Please see the following articles:

San Diego Union, 3/19:  "Panel eases curbs on power plant"

San Diego Union, 3/19:  "State may have claim on further overbilling"

LA Times, Sun. 3/18:  "OPEC cut cited in call to boost US Oil Output"

LA Times, Sun, 3/18:  "Groups looking for Silver Lining in Energy Crisis"

LA Times, Sat, 3/17:  "Power firms told to justify prices or refund $55
million"

SF Chron, Sun, 3/18:  "Hard-Boiled Bidding for Kilowatts
Water agency said to be in over its head as a trader"

SF Chron, Sat., 3/17:  "Creditors Threaten Utilities' Finances
Suppliers try to force Edison into bankruptcy "

SF Chron, Sat., 3/17:  "Regulators Find More Possibilities of Gouging"

		SF Chron, Sat., 3/17:  "Thousands Lose Immunity From Rolling Failures 'Block
50' update swapping homes on PG&E's blackout checkerboard"

		SF Chron, Sat., 3/17:  Commentary "PG&E's Service A Turnoff
A good customer put through hell "

		San Jose Mercury, Sat., 3/17:  Opinion "Bombast obscures energy's ebb and
flow "

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

Panel eases curbs on power plant

UNION-TRIBUNE
March 17, 2001
Besides paying soaring electricity rates, San Diego County residents also
probably will have to breathe dirtier air this summer in order to keep the
lights on and air conditioners humming.
That's one expected result of a county board's decision yesterday to allow
the former Encina power plant in Carlsbad to churn out several times more air
pollutants, called oxides of nitrogen, than allowed before the power crisis.
The county Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board made the decision by
a 4-1 vote.

State may have claim on further overbilling
Continuing coverage: California's Power Crisis
?

The five-unit Encina plant is now called the Cabrillo plant, owned by
Cabrillo Co. The pollutants, called NOX, help form the region's most
widespread air pollutant -- ozone.
If the Cabrillo plant can burn natural gas all this year, its excess NOX
emissions will be offset by new NOX controls on other businesses. No
additional days of unhealthy ozone would occur, said Steven Moore, senior
engineer for the county air district.
But natural gas is expected to be in short supply, partly because several
smaller plants that require gas are expected to begin operating in San Diego
County this summer.
When gas is cut off to Cabrillo, it must switch to burning more polluting
fuel oil.
"If they burn fuel oil, it will be a different story. There will be
significant ozone increases," Moore said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

State may have claim on further overbilling

Leaders fault FERC, call for tougher action
By Craig D. Rose
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
March 17, 2001
Federal energy regulators said again yesterday that California may have paid
too much for power, this time citing some $55 million in possible overcharges
during February that could be subject to refund.
But like last week -- when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found
possible January overcharges of $69 million -- a broad spectrum of state
leaders said the new refund is a pittance compared with the billions of
dollars that power companies are extracting from the state each month for
electricity.
The January electricity bill for San Diego Gas and Electric and the state's
two other major utilities was $5.2 billion. February's total is expected to
be higher.
Federal regulators said yesterday that they notified six electricity
suppliers that sales exceeding $430 per megawatt-hour during Stage 3 alerts
-- emergencies called when power reserves are nearly exhausted -- would be
subject to refunds, unless the suppliers can justify the sale prices on the
basis of costs.
A FERC official said whatever refunds were ordered would probably be in the
form of credits to utility companies, used to offset other power purchases.
Houston-based Dynegy faces the largest possible payment, with a potential
liability of $23 million for the month. A spokesman said the company was
still studying the FERC finding, which was issued yesterday.
"What we have said all along is that, given the market conditions, the prices
we have charged will be found to be just and reasonable," said Dynegy
spokesman Steve Stengel.
A spokeswoman for Williams Energy Services Corp., which faces possible refund
payments of $22 million, said the Tulsa-based company was unsure whether the
price level set by FERC was adequate for recovering all the costs associated
with producing power.
Other suppliers facing possible refunds are Duke Energy, Portland General
Electric Co., Reliant Energy and Mirant, formerly a unit of Southern Co.
Under federal law, regulators must assure that wholesale power prices remain
"just and reasonable." Despite repeated pleas from state leaders to cap
prices, FERC allowed prices in California's deregulated power market to soar
from $40 per megawatt-hour last spring to 10 times that level in recent
months.
The costs have created a state crisis of monumental proportion, leading Gov.
Gray Davis and state lawmakers to plan a repair package that is expected to
include more than $20 billion in state borrowing and possibly rate increases
for consumers. The state is buying electricity on behalf of the utilities.
Last week, FERC said it would order refunds for all Stage 3 sales above $273
per megawatt-hour in January, unless generators can justify their prices. The
federal commission said it allowed a higher threshold for February because of
increased costs for natural gas, the primary fuel for producing electricity.
But consumer groups said the $430 cutoff for possible power refunds belied
FERC's insistence that it's policing the deregulated market. For an SDG&E
customer using 500 kilowatt hours monthly, for example, a $430 per
megawatt-hour charge would translate to an electricity bill of $250.
"What I see is that FERC wants to present the appearance that it is
disciplining the market, but what they are doing is coddling," said Michael
Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network.
"If I were a power generator, I would be thrilled."
Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights
in Santa Monica, criticized the FERC refund finding as "laughable."
"In attempting to protect energy generators against greater retribution, FERC
has acknowledged that deregulation has failed, that there is no free market
and the public has been gouged," Rosenfield said. "The only question now is,
how much?"
The state's grid operator, which recently said California may have been
overcharged by more than $500 million during December and January, indicated
that it might challenge the FERC findings, in order to press for larger
refunds.
For one thing, the Independent System Operator said it had evidence of
overcharging during periods other than Stage 3 emergencies. The state's grid
manager also noted that the FERC established its refund price threshold by
considering only the power industry's most inefficient generating facilities.
"We are encouraged by FERC's actions of late, but they have not gone far
enough," said Steve Greenleaf, director of regulatory policy for the
Independent System Operator.
Davis, who has pressed FERC to set firm limits on the wholesale price of
power, agreed with the ISO.
"At long last, FERC is finally recognizing what we have been saying for
months -- that generators have been unfairly soaking California ratepayers,"
he said. "However FERC is taking only baby steps."
Attempts to reach FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert were unsuccessful. Commissioner
William Massey, who has called for lower price caps, said that the FERC
orders are allowing the vast majority of power sales to be excluded from
possible refund.
Massey added that the power bill for California's three major utilities,
which leaped to $28 billion last year from $7 billion in 1999, could soar far
higher.
"The projection for this year is $70 billion," Massey said. "This agency
needs to wake up because this is turning into a disaster."
Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, said he believed FERC was beginning to yield to
pressure from the state for action.
"It is clear they are under pressure, but they are using data that is most
favorable to the industry," Filner said. "But their action gives credibility
to those of us who have said all along these generators are gouging the
state."
In other action yesterday:
?PG&E Corp. said it would transfer $1.1 billion from a federal tax refund to
its troubled utility unit, which is seeking billions in compensation for
costs it says it incurred buying power for its customers.
The parent companies of PG&E and Southern California Edison have been
criticized for draining billions from their respective utility units in
recent years.
Consumer groups and others oppose additional payments to the utilities, but
the governor has said he will not allow them to go bankrupt.
?Davis will spend more than $51 million over two years on consultants to help
negotiate power contracts and on an advertising campaign to educate the
public about energy conservation.
The Governor's Office released copies of the contracts yesterday afternoon.
They range from $25,000 to $40 million in cost and include contracts for
legal and financial assistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

OPEC Cut Cited in Call to Boost U.S. Oil Output
Energy: Cartel's decision to trim production by 4% could raise fuel prices as
summer approaches.

By DAVID WILLMAN, Times Staff Writer

?????WASHINGTON--With consumers facing a possible increase in gasoline prices
at the pump, President Bush's Energy secretary said Saturday that the
decision by major foreign oil producers to slash output emphasizes the need
to increase production within the United States.
?????"OPEC's decision [late Friday] demonstrates the importance of increasing
America's domestic production and developing a national energy policy that
will ensure a stable, reliable, affordable and diverse supply of energy,"
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. He added: "There is an urgent need to
strengthen America's energy security."
?????Abraham's comments came in reaction to an agreement by the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut its targeted oil output by 4%--1
million barrels a day. The action by the 11-nation cartel could raise prices
for crude oil and the refined gasoline that powers Americans' automobiles and
trucks.
?????The cutback will take effect April 1, OPEC said. The nations' output
quota will fall to 24.2 million barrels a day from the current level of 25.2
million barrels. OPEC members pump almost 40% of the world's oil.
?????Abraham called OPEC's action "disappointing." His staff said he would
assess what he termed America's "energy crisis" at a conference Monday in
Washington, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
?????For Americans who remember well the long lines at gasoline pumps and the
inflationary spiral driven by energy prices of the 1970s, current conditions
may seem short of crisis proportions. But the specter of higher gasoline
prices as the summer travel season approaches--combined with the ongoing
power crunch in California and other Western states--presents the Bush
administration with a serious challenge.
?????Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on Bush to consider using the
nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease the effect of the foreign
producers' announced cutback.
?????"With the U.S. economy sagging, the net result of this decision [by
OPEC] will only fuel speculation about a possible recession," Schumer said
Saturday. "Higher oil prices mean more of a financial burden for everyday
consumers, which would likely mean economic stress in the very countries OPEC
counts on to buy its oil."
?????Former President Clinton authorized tapping the strategic reserve during
the 2000 presidential campaign, when pump prices rose to more than $2 a
gallon in some areas after years of stability.
?????The OPEC production announcement comes just days after Bush renounced a
pledge he made during that campaign to trim America's emissions of carbon
dioxide, the odorless gas suspected of contributing to a warming of the
Earth's atmosphere. Bush's turnabout pleased U.S. business leaders who viewed
the decision as prudent for the domestic economy--but others saw it as a
potential step backward from leadership on the threat of global warming.
?????Abraham did not specify how or where he would like to see the U.S.
increase its energy production. But Bush has made clear that he favors a
broad approach, including opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to exploration.
?????Bush's position puts him at odds with environmental organizations that
have long opposed opening the refuge. Over the last week, for instance, the
Audubon Society has placed television ads calling for opposition to drilling
in the refuge, located on Alaska's North Slope.
?????A Gallup survey conducted early this month questioned 1,060 Americans
about the seriousness with which they viewed the nation's "energy situation."
The response: 31% viewed it as "very serious," 59% chose "fairly serious" and
9% said "not at all serious."
?????Other responses in the same poll suggested that Bush faces a challenge
if he is to persuade Americans to back increased production to meet energy
needs. When asked to choose from three "potential solutions," 56% favored
more conservation by consumers, compared with 33% who favored emphasizing
production of more oil, gas or coal. And 8% said they favored "both equally."
The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

Groups Look for Silver Lining in Energy Crisis
Power: From auto makers to water officials, they cite the electricity
situation in their efforts to reverse government decisions and rules they
oppose.

By JULIE TAMAKI and JENIFER WARREN, Times Staff Writers

?????SACRAMENTO--While legislators and lobbyists groan that the energy crisis
is monopolizing the spotlight this year, some enterprising folks have seized
on events to advance their agendas.
?????Exhibit A is an effort by auto makers to dodge a state mandate requiring
them to offer thousands of electric cars, beginning with the model year 2003.
?????Manufacturers call the cars impractical and unmarketable, and have
resisted the mandate for a decade. So when the state Air Resources Board
began considering a proposal to weaken their demand for smog-free cars
recently, auto makers sensed an opening.
?????Reminding the board of California's energy crunch, industry
representatives said recharging thousands of electric cars would only
exacerbate the problem.
?????But the California Energy Commission disputed that notion, saying the
cars would have a trivial effect on power supplies. The cars are typically
recharged at night, when demand for power is low, the commission notes. And
most of them won't be on the road until after 2003, when several new power
plants should be on line.
?????S. David Freeman, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, accused the auto makers of "playing off public uncertainties and
blackout threats."
?????As it turned out, the air board reaffirmed its mandate by a unanimous
vote.
?????"It is really time to get on with the business of progress," board
member William Friedman told a General Motors official before the vote. "And
progress will be made when we stick it to you to make you do what you need to
do."
?????Another group looking for an angle in the energy crisis is the
California Manufacturers & Technology Assn., which has asked Gov. Gray Davis
to reconsider the state's overtime rule.
?????The rule requires many employers to pay their workers higher wages after
an 8-hour day. But, citing the energy crisis, the manufacturers want Davis to
reconsider it.
?????"We hope that some flexibility . . . will be addressed as a means to
offset aggressive conservation programs," said Gino DiCaro, the group's
spokesman. "If we have companies that . . . shut down for half the day, they
may want to make up production later."
?????A coalition of labor, consumer and environmental groups have fired back,
opposing any efforts by "corporate interests to capitalize on the crisis
mentality to weaken labor and environmental protections."
?????No word from the Davis administration so far.
?????In the San Joaquin Valley, the giant Westlands Water District cites
power woes in its lawsuit to block former U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt's decision to bolster flows to Northern California's Trinity River.
?????The suit cites diminished supplies for power users and farmers as
reasons the decision should be blocked. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
officials contend the amount of water at stake generates enough energy to
supply 31,000 Sacramento-area homes when it flows through hydroelectric
plants in the Sacramento River Basin.
?????Westlands' actions have drawn the ire of Indian tribes that fish for
salmon and Trinity County officials.
?????"It's hypocritical for Westlands and others to claim harm to
California's power resources from increased Trinity River fishery flows when
the state and federal water project pumps into the Delta enough power to keep
a city the size of San Francisco lit up," said Tom Stokely, Trinity County's
senior planner.
?????Bush administration officials say they are prepared to defend Babbitt's
decision. A court hearing on Westland's lawsuit is scheduled for Monday.
?????"It is appropriate that the Department of Interior maintain the position
it had and allow the court to now make its decision," said Sue Ellen
Wooldridge, deputy chief of staff for Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Power Firms Told to Justify Prices or Refund $55 Million
Electricity: Regulators act after issuing a similar order last week for $69
million in payments. Lawmakers say the action doesn't go far enough.

By RICHARD SIMON and NANCY RIVERA BROOKS, Times Staff Writers

?????Federal energy regulators on Friday ordered six wholesale power
suppliers to refund an additional $55 million to California if they cannot
justify the prices they charged in February.
?????The order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was the agency's
second in two weeks responding to accusations by California officials that
energy companies have reaped excessive profits from the electric supply
shortage in the West.
?????FERC last week ordered 13 power suppliers to justify or refund $69
million to California utilities for power sold in January.
?????The proposed refunds represent a small portion of what California
officials are seeking.
?????Also on Friday, news that some alternative energy producers may be
lining up to shove Southern California Edison into Bankruptcy Court sent the
stocks of the parent companies of Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
plunging.
?????Edison executives said they believe they stand a good chance of
deflecting an involuntary bankruptcy petition, if one is filed, but
acknowledged that they need to resolve their money problems soon.
?????"There's no doubt about it, time is not our friend here," said Ted
Craver, chief financial officer of Edison International, parent of Southern
California Edison.
?????Wholesale electricity prices skyrocketed last May and never returned to
earth, prompting accusations that electricity suppliers were gouging
Californians and harvesting hundreds of millions in windfall profits. Edison
and PG&E have amassed $13.8 billion in electricity debts that have left them
unable to pay their bills.
?????Electricity company officials said Friday they are prepared to defend
the prices charged in each month. But on Capitol Hill, California lawmakers
complained that the FERC action did not go far enough, saying the prospective
refunds should have been much larger.
?????"This sounds like a step backward instead of the aggressive action we
need from FERC," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
?????She questioned FERC's decision to order possible refunds only for
electricity sold in excess of $430 per megawatt-hour during Stage 3 alerts in
February.
?????"Before the energy crisis started in California, electricity was selling
at an average wholesale price of $30 a megawatt-hour," she said. "And now
FERC is saying a baseline of $430 a megawatt-hour is a reasonable cost.
Something is really wrong here."
?????FERC officials did not respond to requests for an explanation of how
they arrived at the figure of $430 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, they had
determined that $273 per megawatt-hour was the highest reasonable price the
suppliers should have charged in January.
?????The FERC order cited a complex formula that based the price for February
on such factors as natural gas prices and higher costs for generators to
comply with air pollution rules.
?????In other action, FERC announced plans to hold an April 6 meeting in
Boise, Idaho, to discuss price volatility in the West with state and energy
officials.
?????A number of California officials have accused FERC of acting timidly in
response to the high energy costs that have left PG&E and Edison on the edge
of fiscal collapse.
?????But Rep. Bob Filner (D-San Diego) welcomed Friday's action on refunds.
"The overcharges have been so egregious that even FERC, which doesn't want to
admit it, has to say something went wrong.
?????"It's a start," Filner added, "and it may help to change minds on
Capitol Hill" in support of government-imposed price controls on wholesale
power supplies. But he said refunds are far from certain.
?????Indeed, the energy companies said they expect to persuade FERC to uphold
the prices charged in February and January.
?????Steve Stengel, a spokesman for Houston-based Dynegy, which was asked to
justify $23.4 million in charges, said his firm has been running its power
plants nonstop and deferring maintenance to help California through the
energy crunch.
?????"Dynegy has done everything it could do to be part of the solution,"
Stengel said. "We feel that what we have charged has been just and
reasonable."
?????Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Houston-based Reliant Energy, which
faces $7.4 million in potential refunds, echoed that sentiment. "We've
conducted our operations legally and ethically," he said.
?????Asked about the company's profits, Wheatley said, "I think it's high
time that the generation companies quit apologizing for good management."
?????Tom Williams, a spokesman for North Carolina-based Duke Energy, said his
company's prices were justified by premiums for environmental penalties and
fears of the lack of credit-worthiness in California. Duke was asked to
justify $2.1 million in charges.
?????Also ordered to justify their prices were Williams Energy Services
Corp., $21.6 million; Portland General Electric Co., $73,600; and Mirant,
$826,000. The wholesalers have until next Saturday to make their case to FERC.
?????In Sacramento, Steve Greenleaf, director of regulatory policy for the
California Independent System Operator, which runs the power grid for 75% of
the state, said: "We're encouraged by FERC's action of late." But he added,
"Quite honestly, it doesn't go far enough."
?????Gary Stern, director of market monitoring for Edison, said the FERC
order is flawed because "it applies refunds only to hours of Stage 3 alerts,
which . . . excuses millions of dollars in excessively priced [power]."
?????A Stage 3 alert is declared when electricity reserves fall below 1.5%.
?????Edison and PG&E have stopped paying most bills, including money owed to
producers of alternative energy. Creditors are becoming increasingly
irritated at the failure of the utilities and Gov. Gray Davis to reach a
settlement that will allow the utilities to pay their bills.
?????One such producer, Coram Energy Group, a small windmill farm in
Tehachapi, said it will sign a petition that could force Edison into
involuntary bankruptcy proceedings. At least two other creditors must sign
the petition before Edison can be forced into Bankruptcy Court.
?????In another potential precursor to bankruptcy, an alternative energy
producer called Caithness Energy won a lien Wednesday in federal court in
Nevada against Edison's stake in the Mohave power plant near Laughlin, Nev.
?????The turmoil sent investors fleeing Friday. The stock of PG&E Corp.
dropped $1.50, or 11.6%, to $11.42, while Edison International tumbled $1.35,
or 9.9%, to $12.24. Both trade on the New York Stock Exchange.
?????If an involuntary petition were filed, Edison believes it could persuade
a bankruptcy judge during the mandated 20-day waiting period not to accept
the case, said Edison lawyer Barbara Matthews.
?????"We believe we have solid ground to oppose, not the least of which is
the Bankruptcy Court doesn't need to intervene" because solutions are being
pursued in the Legislature and in the governor's office, Matthews said.
?????PG&E executives said that the San Francisco company has no utility
assets outside of California that creditors can seek to attach and is aware
of no petitions circulating among creditors to put PG&E into involuntary
bankruptcy.
?????California law forbids placing a lien against utility assets without a
prior approval by state regulators.
?????In fact, bankruptcy talk has reinvigorated negotiations with advisors to
Davis to sell the PG&E transmission grid to the state as part of a broader
settlement, said Peter Darbee, PG&E Corp. chief financial officer.
?????Edison reached a tentative agreement three weeks ago to sell its
transmission lines, but has yet to reach a final deal.
?????"We think there's reason to be cautiously optimistic," Darbee said.
?????In other developments Friday:
?????* Preparing for a summer of tight energy supplies, the Public Utilities
Commission proposed an overhaul of a controversial program in which
businesses won reduced rates in exchange for having to go dark during power
shortages. The "interruptible" program had caused businesses to lay off
employees when their power was cut for weeks at a time.
?????The PUC said new members of the program would not have power cut for
more than four hours a day or 40 hours a month; existing customers' cuts
would be limited to six hours a day.
?????* A day after Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham predicted long blackouts
this summer, the PUC also tinkered with the way power is cut in California.
The commission asked utilities to tell customers what block of circuits they
are on. If that block must be blacked out, they could be warned by the news
media.
---
?????Simon reported from Washington and Rivera Brooks from Los Angeles. Times
staff writer Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Hard-Boiled Bidding for Kilowatts
Water agency said to be in over its head as a trader
David Lazarus, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 18, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/18/M
N159243.DTL

Sacramento -- The last line of defense in coping with California's energy
crisis is a narrow, windowless room in a former department store on the
outskirts of the state capital.
There, a handful of men and women huddle over computer screens on a couple of
folding tables for as long as 14 hours a day. Junk-food wrappers and bags of
candy share the cluttered space with detailed charts and analyses.
The numbers flash across the monitors -- offering prices from power companies
stretching from Canada to Texas. There is little time to think. Within
seconds, the traders are committing millions of dollars in public funds to
secure enough electricity to keep California's lights on.
This is, most people agree, not a good way for the state to be buying
electricity.
"I'm sure we've made a lot of mistakes," said Thomas Hannigan, director of
the state Department of Water Resources, which has been delegated by Gov.
Gray Davis to purchase power on behalf of near-bankrupt utilities.
By nearly all accounts, the luckless bureaucrats at the DWR are being torn to
shreds by professional energy traders, who see in California's power-
purchasing plan a golden opportunity to make off with billions in extra
profits.
"It's like being in a lion cage or a snake pit, however you want to define
it," Hannigan said. "We've definitely gotten burned. That goes without
saying."
In fact, state officials estimated last week that the DWR is shelling out
roughly $350 million a week on the volatile electricity "spot" market and
will have spent almost $4 billion by the end of the month.
At this rate, the state will use up by the end of July the entire $10 billion
authorized by the Legislature for power purchases.
CALPIRG CALLS IT GOUGING
"The state is clearly being taken advantage of," said Dan Jacobson, consumer
program director of the California Public Interest Research Group. "It looks
like the power generators are gouging us for as much as they can."
Leading power companies deny that they are artificially driving electricity
prices higher or that they are gouging California consumers. But not one was
willing to speak on the record about how well the DWR is doing in the
frequently cutthroat energy business.
Several industry sources said they had been advised not to discuss the DWR's
performance since a trading manager at Bonneville Power Administration in
Portland, Ore., was quoted as saying that California's new electricity buyers
"agree to prices that make you wonder."
The manager, David Mills, told the Wall Street Journal that the DWR is so out
of its depth that he has instructed Bonneville's traders "to cut California
some slack" by occasionally offering cut-rate prices.
A Bonneville spokesman said last week that Mills had been misquoted, but the
damage already was done: The DWR is now widely perceived in energy circles as
a pushover.
'NO LEVERAGE IN THE MARKET'
This does not sit well with DWR workers, who insist they are doing the best
they can under highly difficult conditions.
"We have done a good job considering that we have no leverage in the market,
" said Viju Patel, executive manager of the DWR's power systems department.
"We are dealing with very aggressive traders, and they have the advantage.
It's a seller's market."
This is new for the DWR, which oversees the state's water assets --
aqueducts, dams, irrigation -- and until now has confined its power buying
largely to long-term contracts needed to keep pumps operating during
electricity shortfalls.
That changed in December when the Independent System Operator, manager of
California's power network, contacted the department during a shortage and
asked the DWR to buy about $20 million worth of juice to help avert
blackouts.
Subsequent purchases placed the DWR almost $43 million in the hole. It has
yet to recoup its costs from the ISO and the utilities that ultimately used
the power for customers -- and which subsequently have defaulted on paying
their power bills.
"We made that deal only on a handshake," said Hannigan, the DWR's director.
"But we couldn't say no, could we?"
As California's troubles worsened, and as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and
Southern California Edison grew increasingly unable to meet customer demand,
the governor realized a state agency would have to ride point in tackling the
energy crisis.
Davis turned to the DWR. Simply put, the department's admittedly limited
experience in the electricity market was still the most extensive he could
find.
"This was all new to us," Hannigan said. "When the crisis landed in our lap,
we reacted basically by applying a flood-management mentality to it. Crisis
management is crisis management."
SECRET LOCATION, INFORMATION
Thus, the DWR responded to the governor's marching orders by establishing an
emergency center in the brick-covered facility it shares with branches of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Weather Service.
The so-called Joint Operations Center occupies a renovated department store
in an otherwise mundane Sacramento shopping mall.
DWR workers deliberately ask reporters not to say where exactly the facility
is located. They're concerned that disgruntled consumers will vent their
frustration over high energy prices by attacking the building, as the man who
rammed a truck into the state Capitol in January allegedly did.
The makeshift "Grid Operations Center," where power is now being purchased,
is tucked away behind a locked door on the third floor. Sonny Fong, the DWR's
emergency preparedness manager, watched nervously as a recent visitor cast
his eyes over the whiteboards on the room's walls.
The boards list all the power companies with which the DWR is trading and the
prices that each is charging California for electricity.
"Don't write any of that down," Fong admonished. "It's secret information. We
can't let any of that get out."
Keeping a lid on its activities has become a full-time job for the DWR. For
example, Fong adamantly refuses to allow anyone to speak with the
department's traders, even during breaks in the action.
"If I let you do it," he said, "I'd have to let everyone do it."
Similarly, Patel, the power systems manager, said he could not under any
circumstances open his desk drawer and show a visitor one of the 40 long-term
contracts signed by the DWR this month with generators.
SEEKING ACCESS TO CONTRACTS
Access to the contracts, involving about $40 billion in public funds, has
been sought by lawmakers, consumer groups and a number of media
organizations, including The Chronicle.
In response, the governor's office has insisted that disclosure of specific
contract terms would jeopardize the DWR's bargaining position and thus be
contrary to "public interest."
"If I let you see them, I would have to let everyone see them," Patel said.
He did acknowledge, though, that the contracts contain so much legal
gobbledygook that "you probably would not understand them in any case."
It's Hannigan, as head of the department, who has signed his name to each of
the contracts. Yet even he admits he has only a loose grasp of the details,
which were hammered out by teams of lawyers.
"We got the best deal we could get," Hannigan said.
He observed, however, that the DWR's negotiating stance was weakened by the
generators' awareness that blackouts will not be tolerated by California's
leaders -- even with a summer of dire shortages on the horizon.
This allowed the power companies to really tighten the screws in seeking the
best possible sales terms.
"They know this summer will be one big barbecue," Hannigan said. "They won't
stop until they drain all our resources."
LEARNING TO BE ADVERSARIAL
The DWR is unaccustomed to adversarial relationships in tackling a crisis. In
the event of a flood or earthquake, the department's crisis teams normally
meet with full cooperation from others when organizing countermeasures.
But with the current energy crisis, the DWR is scrambling to mount a suitable
offense while simultaneously playing defense against profit-hungry power
companies.
"It's been a learning experience for us," said Fong, who has been helping
coordinate emergency responses at the department for years. "We didn't know
what we would be up against.
"With a flood," he added, "you can see the direct impact. With this, you
can't really get a handle on things."
Fong and other DWR officials are quick to note that the department has
brought in outside energy experts from Navigant Consulting and Deloitte &
Touche.
"We may not be up to the task," Fong said. "We may not know how to play the
market. But we've brought in people who do."
Dominic Young, the Deloitte partner helping guide the DWR through the jungle
of the energy business, sees the department's burgeoning street smarts as a
work in progress.
"Does the DWR have a trading floor like Duke or Reliant?" he asked, citing
two of the biggest players in the power game. "No, they do not. If they want
to stay in this business, they clearly need to improve."
NEW FACILITY
The department is trying to do just that. Next week, the DWR's electricity
traders are expected to move from their folding tables to a brand-new,
25,000- square-foot facility on another floor.
Whether the trades remain under the aegis of the DWR is another matter.
Hannigan said he doesn't want his department to remain in the energy business
for years to come. Given his choice, he said he would prefer power purchases
being made by a newly created state energy authority, as proposed by
legislation now on the drawing board.
While some at the DWR appear to enjoy the department's newfound notoriety,
Hannigan, 60, is not one of them.
He said he is looking forward to retirement and spending more time with his
family. Being at the center of California's energy storm is clearly a
headache he'd rather not have at this point in his career.
"I know we're outgunned," he said. "I just don't know how badly."
The Power Cycle
1. Electricity Providers
Power companies stretching from Canada to Texas offer electricity to
shortage-plagued California. They have been accused of gouging consumers by
charging sky-high wholesale rates.
2. Department of Water Resources
Department of Water Resources state bureaucrats are spending $350 million a
week purchasing electricity on behalf of utilities. One energy trader said
the DWR willingly agrees to pay "prices that make you wonder."
3. Troubled Utilities
PG&E and Edison say they do not have enough money to purchase power for
customers. So they let the DWR do the buying and then PG&E and Edison pass
along the electricity -- and costs -- to millions of consumers.
4. The Consumers
California's energy woes ultimately will be born by consumers, either in the
form of higher rates or higher taxes. Consumers will be accountable for all
money that goes to buy electricity. Source: Chronicle research Chronicle
Graphic
E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditors Threaten Utilities' Finances
Suppliers try to force Edison into bankruptcy
David Lazarus, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 17, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/17/M
N147053.DTL
California's cash-poor utilities faced a renewed threat of financial
catastrophe yesterday as impatient creditors for the first time moved to
start bankruptcy proceedings.
"The California power crisis is now back on red alert," said Steven
Fleishman, Merrill Lynch's influential energy analyst. "If the stakes were
already high, now they're higher still."
Efforts by power companies to recover costs from the utilities could derail
efforts by Gov. Gray Davis to remedy California's energy mess by purchasing
the utilities' power lines.
The talks are still slogging through a pea soup of issues and legal details.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is reluctant to sell its transmission lines, and
to part with them at all the company wants considerably more than the $5
billion the state is believed to be offering.
While the creditors are going after Southern California Edison, which owes
millions of dollars to smaller power companies, analysts said similar
bankruptcy proceedings against PG&E could follow at any time.
The heightened potential for one or both of California's two biggest
utilities going bankrupt sent a chill through investors. Shares of PG&E Corp.
fell almost 12 percent yesterday to $11.42, while Edison International
dropped 10 percent to $12.24.
Moving quickly to stem Wall Street's jitters, PG&E's chief financial officer,
Kent Harvey, said in a conference call that the utility will pay off a
portion of its debts to power companies and intends to make good to all
creditors.
"The message they're trying to send is that they're in a better position than
Edison," said Paul Patterson, an analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston. "They
wanted to make clear that no one is threatening them with bankruptcy."
Not yet. For the moment, all eyes are on Edison.
Coram Energy Group, an alternative energy provider that supplies electricity
to the Southern California utility, said it is owed as much as $350,000 for
past transactions.
Frustrated by the slow pace of Davis' efforts to resolve the situation, Coram
said it will initiate a petition to force Edison into bankruptcy. The company
would need the cooperation of only two other generators to bring the matter
to a bankruptcy judge.
"It will be fairly easy for Coram to collect the two other signatures,"
Patterson said.
Kevin Kelley, an Edison spokesman, declined to comment on the creditors'
move. "We're doing everything we can to avoid bankruptcy," he said.
DISCONTENT AMONG SMALL FIRMS
Growing discontent among smaller power companies, known in the industry as
"qualifying facilities," represents a new challenge for the governor, who has
been struggling to keep the firms in line as he deals with PG&E and Edison.
"We're on the phone all the time with these guys," said Steve Maviglio, a
spokesman for Davis. "We've been trying to work something out."
If more creditors cut loose and seek redress in bankruptcy court, any state
bailout of the utilities, which are saddled with more than $13 billion in
debt,
could quickly unravel.
A bankruptcy court, for example, could block the sale of transmission lines
and order higher rates for consumers.
SOME PLANTS SHUT DOWN
At the same time, analysts said the creditors -- some of which have had to
shut down plants due to unpaid bills -- may view bankruptcy proceedings as
the only way to recoup even a portion of past expenses before they too face
financial ruin.
"Involuntary bankruptcy is something done by people who are fed up and want
to send a message," said Wesley Avery, a Los Angeles bankruptcy lawyer.
However, he noted that several obstacles still would have to be overcome to
force either Edison or PG&E into bankruptcy. First, a bankruptcy court would
have to decide whether to even accept the creditors' petition.
If it does, the judge subsequently could rule that the creditors' losses are
not significant enough to merit forcing an entire utility into bankruptcy.
The judge also could postpone acting on the matter until the governor has had
a chance to complete his negotiations with the utilities and seek an
alternative remedy.
On the other hand, Avery noted that Edison and PG&E already meet one of the
key criteria for involuntary bankruptcy: "They are regularly missing
payments."
A company forced into bankruptcy has less control over its fate than one that
voluntarily seeks Chapter 11 protection. Avery thus said the likely strategy
for both Edison and PG&E would be to wait until an involuntary bankruptcy
looks imminent and then to quickly file voluntary papers.
BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS RETAINED
PG&E retained bankruptcy lawyers from the New York firm of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges last August. Sources within the utility said bankruptcy papers already
have been drawn up and are ready to be filed at a moment's notice.
The governor has had to face such pressure in negotiating to purchase PG&E's
power lines and coastal property. Sources familiar with the talks said the
utility keeps sending mixed signals on its commitment to actually cutting a
deal.
For example, the sources said PG&E's chairman, Robert Glynn, will agree to
various terms offered by Davis. But the next day, they said, a team of PG&E
lawyers will backpedal from the accord.
Update
-- Pressure: Small power companies initiated moves that could force
California's two biggest utilities into bankruptcy.
-- At stake: Gov. Gray Davis tried to prevent small creditors from pursuing
bankruptcy proceedings that could undermine his plan to bail out
cash-strapped utilities.
-- Worries: Shares of PG&E Corp. and Edison International dropped sharply on
fears of bankruptcy.
-- Scramble: PG&E, hoping to reassure investors, says it will pay off part of
the utility's debt.
E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulators Find More Possibilities of Gouging
Greg Lucas, Robert Salladay, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Saturday, March 17, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/17/M
N170717.DTL
Sacramento -- Power generators may have overcharged Californians $55 million
in wholesale electricity sales during February, federal regulators said
yesterday.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered six energy suppliers to
explain their pricing by Friday. If the commission doesn't accept the
explanations, it could order the firms to refund the money.
The order marked the third time in a week that the commission accused
generators of overcharging or manipulating prices during California's energy
crisis.
Last Friday, it ordered 13 suppliers to justify their prices or refund as
much as $69 million for sales in January. On Wednesday, the commission
demanded to know why two generators withheld power from two of their
so-called must-run plants last spring, forcing power grid operators to buy
electricity at higher rates from other plants operated by the companies.
Critics of the commission said the potential refund described in yesterday's
order is too small, particularly when the state paid more than $1. 5 billion
to buy electricity in February.
"The significance is how insignificant the proposed refund is," said Michael
Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumer Action Network in San
Diego.
"(The commission) is doing less than something," Shames said. "The proposed
order creates a sham that FERC is providing some kind of discipline on this
out-of-control market, when in fact it's not."
Two companies, Dynegy and Williams Energy, accounted for a combined $45
million of the possible $55 million in overcharges cited by the commission
yesterday.
They also represent more than 10,105 of the 11,204 transactions that the
regulators said may have been overpriced.
Other companies named were Duke Energy, Portland General Electric Company,
Reliant and Mirant.
Power suppliers have steadfastly denied price gouging, saying that short
supply and the weak financial condition of the state's two largest utilities
led to increased prices.
State politicians have repeatedly said that part of California's power woes
are caused by generators taking advantage of the state's plight.
Yesterday the same politicians complained that the way the regulatory
commission calculates possible overcharging is too generous to the
generators.
The commission's methodology is based on several variables, such as the price
of natural gas. It also counts sales only during Stage 3 power alerts, when
electricity reserves are extremely low.
In its January ruling, the regulators set a baseline price of $273 a megawatt
hour and questioned deals in which energy companies charged more than that.
Changes in gas and other prices pushed that figure to $430 a megawatt hour in
February.
"Before the energy crisis started in California, electricity was selling at
an average wholesale cost of $30 a megawatt hour. And now, FERC is saying a
baseline of $430 a megawatt hour is a reasonable cost," said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California. "Something is really wrong here."
Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for the Texas company Reliant Energy, said that
given the billions of dollars in power sales to California, the relatively
low amount of alleged overpricing suggests a small problem.
"What this tells me and others is that the FERC found the majority of those
transactions to be appropriate," Wheatley said.
E-mail Greg Lucas at glucas@sfchronicle.com. and Robert Salladay at
bsalladay@sfchronicle.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands Lose Immunity From Rolling Failures
'Block 50' update swapping homes on PG&E's blackout checkerboard
Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 17, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/17/M
N240182.DTL

There will be an extra little unpleasant surprise for hundreds of thousands
of people in their next PG&E bills -- they're being thrown into the pool of
Californians vulnerable to rolling blackouts.
On the other hand, a lot of PG&E's customers who have been in danger of
having the lights go out are suddenly exempt -- thanks to the utility's
refiguring of who belongs in blackout-free zones.
The net effect is to decrease, by about 120,000 customers, the number of
people who would be victimized by rolling blackouts that even the Bush
administration said this week are a virtual certainty during summer in
California.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. said yesterday that about 810,000 of the 1.9
million customers who used to be exempt from rolling blackouts are losing
their coveted spot in "Block 50" -- a collection of neighborhoods immune from
the shut-offs because they share a power circuit with a hospital, police
station or other customer deemed to be essential.
Those public services are kept running during electricity shortages -- and so
are homes served by the same wires.
PG&E bumped the customers off the lucky list to reflect changes in
distribution lines. In all, 360 circuits no longer power essential services.
But about 690,000 other households will receive news that they have been
added to Block 50, perhaps because a fire station or other public safety
building has been built in the area, said PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne.
PG&E said it started reviewing who was in Block 50 to get ready for the
likely summer blackouts. However, the changes will do little to reduce the
overall percentage of customers spared from rolling blackouts.
In two days of blackouts in Northern and Central California in January, 43
percent of customers were on Block 50 and had nothing to worry about. The
latest change drops that to 42 percent.
By looking at the block number on their bills, customers can tell whether
they will have to take their turn sitting in the dark for as long as two
hours during power shortages as the utilities reduce the demand for
electricity through staged shut-offs.
For safety's sake, Tremayne said, PG&E doesn't release the locations of
blocks that could suddenly be plunged into the dark. "The bad guys in this
world can go there and do bad things," he said.
Like an instant lottery winner, Helen Hearne, 79, of Berkeley found out she
is one of the thousands of new Block 50 customers when she scanned her new
bill yesterday. She has no idea why, but she is not asking any questions.
"I'm relieved," Hearne said. "Everything we have is electric."
Bill Giacometti of Oakland's Montclair neighborhood, who was jubilant when he
learned in January he was exempt from the blackouts, faced the possibility of
being banished from Block 50. But the bill that arrived yesterday brought
good news -- he is still in, thanks to the fire station up the street.
"I'm elated, of course," Giacometti said. "I would say I don't need as
extensive an emergency plan."
But he said he is mainly relieved that he won't have to reset the clocks on
VCRs and other appliances.
"You have to run around putting everything back to normal -- and then nobody
remembers how to do it," Giacometti said.
PG&E divides blackout-eligible customers into 14 blocks in Northern and
Central California. To spread the inconvenience equally, every one of the
blocks takes its turn.
Residents in part of Block 9 are next in line to suffer through a power loss.
Blocks 1 through 8, as well as half of Block 9, were shut off either during
the blackouts in January or during a rolling blackout last June.
Each block contains about 200,000 customers.
The possibility of power shortages still looms as Gov. Gray Davis tries to
line up reliable supplies of electricity under long-term contracts.
Davis also is hoping to get Californians to conserve at least 10 percent of
energy usage as the weather heats up and air conditioners click on, and he is
hoping to get enough power plants online to add 5,000 megawatts to the grid.
Each megawatt can supply power for 1,000 homes.
E-mail Bernadette Tansey at btansey@sfchronicle.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E's Service A Turnoff
A good customer put through hell
Ken Garcia
Saturday, March 17, 2001
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/17/M
NW226237.DTL
San Francisco -- As if officials from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. haven't
done enough to ruin their image by soaking consumers for billions of dollars
and helping California's leaders look like a bunch of dim bulbs.
Now it looks like they're determined to inflict their special brand of
customer service on people who actually pay their bills.
That's how Ken Zankel and his employees ended up in the dark on Tuesday, not
a good spot for people involved in the restaurant business, who rely on
things like electricity, customers and tips. And it's not so good for the
food either, unless you happen to like your quesadillas baked in the sun.
Zankel is the sole owner and proprietor of two well-received and popular
eating establishments in the Marina district -- one called Alameda whipsnake,
and the other called the Grove. They have been around for seven and six
years, respectively, which means they are well beyond the restaurant failure
curve, a ranking generally accorded to places that offer good food and
service and have a proven track record of paying their bills.
But a lot has changed in the continually more costly restaurant business
since PG&E decided to make a rather public showing of its corporate
shortsightedness and power rates went through the roof. And it certainly
wasn't made any easier when the utility giants begun charging countless
numbers of customers for back payments resulting from PG&E's own failure to
properly monitor monthly billing.
Zankel discovered this in January, when, in spite of his squeaky clean record
of on-time payments, he was hit with a $6,000 increase for power use at the
Grove, an upgrade that did not elude his bookkeeper. The corporate titans at
PG&E might not notice when the zeros light up, but when Zankel found his bill
jumping from $1,200 to $7,200 in 30 days, it registered on the meter.
His bookkeeper inquired. Officials at the utility company's so-called
customer service center checked deeper and said that new software installed
by PG&E the previous summer had under-billed numerous customers for the
previous six months and that the January invoice was correct.
But because PG&E had made the mistake, thanks to its Hal-like computer, it
would happily work out a payment plan for Zankel that could accommodate the
restaurant owner and the accounting-challenged power provider.
The deal was that Zankel would pay $1,000 extra on his monthly utility bill
for the next six months without interest, PG&E being ever so gracious,
because,
the customer rep said, it was indeed their mistake.
And what good is a utility without public outreach?
So Zankel paid, three extra zeros for the first two months, when he received
another loving note from PG&E on Feb. 21 that if he did not pay his bill in
the next 48 hours, his power would be shut off.
A frightened Zankel checked in with the friendly customer service center to
discover that, in fact, another mistake had been made. "There should be no
worries," his service representative assured him, especially since they were
able to track down his Feb. 9 check for $2,176. He was told his next payment
was due on March 15. And thanks so much for calling.
Then, about 9 a.m. Tuesday, PG&E sent a service technician out to Zankel's
Chestnut Street location and cut off his power.
Zankel's manager called him at home, where he reacted with the cool of a
roasted jalapeno pepper. "It's always great for business when your customers
are sitting in the dark, your staff can't work and there's nothing you can do
about it," he said.
So he called PG&E's customer service center, where he was told by a nice
young woman that they couldn't find any problems for why his electricity was
shut down. "This shouldn't have happened," she told him, but it would
probably be a few hours before they could send someone out to restore his
power.
Zankel asked why he didn't get a notice saying the utility was contemplating
shutting off his service, and he was told the previous notice was all they
needed to provide.
"You mean if you send out a notice that was mistaken, that's all the company
feels it needs to do?" he asked. Yes, she replied, that was her understanding
of company policy.
He blurted out something about suing PG&E. Her response: "If you're going to
sue us, then I can't help you anymore and you'll have to go through the PUC
to get your power turned back on."
No, no, no, he said. Let's just take care of this and get my power turned
back on.
Zankel raced down to the PG&E center on Mission Street and wrote a check for
the full remaining balance of his bill, $4,445.85, "just so I wouldn't have
to deal with it anymore." Then the clerk informed him that there would be a
$20 turn-on charge. He fished a $20 bill out his pocket and handed it to her.
The receipt noted this transaction, and the check amount, with the parting
words: "The easy way to pay PG&E."
"There is no easy way to pay PG&E," Zankel said. "I'm just lucky that we're
in good financial shape. Some restaurants might go under because of something
like this. Maybe PG&E would be better off financially if they learned to bill
people correctly."
But PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne said that although he didn't know the
specifics of Zankel's case, it must have been a mistake.
"The last thing we want to do is to shut power off for some business," he
said. "We're very flexible in working with customers on a payment program. I
don't know what happened in this case, but it's our policy to go out of our
way to avoid things like this."
That's not going to happen anytime soon. Zankel's latest bill came in showing
a charge for $366.40, once again, at least $1,000 off the actual amount. That
darn software. You just never know when it's going to act up.
The company is once again threatening blackouts this summer. Chances are a
lot of people won't have to wait that long.
You can reach Ken Garcia at (415) 777-7152 or e-mail him at
kgarcia@sfchronicle.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombast obscures energy's ebb and flow
Published Monday, March 19, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News
THE electricity crisis has dimmed the lights at car dealerships and sapped
the confidence of California consumers. But it's provided a jolt of energy to
a hardy perennial of politics: parochialism.
Announcing yet another investigation into electricity prices, several state
senators condemned ``out-of-state generators.'' Their greed, said one, has
produced a ``massive transfer of wealth'' out of California.
Gov. Gray Davis in his state-of-the-state speech intoned: ``Never again can
we allow out-of-state profiteers to hold California hostage.''
In the hysterical high point of this line of argument, Sen. Steve Peace, D-El
Cajon, one of the architects of electricity restructuring, took to the Senate
floor to declare that unless California moved into public ownership of power
it might as well ``raise the Lone Star flag atop the Capitol.''
About the only thing right about this rant is the geography. The energy
companies are indeed out of state, with a group of them in Texas. Dynegy,
Reliant and Enron are based in Houston; Duke, in Charlotte; Mirant in
Atlanta; and Williams Energy, in Tulsa.
As for the rest of the argument, it appears to be based on a Fort Knox
concept of where money is: Profits sit in vaults, until spent to benefit the
state in which they repose.
I'm not denying there is reason to at least investigate the profits made by
generators of power. But some who have done well -- Calpine and the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, to name two -- are based in
California. What difference does location make? Victims of muggings do not
generally express relief if told the robbers were fellow Californians. ``Oh
good, the money will stay in the community,'' no one has ever told the
police.
First, let's establish the scale of this alleged transfer of wealth. The
obscene profit is often put at $15 billion. I'm no economist, but I think
this is somewhere between buckets of money and a boatload. Compared with the
$1 trillion California economy, however, it's 1.5 percent.
The transfer that matters doesn't cross political boundaries, but business
ones. It is from companies that consume electricity to make products or offer
services, to those that produce electricity. Rising energy prices inflate the
cost of most goods and services.
The second fallacy in the ``massive transfer of wealth'' is that the money
goes to some other state and stays there. Not in today's economy.
Duke Energy, for instance, is proposing to invest more than $1 billion to
modernize power plants at Moss Landing and Morro Bay.
Even if most of the money California spends on electricity goes to companies
out of state, why would that matter? Most of the money California spends on
cars goes to companies headquartered in Michigan, Germany and Japan. No
legislation or investigation is pending.
Profits made by companies in California or elsewhere go to shareholders, who
might live anywhere. Or they go into bank accounts, to be invested wherever
the bank thinks is profitable. Or they are used to expand the company, which
could happen in its home state or anywhere else it does business.
One of California's energy companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, has made
investments nationwide.
The reason I raise this issue, other than in a hopeless quest for precision
in political discourse, is that parochialism could cause the state to make
bad decisions about electricity.
Already legislators are muttering about prohibiting generators in California
from selling their electricity outside the state, unless California is
assured a sufficient supply. But there's much evidence that a Western
regional market would be more efficient than one in California alone.
And, looking at the flow the other way, California should not hesitate to
obtain power from companies based out of state if they offer the best prices.
There are reasons to locate the actual power plants close to the users; they
don't apply to the company headquarters.
The political boundaries that define the state of California are not likely
to be the logical physical or financial boundaries of the electricity market,
just as they are not the boundaries of the lettuce or microprocessor market.
California should protect itself from being gouged by generators no matter
where they are located. And if the generators are doing business fairly,
Californians should no more worry about where the money they spend on
electricity is going than they worry about where the money they spend on cell
phones is going.

Phil Yost is chief editorial writer of the Mercury News.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


I forwarded this meeting to Casey.  I will be out of the office.

Stacey


Jim,

Attached for your review is the Letter Agreement with CPS for the additional
work and materials relating to the Interconnect in Karnes County, Texas.  If
this is satisfactory, please let me know and I'll print up executables.

Thanks,

Eric Gillaspie
713-345-7667
Enron Building 3886


Guys:
Here are questions from LG&E regarding the peaker assets.  Some of these
questions are tax related.  Please assist us in answering these questions.
Thanks for your help.
Ben
3-7998


Attached pleas find the field definitions. I don't know how helpfull this
will be because it does not map from the original VISUPRO fields. It does
define the added fields, however.

Clemens W"ste@TWTDE
04/23/2002 06:58 AM
To: David Miller/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Robert Grant/EWC/Enron@Enron, Jeff
Marecic/EWC/Enron@Enron

Subject: Antwort: SQL Database

Hallo David,

in our actual development  I suppose I need only four tables of the database:

VISU_ERRDEV,
VISU_STATDATA,
VISU_MINANAMAIN,
VISU_MINANAEXT

The fields in the tables in VisuPro and in the SQL-Server are not the same.
Some fields are not described.
I really need an assignment from the VisuPro tables to the new tables.

As example I have written some comments / questions to the following table
structures.
(The list is not complet, it is a subset)

VISU_STATDAT:

SITE_ID varchar   //  Source ?
ID  numeric   //  written by me, or automatically
DTTM  datetime
PLANT_NDX numeric
TIMEOFFSET numeric
KW_HRS numeric   // I suppose PROD field
CON  numeric
OTT  numeric
SOTT  numeric
DTT  numeric
LOTT  numeric
WOTT  numeric
ESTT  numeric
MTT  numeric
RTT  numeric
PRODULM numeric
CONULM numeric
OTULM  numeric
SOTULM numeric
DTULM  numeric
LOTULM numeric
WOTULM numeric
ESTULM numeric
MTULM numeric
RTULM  numeric

VISU_MINANAMAIN:

SITE_ID   varchar  // Source ?
ID    numeric  // written by me or automatically ?
DTTM    datetime
TRBN_ROW_OTM  varchar  // what's this, what is to do with this field
PLANT_NDX   numeric
KW    numeric  // what's this, what is to do with this field
COS_PHI   numeric
VOLT_PHASE_A  numeric
VOLT_PHASE_B  numeric
VOLT_PHASE_C  numeric
CURRENT_PHASE_A  numeric
CURRENT_PHASE_B  numeric
CURRENT_PHASE_C  numeric
GEN_RPM   numeric
ROTOR_RPM   numeric
ACTUAL_ANGLE_BLADE_1 numeric
WIND_SPEED   numeric
NACELLE_POSITION  numeric
TRAN_OIL_PRSS  numeric
ACTUAL_ANGLE_BLADE_2 numeric
ACTUAL_ANGLE_BLADE_3 numeric
SET_ANGLE_BLADE_1 numeric
SET_ANGLE_COS_PH I numeric
OPERATING_STATE  numeric
WIND_DEVIATION  numeric
GEN_1_TEMP   numeric
GEN_2_TEMP   numeric
BEARING_A_TEMP  numeric
BEARING_B_TEMP  numeric
TRAN_TEMP   numeric
AMBIENT_TEMP  numeric
TRAN_BEARING_A_TEMP numeric
TRAN_BEARING_B_TEMP numeric
TRAN_RETURN_TEMP numeric
WIND_DEVIATION_ONE_SEC numeric
APPARENT_KW  numeric  // what's this, what is to do with this field
ERROR_NUMBER  numeric  // what's this, what is to do with this field
CRE_USERID   varchar  // what's this, what is to do with this field
CRE_DATE   datetime  // what's this, what is to do with this field
MDFD_USERID  varchar  // what's this, what is to do with this field
MDFD_DATE   datetime // what's this, what is to do with this field
DEL_FLAG   varchar  // what's this, what is to do with this field

Best regards,

Clemens W"ste

ENRON Wind


The  courses I remember from our trips:
Pevero  GC-Costa Smeralda?  Sardinia??????????????????????????????????
Royal  St. Kitts  GC?????????????????????????????????????
Golf  Ugolino?  Florence??????????????
Sperone GC?  Corsica????????
Royal  Malta GC??????
Eldorado?  Cabo???????????
Maroon  Creek????????
?
Ken  and Mick may remember others (but I doubt it). I look forward to being
with you  and to seeing the latest product of your fertile  imagination.

[Reasoner, Harry]??-----Original  Message-----
From: JHDUNCAN@aol.com  [mailto:JHDUNCAN@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 7:56  AM
To: hreasoner@velaw.com
Cc:  jseidl@myhomekey.com
Subject: Planning monkey  business

Harry (or, again, should I address you as "Houston's Sugar Daddy" as  they
did
at the ADL luncheon)

I am going to take about 1/2 of my  golf clubs to Europe on the coming trip.
?
Mick will probably take  his 5 iron. ?If you and Ken take your clubs then we
could have fun,  exchange money, and get some exercise together.

In this regard, since  you are the student of golf courses everywhere why
don't you extract from  some of your library of golf books some suggested
courses to play. If you  do not have this info in your library I will be glad
to work on this.

Also, and the real point of this e-mail, I want to ask you to  do something
for all of us. I need to know the exact names of the courses  we have played
on previous trips. I know you saved ball markers etc  from each course and my
old brain does not remember these course names. As  you well know, I normally
"tear up" score cards after each match.  ??I ask you to do this for a reason.
?
I have a little gift  for each golfer that will serve as a record of courses
played by us, but I  need the names of the past ones played. ?There is no
rush
on this  request. ?If you will do this, simply bring the list to the
airplane:
you can give this info to me after take off on May 29th. ?If you do  not have
this info at your "finger tips," so be it, we will simply "wing  it."

Hope all is well with you and Macey. ?Brenda and I will see  you guys at the
next ??function, honoring "Houston's Sugar  Daddy" ?and his better half a
week
from Saturday, if not before.

John

cc ?Mick, you are welcome to put your 5 iron in my  bag, no charge.


Oregon Law Institute, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark
College is pleased to present a program on &A Primer on Consumer Law8 on
Friday, May 4th at the Oregon Convention Center, in Portland.

 You can still take advantage of our &early bird8 price of $140 or $110
for new attorneys (admitted 2000-2001), paralegals, or secretaries. This
price is good through April 30th.

 By now, you should know that attorneys can be considered debt
collectors subject to the Fair  Debt Collection Practices Act ) even if
the attorney never sends a letter or makes a telephone call, but simply
files a lawsuit.  Litigation against attorneys under the FDCPA is
increasing nationwide, and attorneys are being held liable for even
innocent and technical violations of the FDCPA.  Attend this program to
learn the top 10 ways attorneys violate the FDCPA, and how they can
avoid the violations.  Learning even one new tip could save you in
damages many times the cost of this CLE!

 The brochure is attached in PDF format. You may also contact the Oregon
Law Institute at 503-243-3326 or 800-222-8213 for a brochure or to
register now at the &early bird8 tuition.

--
Oregon Law Institute
Northwestern School of Law
of Lewis & Clark College
620 SW Main, Suite 706
Portland, OR  97205
PH:      (503) 243-3326
         (800) 222-8213
FX:      (503) 242-2931
E-mail:  oli@lclark.edu

 - Consumer.pdf


IntercontinentalExchange
                                                                                Firm Physical Natural Gas Price Bulletin
                                                                                For Natural Gas Delivered on Thursday, November  15, 2001
                                                                                (Trade Date of Wednesday, November  14, 2001)
Click here to access index history .
                                                                                * volume represents sell-side only *

Region     Hub	High	Low	Wtd Avg Index	Change ($)	Vol (mmBtu)	Hub Name
 LOUISIANA
    ANR SE	          $2.2500	          $2.1500	          $2.2301	-    .1003	         139,000	American Natural Resources Pipeline Co. - SE  Transmission Pool
    Columbia Onshore	          $2.2900	          $2.1700	          $2.2342	-    .1029	         230,100	Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. - Onshore Pool
    Henry Hub	          $2.3800	          $2.2000	          $2.2957	-    .0991	       1,060,100	Henry Hub tailgate - Louisiana
    NGPL LA	          $2.3000	          $2.1800	          $2.2295	-    .0827	         232,700	Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, Louisiana Pool
    Tenn 500L	          $2.2300	          $2.1100	          $2.1878	-    .1286	         209,300	Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.-Zone L, 500 Leg Pool
    Tenn 800L	          $2.2200	          $2.1225	          $2.1880	-    .1095	         266,300	Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.-Zone L, 800 Leg Pool
    TETCO ELA	          $2.2700	          $2.0900	          $2.2368	-    .1190	         371,800	Texas Eastern - East LA
    TETCO WLA	          $2.2350	          $2.1800	          $2.2237	-    .1089	         232,400	Texas Eastern - West LA
    Transco 65	          $2.3400	          $2.2400	          $2.2960	-    .1069	         114,600	Transco - Station 65
    Trunkline ELA	          $2.2450	          $2.1700	          $2.1936	-    .1026	          91,100	Trunkline Gas Company - East Louisiana Pool
    TxGas SL	          $2.3000	          $2.1700	          $2.2545	-    .1056	         265,200	Texas Gas Transmission Corp.-Zone SL FT Pool
 MIDCONTINENT
    MichCon, citygate	          $2.4350	          $2.3400	          $2.3952	-    .1234	         248,400	Michigan Consolidated
    NGPL Midcont	          $2.1400	          $2.0200	          $2.0854	-    .0569	         272,400	Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, Mid-Continent Pool
    NGPL Nicor, citygate	          $2.3100	          $2.1800	          $2.2502	-    .0909	         490,300	Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, Nicor Citygate
    NGPL NIPSCO, citygate	          $2.2750	          $2.2200	          $2.2564	-    .0766	         134,100	Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, Nipsco Citygate
    NNG Demarcation	          $2.1400	          $2.1000	          $2.1272	-    .0804	         128,500	Northern Natural Gas, Demarcation Pool
 NORTHEAST
    Columbia TCO	          $2.4400	          $2.2675	          $2.3491	-    .1222	         298,800	Columbia Gas Co. - TCO Pool
    Dominion So.Point	          $2.4400	          $2.2000	          $2.3573	-    .1737	         226,200	Dominion - South Point
    TETCO M3	          $2.7400	          $2.5050	          $2.5891	-    .1792	          99,500	Texas Eastern - M3 Zone
    Transco Z-6 (NY)	          $2.8000	          $2.5500	          $2.6525	-    .1647	          87,700	Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. - Zone 6 (NY)
 WEST
    El Paso non-Bondad	          $2.0100	          $1.8500	          $1.9449	+    .1977	         172,000	El Paso - San Juan Basin, Blanco Pool
    Huntingdon/Sumas	          $2.0800	          $2.0000	          $2.0520	+    .0454	          85,400	Westcoast Energy & Northwest Pipeline Corp.
    Opal	          $2.0500	          $1.7500	          $1.9094	+    .3026	         133,700	Opal
    PG?Citygate	          $2.2050	          $2.1100	          $2.1671	+    .0409	         162,000	PG?- Citygate
    SoCal Border	          $2.1900	          $2.1200	          $2.1636	-    .0091	         304,800	Southern California Border Points (Ehrenberg,Topock,Needles)
 WEST TEXAS
    El Paso - Keystone	          $2.0550	          $1.9900	          $2.0244	-    .0400	         476,600	El Paso - Keystone Pool
    Waha	          $2.1100	          $2.0400	          $2.0696	-    .0528	         212,900	Waha Hub - West Texas

                                                                                Includes all firm physical fixed price trades done from 7 AM to 11:30 AM Central Prevailing Time on the trade date specified for natural gas delivered on the specified date(s).
                                                                                IntercontinentalExchange is the world's most liquid trading platform for over-the-counter energy and metals.  Active markets include North American power and natural gas, global crude and refined oil products, and precious metals.  Traded instruments include forwards, swaps, and options.
In order to receive the proprietary information contained in this email, you acknowledge and agree that you shall not further disseminate the IntercontinentalExchange Market Data contained herein to any person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.    Furthermore, you acknowledge that (1) IntercontinentalExchange has exclusive and valuable property rights in this data; (2) IntercontinentalExchange's data is being made available to you only for your own business or personal activities; and (3) you cannot communicate the data, in any form, to any other person or entity without the express written consent of IntercontinentalExchange.
This data is provided to you free of charge.  IntercontinentalExchange reserves the right to cancel this service at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
You agree that IntercontinentalExchange does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the data.
To become an Exchange Participant or inquire about the indices, please contact sales@intcx.com .
To unsubscribe from this service, click here unsubscribe .
                                                                                ?Copyright IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2001, All Rights Reserved.


I am in an all day PRC meeting on Tuesday. Thanks.

Susan Scott
11/30/2000 10:24 AM
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON

Subject: Max rate issue on TW

Steve and Lindy, as I mentioned in our staff meeting, it is probably not
going to be possible to solve our max rate cap dilemma by making a tariff
filing unless we can 1) get FERC to change its mind about its policy that
recourse rates always be available as an alternative to negotiated rates or
2) prove that Transwestern lacks market power and should therefore be allowed
to charge market based rates.

The following is a very brief outline of what would be required to prove lack
of market power.  A warning:  lack of market power is very difficult to
prove.  Koch, a pipeline that most in the industry would agree does lack
market power, tried and failed.  The deck is already stacked against us in
TW's case given the withholding of capacity by El Paso's affiliate and the
price conditions in California.  However, we do need to analyze the
possibilities for TW, if not to the Cal. border, then on other parts of our
system.  Additionally, we need to discuss acceptable incentives for shippers
to pay negotiated rates if we do not end up changing our tariff.

Would you be availabile on Tuesday to discuss this?  Please let me know.  In
the meantime, here is a summary of FERC's policy on market based rates.

***

To obtain authority to charge market based rates, TW would first have to
request a declaratory order, and in its application provide information
showing it meets the requirements outlined below.  If the Commission finds
all requirements have been met, it will issue an order and TW would then make
the appropriate tariff filing to put market based rates into effect.

Application for declaratory order must include:

1.  Detailed description of the services proposed for market-based rate
treatment.  I assume in our case it would be firm transportation service.

2.  A statement defining the relevant product and geographic markets
necessary for establishing the applicant lacks market power with respect to
the services at issue.  The Commission requires a narrow definition of the
market("firm transportation" is probably narrow enough, but for our purposes
we might want to narrow it down more (i.e., firm transportation East of
Thoreau).  We have to define substitute services available to shippers(other
pipelines are a "good substitute" only if shippers can obtain the same
quality of service on a timely basis, and if the other pipelines offer such
service at a price that would deter TW from raising its prices more than
10%.  All relevant "origin markets" must be defined (Panhandle; West Texas)
as well as "destination markets," and alternatives for shippers in those
markets identified.  Transportation alternatives are only good alternatives
if they provide a netback to shippers that is roughly the same as if they
used TW.  Note that the Commission has rejected capacity release as a good
alternative since it does not guarantee a shipper its desired contract
quantity.

3.  Market share and HHI calculations; discussion of other relevant
competitive factors.  Commission looks at size of market share, mitigating
factors such as ease of entry, and market concentration as measured by HHI.
Market concentration has to be calculated for each relevant receipt point and
delivery point.  HHI is calculated by adding up the total market share and
squaring it.  There is a presumption of no ease of entry for transportation
services  because of the expense involved in constructing facilities.

4.  Proposal for accounting for costs and revenues.


Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com

Reports: Taliban to Surrender Kunduz

http://www.abcnews.go.com/

ABCNEWS.com:  Up to the Moment, Up to You (tm)
http://abcnews.go.com
---
You received this mail because you subscribed via ABCNEWS.com. If you would like to stop receiving these mailings, log into our mailcenter at http://login.mailpref.go.com/unsubscribe .

Please do not respond to this mail. Questions or comments can be submitted at
http://abcnews.go.com/service/help/abccontact.html


Stephanie -

Can you run final originals of the attached for me.  We need to have them
initialed and sent to John Cummings of Clickpaper.com for signature.

Thanks.

Mark
Senior Counsel, ENA
Phone:     713-345-8897
Facsimile: 713-646-3940
E-Mail:      Mark.Greenberg@enron.com


As promised, a transcript of the CNBC story follows.  We don't have the tape
yet, but it is my understanding that it came off well on video.

John
---------------------- Forwarded by John Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
07/17/2000 10:16 AM ---------------------------

Jimmy Mogal
07/17/2000 09:41 AM
To: John Ambler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Johan
Zaayman/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:

Subject: Transcript of CNBC interview/Metgas

In case you want to forward to Mark......
---------------------- Forwarded by Jimmy Mogal/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
17/07/2000 08:09 PM ---------------------------

Jimmy Mogal
17/07/2000 07:53 PM
To: INDIA TEAM - ENRON
cc:

Subject: Transcript of CNBC interview/Metgas

For those of us who missed the program, foll is a gist:

Channel??????????????CNBC, Asia
Programme????????India  Market Wrap
Subject???????????????LNG  industry in India
Duration?????????????5  minutes
Date??????????????????  14/ 07/ 2000
Journalist?????????  Ms. Jaya Mahajan
Visuals: aerial view of Dabhol, shots of  terminal under construction
?
Introduction: Natural gas is emerging as an  important alternative fuel for
power and fertiliser plants in India. The Indian  government is encouraging
import of natural gas to cope with?growing  depletion of India's natural gas
reserves.
13 LNG terminals are being planned in India?- an  estimated investment of Rs.
300 billion. But, the demand for LNG depends on  gas-based power projects,
growth of which has been sluggish.
?
The future of LNG in India
13 terminals are currently being planned that can transport 40  million
tonnes of LNG per year. Half of these projects are in Maharashtra and
Gujarat where five terminals will come up in the next ten years.
Petronet - Dahej
Shell????? - Hazira
Indigas? - Mumbai
Enron?? - Dabhol
British Gas - Pipavav
Of all proposed LNG terminals, it is only at Dabhol that  construction of?the
2 million tonne LNG terminal has started. ?The  first ship is expected in
November, 2001 and gas deliveries?to customers in  Mumbai are expected?to
start?by mid-2002. Enron  will enjoy the first mover advantage, where
construction of LNG terminal is half  complete.
Enron's?main competitor will be Indigas promoted by TEC,  Total and Gail
which is expected to come up by 2004. The basic engineering  design is ready
and contracts for storage tanks, jetty and terminal will soon be  decided.
?
C de Frassinette, MD, Indigas:
Infrastructure is required for LNG terminals - we will benefit  as?Gail's
infrastructure is in place.?In the next ten years, when  phase II is?on line,
we will be able to market?our fuel (about 6  million tonnes) thanks to the
development of the natural gas market and  depletion of Bombay High.
?
K. Wade Cline, COO Enron India
Due to our contractual access to the existing LNG facility at  Dabhol, we
will be able to share in this and therefore don't have to incur extra  costs
on LNG tanks, regas facility and fuel landing jetty.
All projects need a pipeline to be built from?location to  customers - our is
only 190 km North of Dabhol to Mumbai?and will service  our customers in the
Mumbai route. We don't see any disadvantage.
?
Voice-over:
The success of these projects depends on the cost of  construction?and price
of gas. Only Petronet (a consortium of Indian oil  companies) which expects
to begin supplying gas by 2003 has fixed a price -  $4.5, per billion tonne
unit. This is 20% cheaper than naphtha, the other major  fuel currently being
used. The price of LNG is?determined by customs duty  which, in India, is at
over 20%?- the highest anywhere in the  world.
?
K. Wade Cline
We'd like the government to lower duty on LNG?and make it  closer to, for
example, rates on other infrastructure projects like power  plants. ??
?
C de Frassinette
In Japan, LNG is not taxed at all. In Korea, there is just 1%  customs duty.
Japan is the largest importer of LNG, accounting for?60%  of? global LNG
market. We need to move in this direction.
?
Voice-over:
Even if LNG were affordable, setting imported terminals is an  expensive
exercise. Estimated cost of the?5 million tonne Petronet terminal  is Rs.
22.5 billion. The project cost of Indigas is Rs.25 billion.
Not all terminals will finally come up, but for those that do,  there is
enough demand for this fuel of the future that is cleaner and greener  than
others.
?
?


We at IntercontinentalExchange would like to announce the relocation of our Houston office.
The new address is:
1415 Lousiana, suite 3350
Houston, TX 77002

New phone numbers:
Lance Leffingwell  713-571-6691
JC Kneale   713-571-7821
Fax 713-571-8243

If you have any questions please feel free to contact us and we look forward to serving you!

Thank you,
IntercontinentalExchange


[IMAGE]	 	[IMAGE]	[IMAGE]

             [IMAGE] [IMAGE]   [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Upgrades  [IMAGE] DownGrades  [IMAGE] Coverage Initiated  [IMAGE] Coverage Reiterated  [IMAGE] Stock Splits  [IMAGE] Buybacks  [IMAGE] Dividends  [IMAGE] Pos Pre-Announce  [IMAGE] Neg Pre-Announce  [IMAGE] Pos Surprises  [IMAGE] Neg Surprises  [IMAGE] Earnings Revisions  [IMAGE] IPO - Lockup Periods  [IMAGE] IPO - Latest Pricing  [IMAGE] IPO - Quite Periods  [IMAGE] IPO - Postponements  [IMAGE] IPO - Withdrawals  [IMAGE] IPO - Latest Filings     [IMAGE]   [IMAGE]   [IMAGE]  [IMAGE]  [IMAGE] Unsubscribe  [IMAGE] Update  my Membership / Profile  [IMAGE] Forgot  Username / Password  [IMAGE] Add  / Edit Alerts  [IMAGE] View  My Alerts   [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE]   [IMAGE]  [IMAGE]    [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] 	  As requested, your News Alert for BRCM  follows from EquityAlert.com.     Broadcom Corp. Trading Higher On Q3 Earnings News     (RealTimeTraders.com) - Broadcom Corp. (BRCM) reported a narrower than expected loss for the third quarter on Wednesday and beat consensus estimates by $0.03 per share. The company President and CEO stated, "We are now seeing an improved level of stability and visibility in the markets that we serve." Broadcom Corp. moved steadily lower throughout yesterday's session and closed down by 3.90 at $28.07 on above average volume. The stock is currently trading higher by 1.23 on 37K shares before the bell on Thursday. Copyright(c) 2001 RealTimeTraders.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved    [IMAGE]    ***IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER REGARDING THIS COURTESY EMAIL***   At your request, as a subscriber to our service, this email alert is being sent to you as a courtesy and is for information purposes only. We are a financial news re-distributor. We are not an investment advisory and do not purport to tell or suggest which companies you should monitor or which securities you should purchase or sell.   In addition to the information regarding the company you are monitoring (the "Monitored Company"), this email contains advertisements describing products, services or companies for which we receive fees from the advertising companies. In the case of Cybertrader, distribution of this advertisement forms a component of a content exchange agreement with RealTimeTraders.com, Inc. We reserve the right to sell all or part of these shares at anytime, either before, during or after the advertisement period.   In addition, not withstanding our policy of prohibiting employees from buying or selling securities of an advertising company for a period of 20 days following dissemination of the advertisement, we may not be able to effectively monitor our employees to ensure compliance with the same. Consequently, there may be sales and/or purchases of such securities by our employees prior to, during and immediately following the dissemination of the advertisement.   Please note that (1) this email may not contain the full text of the press release issued by, or the research or other reports regarding, the Monitored Company; and (2) the text of the advertisement, the press release and/or reports were obtained from third party sources and were not written, generated or edited by us; accordingly, we make no representations or give any assurance as to the accuracy or completeness, nor have we conducted any independent investigations of, the disclosures regarding the subject matter of such releases and reports.   Please note that links to the advertising company and/or Monitored Company are provided for your convenience. We assume no obligation for the content of such sites.   All information contained herein should be independently verified by you with the advertising company or with Monitored Company or any other sources you prefer.   [THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY OF, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO, THE "EQUITYALERT SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT AND DISCLAIMER." PLEASE VISIT http://www.equityalert.com/home/disclaim.asp  FOR ACCESS TO OUR COMPLETE DISCLAIMER]        	[IMAGE]     [IMAGE]


Heidi Mitchell
PO Box 750204
Torrey, UT 84775
heidimit@color-country.net

To Mr. Ken Lay,

I'm writing to urge you to donate the millions of dollars you made from selling Enron stock before the company declared bankruptcy to funds, such as Enron Employee Transition Fund and REACH, that benefit the company's employees, who lost their retirement savings, and provide relief to low-income consumers in California, who can't afford to pay their energy bills.  Enron and you made millions out of the pocketbooks of California consumers and from the efforts of your employees.

Indeed, while you netted well over a $100 million, many of Enron's employees were financially devastated when the company declared bankruptcy and their retirement plans were wiped out.  And Enron made an astronomical profit during the California energy crisis last year.  As a result, there are thousands of consumers who are unable to pay their basic energy bills and the largest utility in the state is bankrupt.

The New York Times reported that you sold $101 million worth of Enron stock while aggressively urging the company's employees to keep buying it.  Please donate this money to the funds set up to help repair the lives of those Americans hurt by Enron's underhanded dealings.

Sincerely,

Heidi Mitchell


Hello Martin,

We've made it easier to reorder your contact lenses by creating a Personalized Re-order Page just for you.

By simply clicking on the secure link below you'll find:

- Shipping is free.
- All your information is already on file.
- Changes are a snap - you can easily change any of your account information.
- Shipment confirmed by e-mail.

If you have troubles with the above button or are using an AOL version previous to AOL 6.0 please cut and paste the following link into your browser and hit enter: https://order.1800contacts.com/reo.csp?link=hchehbhibblmophdblnolmnh&ac=reo2101501

If you have any questions, please feel welcome to contact one of our Internet specialists by simply replying to this message or just pick up the phone and call us toll free at 1-800-CONTACTS.

Our goal is to provide you with the fastest, easiest and most convenient way to replace your lenses.  That's why:

- We are the world's largest contact lens store with over 10 million contacts in stock.
- We have delivered over 3 million orders to more than 1.5 million customers.
- We will replace your unopened, unexpired lenses at no charge if your prescription changes.
- We never charge a membership fee.

Sincerely,

The team at 1-800 CONTACTS
reorder@1800contacts.com

We're changing the way the world buys contacts.

1-800 CONTACTS is a publicly traded company on NASDAQ (symbol: CTAC)

If you would like to be removed from our reminder list, please reply to this message with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject.


Hello Shirley,

I 'd understood from Yannis that he'd proposed a brown bag lunch where I'd
give a talk and then the discussion about various possibilities would
follow. I'm here until about mid-May and then will go on leave in Europe
for a year. I could be available to make trips back and forth from time to
time to get things started.

Best regards,
Joe McCauley


Mike, is there a special message you send to your own group that we could
also use to send to CALME, since they aren't as familiar with this event? - -
-DLH

Sent by: Enron Announcements@ENRON
To: All Enron Houston
cc:

Subject: Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Fundraising

It is my sincere honor to once again lead the Enron team in this year's
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF) walk scheduled to take place on Sunday,
November 5, 2000, at the Sam Houston Race Park.  I continue to serve on the
board of JDF representing Enron and will be Enron's corporate executive for
this year's fundraising efforts.

As many of you may already know, I am an insulin dependent diabetic myself.
Even though I know how difficult this disease can be to manage with the
multiple finger pricks for blood samples and several shots each day, I cannot
imagine how difficult it is for a small child with this disease.  Taking
insulin does not cure the disease nor prevent the development of
complications; insulin is simply their life support system and without it
they would die.

Enron continues to be a major corporate sponsor for JDF again this year.  JDF
is a very efficient organization in which approximately 84% of all money
raised goes directly to research.  Enron's goal this year is to raise
$225,000 and we need your help.  Enron has been the number 1 walk team for 5
years in a row and we are not ready to give up first place!  We need team
leaders, walkers and volunteers to help us reach our goal.  The theme for the
walk this year is "Knock Out Diabetes" and we would like to have you join us
for this great event.  The Walk is truly a blast and we had about 500 Enron
people participate last year and everyone enjoyed it.

If you are interested in volunteering to be a walker or a team leader, or if
you would like to make a pledge, you may call any of the steering committee
members listed below.  If you are interested in being a team leader, please
contact one of the following people immediately so that you may be included
in the first important and informative training session taking place this
week.

Thank you very much for your support.

Mike McConnell

Steering Committee Members:

Blanca Bollom X66091
Rachel Feldt  X57629
Deb Gebhardt X39606
Cathy Phillips X36898
John Walt  X35379
Debbie Yates X35305


Sarah-Joy:

Here is the update from the conference I attended.

I would like to put together a task force to address the Enron/Sonoco
opportunities exclusive of what EES is doing and make the proposal to Sonoco
before year end.

Regards,

Craig


Further information on Rice.  Given the outcome (read the following email as
well) I didn't feel the need to involve anyone else.  Let me know if you
disagree.

Thanks,
Brad

----- Forwarded by Brad Richter/Enron Communications on 03/05/01 08:24 AM
-----

	Radu Tutos
	03/02/01 04:11 PM

		 To: Brad Richter/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
		 cc:
		 Subject: Rice University misunderstanding

Brad,

The complaint that we have received from Rice regarding the Bremen circuit
seems to be the result of a misunderstanding. In brief, this is what happened:

Rice is currently under contract with us to purchase  a Houston-Bremen
circuit starting February 2002.  Initially the circuit was supposed to be on
line February 2001 (last month), but at Rice's request, we bought back the
circuit for the first 1 year.

We have recently been approached again by Rice to provide them with an
interim circuit on the same route ASAP, and we have just submitted to them a
termsheet in that regard.

Most likely, the misunderstanding came about as a result of repeated
modifications of the starting date for the circuit, all of which were
requested by Rice.  Again, our obligation under the existing contracts is to
deliver the circuit February 2002, almost a year from now.

I discussed this problem with Brad Nebergall (origination), and he made a
priority to explain the situation with the upper management at Rice.

thanks,

Radu Tutos
Director, TDS
Enron Broadband Services
office  713-853-3990
cell     713-304-7602


The following announcement was sent out from the ENW Office of the Chair on Sunday, October 21:

As a follow-up to the Enron Net Works All Employee meeting on October 5, we are pleased to announce a number of organizational changes.

Beth Perlman, currently CIO for EA Systems, will work closely with Mark Pickering on a number of key projects for Enron Net Works.  Additionally, Beth plans to explore various commercial opportunities within Enron.  Replacing Beth in her current role will be Steve Hotte, currently CIO for EGS.

Anthony Dayao will continue as CIO for EES Systems.  In addition to his current responsibilities, Anthony will assume responsibility for creating a combined Wholesale/Retail Power Trading and Risk Management system.

Jeff Johnson will move into the new role of CIO for EGM/EIM Systems.

John Paskin will transfer to the Houston office from London to take up the new role of CIO for Corporate Systems. His group will include the ISC, Enterprise Portal, Intranet Solutions, CRM strategy, Treasury Systems, Development Support and will matrix into HR IT Systems.

Continuing in their current positions are Inja Chun, CIO for EBS Systems; Paul Freeman, CIO for Enron Europe; Jay Webb, CIO for eCommerce, which now includes Commodity Logic Systems; and Jenny Rub, CIO for Infrastructure.

All of the above positions report into to Mark Pickering in the Office of the Chairman for Enron Net Works.  Transitions into their new positions will begin within the next two weeks and should be complete by the end of the year.

We are currently interviewing individuals to serve as CIO for EGS, as well as an individual to serve as head of our Enterprise Framework group.  We will keep you posted on the progress of these searches.

Please join us in congratulating all of these individuals on their new responsibilities.