know more about? Find cases construing that item in one mouse click. Simple.

--Easy to use? Do you know how to operate a browser, shuttle through little windows folders and do electronic case law research? If so, you're on your way to being a guru using TheLaw.net. If you don't know how to perform these tasks, we will teach at no cost.

--PERFORM UNKNOWN ITEM SEARCHES: Use Boolean and, or, not, near, within, adjacent, nesting, truncation See, Sample Searches: http://www.thelaw.net/searchdemo/home.htm

--PERFORM KNOWN ITEM SEARCHES: Field search by cite, party, counsel, docket, author, date or panel.  See, http://www.thelaw.net/help/operators.htm

--CHOCK FULL. SEARCH TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT

--Millions of searchable cases - across nearly 200 Federal and state jurisdictions - updated four times daily - unlimited use - Federal and state statutes - State Administrative Codes - CFR - Federal Register - Public Laws - State and Federal Rules - State and Federal Executive Agency Databases - Bill Tracking Tools - Corporate Backgrounders - Thousands of Practice Area Helpers -  Reference Desk - People Finders - Every Major Metro Paper - Nearly 150 Major News Columnists - and much, much more. (Current case jurisdictions, statutes and regulations are listed below the signature line for your convenience.)

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION PRICES

SOLO EDITION: $345 annually - you and one machine - less than $1 a day
http://www.thelaw.net/subscribe.htm

CONVENIENCE EDITION SALE PRICE: $395 annually - SAVE $100 when you sign up by November 30. Install at work, at home and on your laptop and your paralegal gets TheLaw.net, too - at no extra charge! http://www.thelaw.net/susbcribe.htm

SMALL OFFICE SPECIAL SALE PRICE: $575 annually - SAVE $120 when you sign up by November 30. This is for you, your partner and up to two paralegals http://www.thelaw.net/subscribe.htm

THREE LAWYER WORKGROUP: $795 annually
FOUR LAWYER WORKGROUP: $995 annually
FIVE LAWYER WORKGROUP: $1195 annually

ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS INCLUDE: unlimited access, a lack of meters, no surprises, a 30 day unconditional money back guarantee, unlimited, world class tech and reference support. What's stopping you?

SUBSCRIBE ONLINE - 30 DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

     Sign up risk-free at: http://www.thelaw.net/fulfillment.htm or call in toll free 1.877.4.LAWNET with any questions or if you would like us to book your subscription for you.

     Join us today at TheLaw.net Corporation, where the availability of vast resources is not limited to those with vast resources. We'll do our level best to ensure your success - whatever it takes.

Regards,

Mark Whitney
President and CEO
TheLaw.net Corporation
San Diego - Chicago, USA
Toll Free 877.452.9638
Fax: 858.554.0968
whitney@thelaw.net
http://www.thelaw.net
"Information Retrieval Solutions for the Legal Profession"

****************************************************************
PRIVACY STATEMENT: TheLaw.net respects your time and we believe this is the fastest, least intrusive method of originating contact with busy professionals.  But we also provide several mechanisms allowing recipients to remove themselves  easily and at no cost. Simply go to: http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm OR reply  to: remove@thelaw.net and enter the email address that you would like removed in the subject line or call toll free 1.877.452.9638. See also:  http://www.thelaw.net and click "Privacy Statement".
*****************************************************************

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The proprietary searchable case law database included with your subscription is updated four times daily. However, on November 6, 2001, we did a count of entries by jurisdiction. What follows is a list of jurisdictions, the year coverage begins and the number of judicial opinions and orders in each library. A list of statutes and administrative codes is provided far below.

United States Supreme Court, 1900, 213,891

 Federal Circuit, 1982, 18350

 U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir., 1950, 14,345
  D.C. Court of Appeals, 1945, 11,546

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Cir., 1930, 18,350
  Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 1996, 1,558
  Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, 1930, 32,329
  Massachusetts Appeals Court
  New Hampshire Supreme Court, 1930, 9,026
  Rhode Island Supreme Court, 1950, 8,899

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir., 1930, 41,598
  Connecticut Supreme Court, 1950, 14,824
  Connecticut Appellate Court
  New York Court of Appeals, 1955, 425,966
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Div. 1st
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Div. 2nd
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Div. 3rd
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Div. 4th
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Term 1st
  N.Y. Supreme Ct., App. Term 2nd
  Vermont Supreme Court, 1930, 7,903

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd. Cir., 1930, 35,052
  U.S. District Court, New Jersey, 1999
  Supreme Court of Delaware, 1950, 24,859
  New Jersey Supreme Court, 1930, 44,830
  N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division
  U.S. District Court, E.D.Pa., 1997
  Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1950, 146,850
  Pennsylvania Superior Court
  Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir., 1930, 62,794
  U.S. District Court, Maryland, 1999
  Maryland Court of Appeals, 1950, 20,269
  Maryland Special Court of Appeals
  North Carolina Supreme Court, 1945, 57,601
  North Carolina Court of Appeals, 1968
  U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 1999
  South Carolina Supreme Court, 1996, 1,944
  South Carolina Court of Appeals
  Virginia Supreme Court, 1930, 18,174
  Virginia Court of Appeals
  W. Va. Supreme Court. of Appeals, 1991, 7,130

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Cir., 1930, 80,543
  Louisiana Supreme Court, 1980, 57,879
  Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
  Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
  Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
  Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
  U.S. District Court, N. Mississippi, 1997
  Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954, 17,890
  Mississippi Court of Appeals
  Texas Supreme Court, 1950, 109,548
  Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
  Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
  Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Cir., 1930, 56,247
  Kentucky Supreme Court, 1945, 22,235
  Kentucky Court of Appeals
  Michigan Supreme Court, 1930, 75,322
  Michigan Court of Appeals
  Ohio Supreme Court, 1950, 42,660
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 1st District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 2nd District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 3rd District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 4th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 5th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 6th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 7th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 11th District
  Ohio Court of Appeals, 12th District
  Tennessee Supreme Court, 1950, 47,199
  Tennessee Ct. of Appeals, M. Grand Div.
  Tennessee Ct. of Appeals, E. Grand Div.
  Tennessee Ct. of Appeals, W. Grand Div.
  Tennessee Ct. of Crim. App., M. Grand Div.
  Tennessee Ct. of Crim. App. E. Grand Div.
  Tennessee Ct. of Crim. App. W. Grand Div.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., 1930, 39,924
  Illinois Supreme Court, -1985, 31,813
  Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District
  Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District
  Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District
  Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District
  Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District
  Indiana Supreme Court, 1940, 41,931
  Indiana Court of Appeals, 1st District
  Indiana Court of Appeals, 2nd District
  Indiana Court of Appeals, 3rd District
  Indiana Court of Appeals, 4th District
  Indiana Court of Appeals, 5th District
  Indiana Tax Court
  Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1945, 27,871
  Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I
  Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II
  Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District III
  Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Cir., 1930, 47,131
  Arkansas Supreme Court, 1957, 23,949
  Arkansas Court of Appeals
  Iowa Supreme Court, 1995, 3,746
  Iowa Court of Appeals
  Minnesota Supreme Court, 1930, 42,152
  Minnesota Court of Appeals
  Missouri Supreme Court, 1960, 53,104
  Missouri Court of Appeals
  Nebraska Supreme Court, 1965, 13,926
  Nebraska Court of Appeals
  U.S. District Court, North Dakota, 1999
  North Dakota Supreme Court, 1930, 8,672
  North Dakota Court of Appeals
  South Dakota Supreme Court, 1965, 5,424

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir., 1941, 73,974
  Alaska Supreme Court, 1960, 8,009
  Alaska Court of Appeals
  Arizona Supreme Court, 1930, 21,928
  Arizona Court of Appeals, 1st Division
  Arizona Court of Appeals, 2nd Division
  U.S. District Court, Central, California, 1998
  California Supreme Court, 1930, 107,137
  California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dt.
  California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dt.
  California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dt.
  California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dt.
  California Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dt.
  California Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dt.
  Hawaii Supreme Court, 1930, 7,116
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
  Idaho Supreme Court, 1965, 7,948
  Idaho Court of Appeals
  Montana Supreme Court, 1993, 2,724
  Nevada Supreme Court, 1950, 7,240
  Oregon Supreme Court, 1950, 71,910
  Oregon Court of Appeals
  Washington Supreme Court, 1935, 52,437
  Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division
  Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division
  Washington Court of Appeals, 3rd Division

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Cir., 1930, 33,347
  Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
  Colorado Supreme Court, 1930, 29,715
  Colorado Court of Appeals
  Kansas Supreme Court, 1982, 5,937
  Kansas Court of Appeals
  New Mexico Supreme Court, 1930, 17,135
  New Mexico Court of Appeals
  Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1954, 19,714
  Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
  Oklahoma Court of Appeals
  Utah Supreme Court, 1950, 10,905
  Utah Court of Appeals
  Wyoming Supreme Court, 1993, 1,527

 U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Cir., 1981, 36,724
  Alabama Supreme Court, 1955, 76,618
  Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
  Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
  Florida Supreme Court, 1950, 114,978
  Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District
  Florida District Court of Appeal, 2nd District
  Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District
  Florida District Court of Appeal, 4th District
  Florida District Court of Appeal, 5th District
  Georgia Supreme Court, 1940, 83,838
  Georgia Court of Appeals

*******************************************
ADMINISTRATIVE CODES - ADMINISTRATIVE CODES

FEDERAL

Code of Federal Regulations
Federal Register
Executive Orders
OMB Circulars
Public Laws

STATE

Alabama Administrative Code
Alaska Administrative Code
Arizona Administrative Code
Arkansas Register
California Code of Regulations
Code of Colorado Regulations
Florida Administrative Code
Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia
Hawaii Administrative Rules
Idaho Administrative Code
Illinois Administrative Code
Indiana Administrative Code
Iowa Administrative Code
Code of Maine
Code of Maryland Regulations
Code of Massachusetts Regulations
Michigan Administrative Code
Minnesota Rules
Missouri Code of State Regulations
Nebraska Administrative Code
Nevada Administrative Code
New Hampshire Administrative Rules
New York Rules and Regulations
North Carolina Administrative Code and Rules
Ohio Administrative Code
Oregon Administrative Rules
The Pennsylvania Code
South Carolina Code of Regulations
South Dakota Register
Tennessee Rules and Regulations
Texas Administrative Code
Utah Administrative Code
Virginia Administrative Code
Washington Administrative Code
West Virginia Code of State Rules
Wisconsin Administrative Code and Register


http://abacustech.net/pictures/04-23_Bammel_Egg_Hunt/page01.htm

Thanks,

Ram Tackett,  (mailto:rtackett@abacustech.net)
Owner, Abacus Technologies
17611 Loring Lane, Spring, TX 77388-5746
(281)651-7106;Fax +1(281)528-8636  Web: http://www.abacustech.net

 - winmail.dat


Linh just called and cancelled.  Any possibility Michelle might want to go?


Kevin,

You have full charge.  Thanks for volunteering.

Liz

Kevin G Moore
04/06/2000 07:50 AM
To: Barbara Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike A Roberts/HOU/ECT@ECT, Frances
Ortiz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Liz M Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Copy Room

To Whom It May Concern :

I would like to know who will be responsible for keeping up with
the copy room near my area.  EB32 Copy Room1
I am aware that this is something that must be decided by
whoever is in charge however , I would like to participate in keeping this
room operational.
Please note that I use this room more often than anyone else
and I pay more attention to what is needed there on a daily basis.

I am not asking for full charge over the room but I would like to assist
whereby , it will always be operational .

                                                     Thanks
                                                   Kevin Moore


---------------------- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 01/06/2000
04:19 PM ---------------------------

Janet H Moore
12/03/99 10:32 AM
To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: csandvick@velaw.com, Jay Boudreaux/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrick
Johnson/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Another CGAS lawsuit

Richard:  I'll just assume that you will call John Keller on this one.  Let
me know if you need my help
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet H Moore/HOU/ECT on 12/03/99 10:28
AM ---------------------------

"Keller, John K." <JKKeller@vssp.com> on 12/03/99 09:52:04 AM
To: Janet H Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

I have just learned of another lawsuit involving CGAS.  This had been
handled by Jud Scheaf and had been dormant for a long time, which is why
neither I nor anyone at the company knew about it.

This is somewhat confusing, so let me try to explain.  The style is
Kilbarger Construction vs Eastland Energy Group, et al.  In the Court of
Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio  Case No. CH96-0311.

CGAS had a lease in Muskingum County.  Eastland Energy had a lease on an
adjoining tract.  Eastland approached CGAS about going together to drill a
well on a unit formed by the two leases.  CGAS agreed.  Eastland was
designated operator.  Eastland hired Kilbarger as the drilling contractor.
Kilbarger drilled the well and it was dry.  Eastland thought Kilbarger
negligently drilled the well, so Eastland only paid Kilbarger half the
drilling cost.  Kilbarger filed a mechanics lien and filed suit against
Eastland for the other half of the drilling costs (approximately $30,000)
and also joined CGAS because of the mechanics lien.  Kilbarger was not
seeking any monetary recovery from CGAS, and the lien is meaningless since
CGAS has since released its lease.  Thus, we have no pending claims from
Kilbarger.

However, in the same case Eastland and CGAS have a claim pending.  During
the drilling of the well, some of the contractors would not work for
Eastland since they did not know Eastland - a new, small producer.  Those
contractors therefore did the work on the well for CGAS, billed CGAS, CGAS
paid those contractors, and CGAS then invoiced Eastland.  Eastland did not
pay and therefore CGAS has a claim in this suit against Eastland for
$7,139.69.  No monetary claim has been made by Eastland against CGAS.

I just learned of this case and have taken over this file from Jud Scheaf.
There is a settlement conference scheduled for December 9 and this case is
set for trial on December 16.  I am hopeful this will be resolved before
trial.  If there are questions, please call.


Time sheets for pay period October 16-31 will be due on Wednesday, October 31.  Please forward me your exception time.

Thanks!

Holly Keiser
Enron Wholesale Services
Legal Department
Phone: 713-345-7893
Fax: 713-646-3490
Location: EB 3887
Holly.Keiser@enron.com


I understand you guys want to talk to me about Devon.....hmmmmmmmmm.  How
about tomorrow Thursday the 8th after 3 sometime? THANKS


Mary, Larry and Wes,
We just received a faxed copy of the Manual Wire and Same Day Payment memo
which was sent by Betty Tauzier on 8/28/00.
Rate & Currency trades fx which is settled the following day and requires
next day payments for FX.  Currently we are severely hampered because our
infomation is required into Unify by 2:30 for an Accounts Payable run at 4:00
for next day payments.  We are still trading after these cut-offs and tying
out the day's activity with Trading.  Therefore, we currently have to rely on
manual wires to make payments to our counterparties on the value date.

We need to get timeframes which mirror our business requirements.  I would
like to get the Accounts Payable run for our companies, 842 and 967, moved to
after 5:00 pm.  Information is not due to the bank until next day. 8:00 am
London time.

Please let Laurel and me know what changes can be done to our processing
flows.
Thanks. Sheila


In today's Daily Update you'll find free reports on
America Online (AOL), Divine Interventures (DVIN),
and 3M (MMM); reports on the broadband space, Latin
American telecom, and more.

For free research, editor's picks, and more come to the Daily Investor:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/AF004627/magazinecover.asp?promo=unl&d=20001214#
investor

***************************************************************
You are receiving this mail because you have registered for
Multex Investor. To unsubscribe, see bottom of this message.
***************************************************************

======================== Sponsored by =========================
Would you own just the energy stocks in the S&P 500?
Select Sector SPDRs divides the S&P 500 into nine sector index funds.
Pick and choose just the pieces of the S&P 500 you like best.
http://www.spdrindex.com
===============================================================

Featured in today's edition of the Daily Update:

1. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Treat yourself to Multex Investor's NEW Personal
Finance Channel to take advantage of top-notch content and tools  FREE.

2. DAILY FREE SPONSOR REPORT: Robertson Stephens maintains a "buy" rating
on Divine Interventures (DVIN).

3. FREE RESEARCH REPORT: Jefferies & Co. rates America Online (AOL) a
"buy," saying projected growth remains in place.

4. ASK THE ANALYST: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's Lew Smith in the Analyst
Corner

5. HOT REPORT: Oscar Gruss & Son's most recent issue of its Broadband
Brief reports the latest developments in the broadband space.

6. EDITOR'S PICK: Bear Stearns measures the impact of broadband and the
Internet on telecom in Latin America.

7. FREE STOCK SNAPSHOT: The current analysts' consensus rates 3M (MMM), a
"buy/hold."

8. JOIN THE MARKETBUZZ: where top financial industry professionals answer
your questions and offer insights every market day from noon 'til 2:00
p.m. ET.

9. TRANSCRIPTS FROM WALL STREET: Ash Rajan, senior vice president and
market analyst with Prudential Securities, answers questions about the
market.

======================== Sponsored by =========================
Profit From AAII's "Cash Rich" Stock Screen - 46% YTD Return

With so much market volatility, how did AAII's "Cash Rich"
Stock Screen achieve such stellar returns?  Find the answer by
taking a free trial membership from the American Association
of Individual Investors and using our FREE Stock Screen service at:
http://subs.aaii.com/c/go/XAAI/MTEX1B-aaiitU1?s=S900
===============================================================

1. NEW ON MULTEX INVESTOR
Take charge of your personal finances

Do you have endless hours of free time to keep your financial house in
order? We didn't think so. That's why you need to treat yourself to Multex
Investor's NEW Personal Finance Channel to take advantage of top-notch
content and tools  FREE.
Click here for more information.
http://www.multexpf.com?mktg=sgpftx4&promo=unl&t=10&d=20001214

2. DAILY FREE SPONSOR REPORT
Divine Interventures (DVIN)

Robertson Stephens maintains a "buy" rating on Divine Interventures, an
incubator focused on infrastructure services and business-to-business
(B2B) exchanges. Register for Robertson Stephens' free-research trial to
access this report.
Click here.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Download.asp?docid=5018549&sid=9&promo=unl&t=12&
d=20001214

3. FREE RESEARCH REPORT
Hold 'er steady -- America Online (AOL)

AOL's projected growth and proposed merger with Time Warner (TWX) both
remain in place, says Jefferies & Co., which maintains a "buy" rating on
AOL. In the report, which is free for a limited time, analysts are
confident the deal will close soon.
Click here.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/AF004627/magazinecover.asp?promo=unl&t=11&d=2000
1214

4. TODAY IN THE ANALYST CORNER
Following market trends

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's Lew Smith sees strong underlying trends
guiding future market performance. What trends does he point to, and what
stocks and sectors does he see benefiting from his premise?

Here is your opportunity to gain free access to Morgan Stanley's research.
Simply register and submit a question below. You will then have a free
trial membership to this top Wall Street firms' research!  Lew Smith will
be in the Analyst Corner only until 5 p.m. ET Thurs., Dec. 14, so be sure
to ask your question now.
Ask the analyst.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/ACHome.asp?promo=unl&t=1&d=20001214

5. WHAT'S HOT? RESEARCH REPORTS FROM MULTEX INVESTOR'S HOT LIST
Breaking the bottleneck -- An update on the broadband space

Oscar Gruss & Son's most recent issue of its Broadband Brief reports the
latest developments in the broadband space, with coverage of Adaptive
Broadband (ADAP), Broadcom (BRCM), Efficient Networks (EFNT), and others
(report for purchase - $25).
Click here.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Download.asp?docid=5149041&promo=unl&t=4&d=20001
214

======================== Sponsored by =========================
Get Red Herring insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies,
stocks to watch, future technologies, and more. FREE
E-newsletters from Redherring.com provide more answers,
analysis and opinion to help you make more strategic
investing decisions. Subscribe today
http://www.redherring.com/jump/om/i/multex/email2/subscribe/47.html
===============================================================

6. EDITOR'S PICK: CURRENT RESEARCH FROM THE CUTTING EDGE
Que pasa? -- Predicting telecom's future in Latin America

Bear Stearns measures the impact of broadband and the Internet on telecom
in Latin America, saying incumbent local-exchange carriers (ILECs) are
ideally positioned to benefit from the growth of Internet and data
services (report for purchase - $150).
Click here.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Download.asp?docid=5140995&promo=unl&t=8&d=20001
214

7. FREE STOCK SNAPSHOT
3M (MMM)

The current analysts' consensus rates 3M, a "buy/hold." Analysts expect
the industrial product manufacturer to earn $4.76 per share in 2000 and
$5.26 per share in 2001.
Click here.
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Download.asp?docid=1346414&promo=unl&t=3&d=20001
214

8. JOIN THE MARKETBUZZ!
Check out SageOnline

where top financial industry professionals answer your questions and offer
insights every market day from noon 'til 2:00 p.m. ET.
Click here.
http://multexinvestor.sageonline.com/page2.asp?id=9512&ps=1&s=2&mktg=evn&promo
=unl&t=24&d=20001214

9. TRANSCRIPTS FROM WALL STREET'S GURUS
Prudential Securities' Ash Rajan

In this SageOnline transcript from a chat that took place earlier this
week, Ash Rajan, senior vice president and market analyst with Prudential
Securities, answers questions about tech, retail, finance, and the outlook
for the general market.
Click here.
http://multexinvestor.sageonline.com/transcript.asp?id=10403&ps=1&s=8&mktg=trn
&promo=unl&t=13&d=20001214

===================================================================
Please send your questions and comments to mailto:investor.help@multex.com

If you'd like to learn more about Multex Investor, please visit:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/welcome.asp

If you can't remember your password and/or your user name, click here:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/lostinfo.asp

If you want to update your email address, please click on the url below:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp
===================================================================
To remove yourself from the mailing list for the Daily Update, please
REPLY to THIS email message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
line. To remove yourself from all Multex Investor mailings, including
the Daily Update and The Internet Analyst, please respond with the
words NO EMAIL in the subject line.

You may also unsubscribe on the account update page at:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/edituinfo.asp
===================================================================
Please email advertising inquiries to us at mailto:advertise@multex.com.

For information on becoming an affiliate click here:
http://www.multexinvestor.com/Affiliates/home.asp?promo=unl

Be sure to check out one of our other newsletters, The Internet Analyst by
Multex.com. The Internet Analyst informs, educates, and entertains you with
usable investment data, ideas, experts, and info about the Internet industry.
To see this week's issue, click here: http://www.theinternetanalyst.com

If you are not 100% satisfied with a purchase you make on Multex
Investor, we will refund your money.


---------------------- Forwarded by Frank Economou/NA/Enron on 10/04/2000
09:25 AM ---------------------------

"Macias HM (Heidi)" <HMMacias@equiva.com> on 10/04/2000 07:04:24 AM
To: "'Frank.Economou@enron.com'" <Frank.Economou@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: Too funny - enjoy!

Good Morning,

You have to play this.....it is hilarious.

>  <<B_1.EXE>>

 - B_1.EXE


Start Date: 4/9/01; HourAhead hour: 15;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No
variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001040915.txt

---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
*** Final schedule not found for preferred schedule.
     Details:

  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/9/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_OZZY
  ENGY_TYPE: FIRM


---------------------- Forwarded by Susan M Scott/HOU/ECT on 04/07/2000 01:11
PM ---------------------------
From: Carrie Southard on 04/07/2000 01:04 PM
To: Susan M Scott/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Torrey Moorer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer deBoisblanc Denny/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Missing Gas Daily Deal

Hi Susan.  Hope you're feeling okay today.

There was a gas daily deal that didn't pull in yesterday.  I thought that it
would come in with today's data (thinking it got booked late or something)
but it didn't.  Could you look into it and let me know where it is.

Thanks,

Carrie

Deal Info:  (amazingly...this is the only one)

 140746
04-05-2000  08:37:44 AM
Clinton Energy Management Services, Inc.
Natural Gas
US Gas Fin Swap
US Gas Daily     TCO Pool                06-30Apr00
USD/MM
5000  MMBtu
3.005 GD-MARKET
 NE0715.1


The report named: VaR and Off-Peak Position Report By Trader <http://erv.corp.enron.com/linkFromExcel.asp?report_cd=23&report_name=VaR+and+Off-Peak+Position+Report+By+Trader&category_cd=5&category_name=EAST&toc_hide=1&sTV1=5&TV1Exp=Y&current_efct_date=10/23/2001>, published as of 10/23/2001 is now available for viewing on the website.

(Revision: 2)


I can meet anytime, anywhere tomorrow ALTHOUGH Zoe will be with me when we
meet.  I hope that won't be a problem.  I am heading off to school soon so
just let me know the final decision and I'll be there.  Mark - I'll send
revised slides tonight after class.
cv

Carolyn M. Vavrek
Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
Deloitte & Touche
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA  94105

phone: 415-783-5137
fax: 415-783-8760
e-mail: cvavrek@deloitte.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Guinney, Mark [mailto:Mark_Guinney@watsonwyatt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:20 PM
To: "Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com"
Cc: "Anil Sama" " ; "Vavrek; Carolyn (US - San Francisco)" " ;
"Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com" "
Subject: Re:RE: FIA presentation

Lunch works for me.  I can arrange for one of our conference rooms if you
would
like.

**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    RE: FIA presentation
Author: "Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com" <SMTP:Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
Date:       04/24/2001 5:44 PM

Greetings all:
I'l have the financials and any other comments/suggestions done and sent to
all this evening.  I have a conference call at 7 am tomorrow.  Apologies.
But I think it's very important that we get together one last time to
ensure that we're all on the same page, that folks understand clearly what
slides they're responsible for presenting, etc.  What about lunch tomorrow
(we're all in the city), or at 5 PM (before the ball game)?  Lemme know.

Best,
Jeff

"Guinney, Mark"

<Mark_Guinney@watson        To:     "\"Anil Sama\" "
<asama@yahoo.com>, "
wyatt.com>                  \"Vavrek; Carolyn (US - San
Francisco)\" "
<cvavrek@deloitte.com>, "

04/24/2001 09:51 AM         \"Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com\"
"

<Jeff_Dasovich@enron.com>

cc:

Subject:     RE: FIA
presentation

I do not have everything yet.  Still need info from Anil and Jeff with all
the
numbers.  Carolyn, would you mind condensing into 2 slides a summary of the
acquisition events.  Similar to all the slides you have already done but
just
condensed.  I think that would be it.

Wednesday morning works for me.  I'm going to a Giants game in the evening.

**********************************************
Mark D. Guinney, CFA
Consultant
Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting
345 California Street, Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 733-4487 ph.
(415) 733-4190 fax

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: FIA presentation
Author: "Anil Sama" <SMTP:asama@yahoo.com>
Date:       04/24/2001 1:33 PM

Early Wed works for me. Wed night is fine too.
Also, I'll be sending Mark the slide on comps
later today.

-Anil

--- "Vavrek, Carolyn (US - San Francisco)"
<cvavrek@deloitte.com> wrote:
> I was wondering if Mark has everything he needs to
> finalize a good draft of
> the presentation.  Also, I think we need to speak live
> again before Thursday
> to flush out our comments.  Who is available when?
> Perhaps we can do an
> early morning meeting downtown (Wednesday 7am-ish) or
> that night at Berkeley
> during break and after for those who don't have class?
> -cv
>
>
>
> Carolyn M. Vavrek
> Manager - Human Capital Advisory Services
> Deloitte & Touche
> 50 Fremont Street
> San Francisco, CA  94105
>
> phone: 415-783-5137
> fax: 415-783-8760
> e-mail: cvavrek@deloitte.com
>
> - This message (including any attachments) contains
> confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
> protected by law.  -
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete
> this message and
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or
> distribution of this
> message, or the taking of any action based on it, is
> strictly prohibited.
>

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

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.


I've redlined the document against the previous version, but I don't think I
picked up all the changes.  In addition to the marked changes, there are
these changes:

D.  third line, added "Original" before LM6000.  This change is made
throughout the document.
D. pentultimate line, replaced EECC with ENA.
Dated everything December 15; added "with respect to the Subject LM6000
Turbines after "Original Turbine Contract" throughout
E.  Added "and" between rights obligations in (iii)
2 (c) Added the Pastoria One-Train Turbine Contract in (ii) and (iii).

Kay

Kay Mann
12/08/2000 12:15 PM
To: michael.barnas@ps.ge.com, kent.shoemaker@ae.ge.com
cc: Roseann Engeldorf/Corp/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Winston & Strawn Comment: Consents to Assignment

OK with you guys for me to add this?
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 12/08/2000 12:13
PM ---------------------------

"Taylor, Rob" <robtaylor@akllp.com> on 12/08/2000 12:12:37 PM
To: "Roseann M Engeldorf (E-mail)" <Roseann.Engeldorf@enron.com>, "Kay Mann
(E-mail)" <kay.mann@enron.com>, "Sheila Tweed (E-mail)"
<Sheila.Tweed@enron.com>, "Lisa Bills (E-mail)" <Lisa.Bills@enron.com>
cc: "Bunk, Sean" <seanbunk@akllp.com>

Subject: Winston & Strawn Comment: Consents to Assignment

Winston & Strawn has asked that the following be added to the Consents
to Assignment (e.g., in the "Successors and Assigns" paragraph):

"WestLB is an express third-party beneficiary of this Consent."

Please forward the revised draft of the GE Consent to Winston & Strawn
(toxley@winston.com).

Regards,

Rob Taylor
Andrews & Kurth L.L.P.
600 Travis Street
Suite 4200
Houston, Texas  77002

Tel: (713) 220-4436
Fax: (713) 238-7273
e-mail: robtaylor@andrews-kurth.com

This e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the
recipient(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
(i) do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents hereof to others
(any of the foregoing being strictly prohibited), (ii) notify the sender
immediately of your receipt hereof, and (iii) delete this e-mail and all
copies of it.


Notice No. 00-323
September 12, 2000

TO:
ALL NYMEX MEMBERS AND MEMBER FIRMS
ALL NYMEX CLEARING FIRMS
ALL NYMEX OPERATIONS MANAGERS

FROM: Neal Wolkoff, Executive Vice President

SUBJECT: MARGIN RATE CHANGE

Effective Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 (close of business)

Futures Contracts:
Crude Oil Futures
Unleaded Gasoline Futures
Heating Oil Futures

Contract Months: All Months

Rate Change:

NYMEX Division Margins on Crude Oil, Unleaded Gasoline, and Heating Oil
Futures Contracts

Effective at Close of Business on Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Clearing Member (Maintenance Margin) Old: $2,500 New: $3,000
Member Customer (Initial Margin) Old: $2,750 New: $3,300
Non-Member Customer (Initial Margin) Old: $3,375 New: $4,050

The margin credit for NYMEX Light Sweet Crude/IPE Brent Crude Oil futures
spread positions will also be increased, from $2,000 to $2,500 (at the
Clearing Member level), as of Tuesday, September 12, 2000.  The net margin
after the spread will remain unchanged.

Effective at Close of Business on Tuesday, September 12, 2000

Clearing Member(Maintenance Margin)
NYMEX Light Sweet Crude: $3,000
Less NYMEX Light Sweet/IPE Brent Crude Spread Credit: $2,500
Net Margin of Spread: $500

Member Customer (Initial Margin)
NYMEX Light Sweet Crude: $3,300
Less NYMEX Light Sweet/IPE Brent Crude Spread Credit: $2,750
Net Margin of Spread: $550

Non-Member Customer (Initial Margin)
NYMEX Light Sweet Crude: $4,050
Less NYMEX Light Sweet/IPE Brent Crude Spread Credit: $3,375
Net Margin of Spread: $675

Should you have any questions regarding these changes, please contact Artie
McCoy at (212) 299-2928 or Joe Sanguedolce at (212) 299-2855.  This notice
supersedes all previous notices regarding outright margins for the NYMEX
Crude Oil, Unleaded Gasoline, or Heating Oil Futures Contracts and the margin
credit for the NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil/IPE Brent Crude futures spread
positions.

__________________________________________________
Please click on the link below to indicate you have received this
email.

"http://208.206.41.61/email/email_log.cfm?useremail=sara.shackleton@enron.com&
refdoc=(00-323)"

Note: If you click on the above line and nothing happens, please copy
the text between the quotes, open your internet browser,
paste it into the web site address and press Return.


--------- Inline attachment follows ---------

From:
To: JARCHIVE </o=ENRON/ou=NA/cn=Recipients/cn=JARCHIVEAD01BA54470E7A5CE37C7DAE80EF256AE05630>
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:13:00 GMT
Subject:

05/30/2001 05:01:35 PM 	GetJournalList starting
05/30/2001 05:01:35 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\amoore.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:36 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\bripley.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:36 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\cbooth.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:37 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\gmuhl.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:38 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\jgrace2.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:38 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\jzoch2.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:38 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\mfowle2.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:39 PM 	Unable to Open Db CN=NAHOU-LN9/O=Enron : Journals\snguyen2.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:41 PM 	Replica Found, USE THIS ONE: Local Server : h:\notes4\data\journal.nsf
05/30/2001 05:01:42 PM 	Completed Script Successfully


PLEASE VIEW THE ATTACHED SLIDE SHOW


Mark,

Are we considered to be 2nd or third tier under the new regulations?

Can we obtain a summary of what the new regulations say?

Dave
---------------------- Forwarded by David Forster/Corp/Enron on 12/27/2000
08:27 AM ---------------------------
From: Rahil Jafry@ECT on 12/26/2000 03:04 PM
To: Andy Zipper/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave
Samuels/HOU/ECT@ECT, David.Forster@enron.com, Bob Shults/HOU/ECT@ECT, Angela
Connelly/LON/ECT@ECT, Julie Ferrara/HOU/ECT@ECT, Daniel Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Leonardo Pacheco/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kal Shah/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Paul Goddard/EU/Enron@Enron

Subject: CFTC Rules, Legislation Aim to Clear Up Regulation of
Over-the-Counter ...

---------------------- Forwarded by Rahil Jafry/HOU/ECT on 12/26/2000 03:01
PM ---------------------------
CFTC Rules, Legislation Aim to Clear Up Regulation of Over-the-Counter
Contracts.(US Commodity Futures Trading Commission)(Brief Article)

12/08/2000
The Oil Daily
ITEM00343007
Copyright 2000 Gale Group. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT 2000 Energy
Intelligence Group

  CFTC Rules, Legislation Aim to Clear Up Regulation of Over-the-Counter
Contracts

  A long process designed to clarify rules for over-the- counter (OTC)
markets may be drawing to a close after the  US Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) - the main  regulatory agency - issued its
final framework for a new regime.

  The rules are designed to clear up the legal status of OTC  products
such as swaps, while providing more flexible  oversight of futures
markets and promoting the  establishment of independent clearinghouses.

  Unveiled late last month, the CFTC reforms are due to be  published in
the Federal Register next week, and would take  effect 60 days later -
in mid-February. In the meantime, a  new president should take office
Jan. 20. CFTC experts seem  confident that the reforms will survive the
changeover, saying it is hard for an incoming administration to pull
back final regulations.

  There are also signs of progress on a parallel bill  supporting the
reforms, the Commodity Futures Modernization  Act.

  This was passed by the House in late October, but got  bogged down in
the Senate, partly due to objections by Sen.  Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who
heads the Senate Banking  Committee.

  A compromise was hammered out early this week, sources say,  and the
law could still get through this year - most likely  as an attachment to
an appropriations bill. Legislation  would give the CFTC measures a
stronger legal footing, but  could require them to be tweaked into line.

  The CFTC reforms respond to the explosion of both  derivatives markets
and electronic trading, from equities  to natural gas. Currently,
electronic exchanges targeting  derivatives markets - such as the Big
Oil-backed IntercontinentalExchange - operate in a regulatory gray
area.

  The new reforms define futures exchanges more flexibly,  replacing a
"one-size-fits-all" approach with core  principles, and establishing
three tiers of regulation:

  The top tier - of "recognized futures exchanges" (RFEs) -  matches the
current futures markets, such as Nymex, and is  the most tightly
regulated

  The second rank, of "derivatives transaction facilities"  (DTFs),
comprises institutions requiring looser regulation,  if, for example,
participation is restricted to big  companies.

  The third tier, of "exempt multilateral transaction  execution
facilities" (Exempt MTEFs), escapes most  regulation.

  In parallel, the CFTC has clarified an old ruling removing  swaps from
regulation - the so-called Part 35 exemption.  This ends previous
restrictions, so that OTC products  traded between two parties can now
be "fungible, standardized, and cleared." This is part of a drive to
turn  derivatives into legally recognized products, making it  hard for
one side to renege on an unfavorable contract.

  Finally, the CFTC has moved to encourage the establishment  of
independent clearinghouses by separating the rules for  exchange and
clearing functions. Two start-ups, EnergyClear  and NexClear, have
already declared their intention to  offer such services, starting with
US gas and power.

  Amid concerns about price manipulation, the energy industry  has been
treated as a special case throughout the new  framework and does not
qualify for the least-regulated  Exempt MTEF category of exchange.

  The CFTC reforms also remain fuzzy in certain areas. In  particular,
the new Part 35 exemption for derivatives  covers bilateral
transactions, with multilateral activity  still in something of a gray
area.

  Basically, an exchange handling multilateral trades of  energy
derivatives can apply to the CFTC for official  status as a "commercial
DTF" if it thinks this will bring  credibility and legal standing.
However, a derivatives exchange that does not register with the CFTC
will not be  pursued. The new framework offers "legal certainty for
those who want recognition; it is not ruling on the status  of those who
don't," one expert said.

  In practice, outfits such as EnronOnline - the web system  for direct
transactions with Enron - are in the clear as  bilateral platforms
dealing in contracts outside CFTC  jurisdiction. Intercontinental, as a
multilateral exchange  dealing in standardized swaps, could probably
remain  unregulated, but could also register as a DTF to clarify  its
status.

  Nymex, in its current form, would be an RFE because it  entertains
noninstitutional traders. But the exchange could  apply for its planned
electronic arm enymex (or its  traditional floor) to become a DTF, by
limiting activity to  institutional users.

  David Pike, Manimoli Dinesh

  For more on this story, see the next issue of Oil Daily  sister
publication energy network.

Folder Name: Rahil Jafry
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 80

______________________________________________________________________

To review or revise your folder, visit http://www.djinteractive.com or
contact Dow Jones Customer Service by e-mail at custom.news@bis.dowjones.com
or by phone at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 609-452-1511
or contact your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________

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


Thanks.  I have to clear with Calger first.  Also left a message with Kean re: same.  May be that we give the idea to the large customers and they run with it so no fingerprints on our part.  I'm going to sketch out a proposal and pass it around for people to swipe at.  I'm for severing IF Riordan loses (you think he can win?).

You going to the Astros/Giants game tonite.  Hopefully they'll actually throw a strike to Bonds tonite.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Shapiro, Richard
Sent:	Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:47 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	The United Wacko Republic of California

Take another run at core/non-core...why not?  Would Lincoln turn over in his grave if we voluntarily severed California from the Union?


Richard Shapiro
	02/21/2001 04:50 PM

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

Please distribute to entire group - recent talking points and proposals re:
California .
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 02/21/2001
04:48 PM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich on 02/16/2001 08:49 AM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich
To: Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON,
MDay@GMSSR.com, Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@mail.acom2.com> @ ENRON, Scott Govenar
<sgovenar@govadv.com>, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, skean@enron.com, mpalmer@enron.com, Karen
Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, BTC <BCragg@GMSSR.com>
cc:

Subject: Ken Lay's email to Sen. Brulte

Greetings All:

First, I am apologizing in advance for any typos in this email.  Schedule is
very tight, but I wanted to make sure that everyone had it first thing this
morning, with some back-up info that I've included below.

Attached is the email that was sent to Ken Lay's office yesterday evening for
delivery to Sen. Brulte.  It's of course confidential.  Few points:

I don't have Bev's email, so if you could please forward to her, that would
be appreciated.
As we discussed (Jim, Mike, Bev, Scott, Hedy) on our lengthy call on
Wednesday, I'm assuming that the plan is still to "wallpaper" Sacramento with
our proposed legislation.
This email does not contain the legislation.  Mike sent the "final" versions
of our legislation out yesterday, except for the siting piece, which I
believe Brian Cragg of Mike's office is finalizing today.
You'll note that we promise Senator Brulte in the email that we'll deliver to
his office today the proposed legislation.  Again, based on our call on
Wednesday, I'm assuming that we would simultaneously release the proposed
legislation to the rest of the world at the same time.
When we spoke on Wednesday, we decided that the Sacramento team would
determine to whom we would circulate the proposed legislation at the same
time that we deliver the Senator Brulte. I'm assuming that you folks will
handle that end of things.  Please let us know at your convenience to whom
you've decided to circulate.
This email does, however, include a "summary" of our proposed legislation.
But I'm not certain that the summary included in this email is the
appropriate language to distribute "to the world," or if we'll need instead
to tailor some new language.  I think we all agreed that we need a "one
pager" to accompany the legislative package so that we can communicate the
package effectively.
We also discussed the need to quickly develop a coalition to support our
proposals.  We didn't finalize that plan.  Perhaps the Sacramento team could
propose a plan to do that.  Perhaps we could start with our friends in the
Direct Access coalition?
We also talked about the need at this point to engage in PR and to get the PR
machinery activated, also with the goal of effectively communicating our
legislative package/message.  We're in a meeting with folks today where we
can discuss getting that side of things going and Karen Denne has contacted
Marathon and they're pondering some things that we can do in the near term.
You'll note that there's a considerable amount of information about the DWR
credit issue.  As I recollect, we discussed the issue in depth on the call.
You note that attached to the email is a "legislative fix" to AB1X that could
solve the credit issue and an attached set of "taking points" related to a
second alternative to solving the credit issue:  a PUC order clarifying that
DWR will get its money for power purchase costs.
Note also that Steve Kean reminded me that we've got to continue to push to
get the utilities out of the merchant function.  Accordingly, I've put a
brief paragraph on that issue in the note to Brulte in the last section
(legislative solution) under the topic "create a real competitive retail
market in California."  To the best of my knowledge, we don't have
legislative language on that piece yet, and it seems that we'll need to
discuss it in considerably more depth before doing so.

If you have any questions about any of the materials in the email, please
don't hesitate to contact me or Jim or Sandi to discuss.  I can be best
reached to day by pager at 888.916.7184.

Thanks to all for helping pull this together.

Best,
Jeff

----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/16/2001 08:27 AM -----

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

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

Steve:
Here's a substantially more cleaned-version, with attachments.  There's a
hard copy on your chair.

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

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

		 To: jdasovic@enron.com
		 cc:
		 Subject:

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

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

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

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

Our assessment of the supply/demand picture in California.

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

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

Regards,
Ken

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

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

2. Key Barriers to Distributed Generation

Excessive and Unnecessary Utility Stand-by Charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of the Source of the Credit Risk Issue

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

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

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

Options to Resolve Concerns Regarding Credit Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


THIS IS A GENERATED EMAIL - DO NOT REPLY!

IF YOU NEED FURTHER ASSISTANCE, CONTACT THE ISC HELP DESK AT:  713-345-4727

The password for your account:P00505464 has been reset to:12842039


Hi Felicia,

I would like to have one (1) AMEX gift certificate for $50.00 processed as
soon as possible.

Thanks,
Rod


Thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Schwarz, Angela
Sent:	Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:58 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff
Subject:	RE: Hansen

    could be, not necessarily   the bidders have the option on all or partial

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:29 PM
To:	Schwarz, Angela
Subject:	RE: Hansen

Thanks very much?  Does that mean that the Hansen contract would be sold as a stand-alone asset?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Schwarz, Angela
Sent:	Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:07 PM
To:	Dasovich, Jeff; Frazier, Lamar; Angela Schwarz/HOU/EES@ENRON
Subject:	RE: Hansen

             They are included in the CAL book but not in the 24 as they were added after the count was 24.   as of 12 noon, we were still waiting data from ENA but had the contract and had included in the iniitail due diligence.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dasovich, Jeff
Sent:	Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:36 PM
To:	Frazier, Lamar; Angela Schwarz/HOU/EES@ENRON
Subject:	Hansen

Please forgive me for continuing with this, but ENA just told me that they talked to Jeremy about 90 minutes ago and they had the view that there was still some uncertainty regarding whether Hansen had been included in the 24 contracts.  I told them that I'd already spoken with you folks and that Hansen was on the list.  Let me know if I'm missing something here.  Again, apologize for keeping on about it.

Best,
Jeff


You will recall from our discussions that Enron, as a result of being
charged with infringement of the Odom patent, has a duty to obtain competent
advice from a competent lawyer, that its products do not infringe upon any
valid claim of the Odom patent. The failure to obtain such an opinion
subjects Enron to the added risk of up to treble damages and attorneys fees,
if Enron is held to have wilfully infringed the patent. In essence, the
opinion serves as a fairly dependable form of insurance to a holding of
wilful infringement, and the enhanced damages which are normally attendant
thereto.

Pete Peterson is available to address these issues in an opinion. His firm
(Cox and Smith) has done some transaction work for Enron. I am trying to
learn the amount of work that has been done.  Assuming the work is minimal
such that he appears to not have his testimony influenced by his firm's
relationship with Enron, I suggest that we proceed with Pete.  It will take
him a couple days to digest the material we have already furnished to him.
As soon as we get a complete understanding of Enron's technology, Peterson
will need to be provide clear information as to what Enron is doing to
perform an infringement analysis. If we are unable to find that information
in documentary form, then it will probably be necessary for Peterson to
spend some time with at least one Enron technical person in order for him to
learn about the accused product.
                                         ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.  This
email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any,
or the information contained herein is prohibited.  If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email
and delete this email from your system.  Thank You


Guys, please come up with a plan to meet Ben's requirements.

The key sites/jobs for 2001/2002 include:
- florida - several sites - 06/01;
- LV Cogen - early '02;
- Project Moore (Ontario) - 06/01;
- Pastoria - early '03';
- Monterrey - early '02;
-Coyote - early '02;
- LIPA barge deal - '01;
- possibly - Lousiana - 06/01.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/26/2000
08:54 AM ---------------------------

Ben F Jacoby
06/24/2000 12:06 AM
Sent by: Ben Jacoby
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Construction Duration, Florida Peaker Project

Dave:

I really hate to bother you with this, but anything you can do to get these
guys off the dime and moving (rather than complaining) would be appreciated.
I called Westfahl as you suggested, but he never responded. At the end of the
day, I think maybe the board approval we were talking about (Moore, Florida
and Louisiana) is the only way to send the message.

One highlight of interest in Coleman's e-mail is that it takes longer than 7
months to construct a 6 - LM6000 plant. That's pretty amazing given that
NEPCO just finished constructing four ENA plants (Gleason, Wheatland, Wilton
and Doyle) in less than 6 months.

Anything you can do (or any advice) would be appreciated. Right now I'm
simply ignoring the negativism and proceeding as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Ben
---------------------- Forwarded by Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT on 06/23/2000 10:09 PM
---------------------------

Mike Coleman@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
06/22/2000 04:01 PM
To: Ben F Jacoby@ECT, Thomas Suffield
cc: Bruce Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Construction Duration, Florida Peaker Project

Ben,

Reflecting on our conversation at lunch the other day, I want to re-emphasize
my concerns about the schedule issues.  You indicated that you had an idea
that the plant could be built in the field in 120 days, or approximately 4
months.  This is not at all realistic.  I would expect that the most
aggressive schedule for a greenfield installation of simple cycle gas fired
LM 6000's would run approximately 90 days for the first unit, plus about two
weeks for each additional unit.  This would result in an installation
duration of aproximately 5.5 months for a 6 unit gas fired plant.  In front
of that there would have to be site preparation and initial foundation work
done.

The Florida and Louisiana projects can be expected to have significant piling
requirements which will add probably a minimum of 30 days to the front of
this schedule, and the dual fuel consideration may lengthen the incremental
installation time per unit somewhat.  Considering these factors, it would not
be unreasonable to expect field duration to be 7 months or longer.

I know that this is much longer than what you have had in mind.  But I think
that this is real world.  For a 1 June start of operations, this would mean
getting site access by 1 November, which is only 4 months from now.

You stated that the permitting requirements may be as much as 6 months for
Florida.  If this is correct then there is a serious disconnect for your
schedule.  We need to make all efforts to expedite the on site date if June
01 commercial operations is to be achieved.

Let's talk.

Mike