----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 01/20/2001 11:01 PM -----

	"Julee Malinowski-Ball" <jmball@ns.net>
	01/19/2001 07:13 PM
	Please respond to "Julee Malinowski-Ball"

		 To: "Jan Smutny Jones" <smutny@iepa.com>, "Steven Kelley" <steven@iepa.com>,
"Katie Kaplan" <kaplan@iepa.com>
		 cc: "William Hall" <wfhall2@duke-energy.com>, "Tony Wetzel"
<twetzel@thermoecotek.com>, "Sue Mara" <smara@enron.com>, "Steven Kelley"
<steven@iepa.com>, "Steve Ponder" <steve_ponder@fpl.com>, "Stephanie Newell"
<stephanie-newell@reliantenergy.com>, "Roger Pelote"
<roger.pelote@williams.com>, "Robert Lamkin" <rllamkin@seiworldwide.com>,
"Richard Hyde" <rwhyde@duke-energy.com>, "Paula Soos"
<paula_soos@ogden-energy.com>, "Nam Nguyen" <nam.nguyen@powersrc.com>, "Marty
McFadden" <marty_mcfadden@ogden-energy.com>, "Lynn Lednicky"
<lale@dynegy.com>, "kent Palmerton" <kent.palmerton@williams.com>, "Ken
Hoffman" <khoffman@caithnessenergy.com>, "Kassandra Gough"
<kgough@calpine.com>, "Jonathan Weisgall" <jweisgall@aol.com>, "John Stout"
<john_h_stout@reliantenergy.com>, "Joe Ronan" <joer@calpine.com>, "Joe Greco"
<joe.greco@uaecorp.com>, "Jim Willey" <elliottsa@earthlink.net>, "Jeff
Dasovich" <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>, "Jack Pigott" <jackp@calpine.com>, "Hap
Boyd" <rboyd@enron.com>, "Greg Blue" <gtbl@dynegy.com>, "Frank DeRosa"
<fderosa@sanfrancisco.usgen.com>, "Ed Tomeo" <ed.tomeo@uaecorp.com>, "Duane
Nelson" <dnelsen@msn.com>, "David Parquet" <dparque@ect.enron.com>, "Curtis
Kebler" <curtis_l_kebler@reliantenergy.com>, "Carolyn Baker"
<cabaker@duke-energy.com>, "Bob Escalante" <rescalante@riobravo-gm.com>, "Bob
Ellery" <bellery@spi-ind.com>, "Bill Woods" <billw@calpine.com>, "Bill
Carlson" <william_carlson@wastemanagement.com>, "Craig Chancellor"
<craigc@calpine.com>, "Eric Eisenman" <eric.eisenman@gen.pge.com>, "Kate
Castillo" <ccastillo@riobravo-gm.com>
		 Subject: Legislative status report week ending 1/19

Date: 1/19/01
To: Jan Smutny-Jones, Steven Kelley, Katie Kaplan
Cc: IEP Board of Directors
From: Julee Malinowski-Ball, Edson + Modisette
RE: Legislative status report week ending 1/19

RECENT EVENTS:

-- The first two special session bills were signed by the Governor this
week: AB 5x (Keeley), relating to reconstituting the ISO and PX governing
boards, and 6x (Pescetti/Dutra), relating to utility retention of assets.
Includes in AB 5x was language requiring the ISO to make a list of
California power plants that are out of service due to either a planned or
unplanned outage available on the Internet on a daily basis.

-- Governor Davis has announced some appointments to the new ISO Board.
They include: Michael Kahn from the EOB as chair, Maria Contreras-Sweet who
is the Secretary of Business Transportation and Housing, Carl Guardino from
the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, and Mike Florio from TURN.  The
fifth position still remains vacant.  It is unclear if FERC will even
approve this new makeup.

-- SB 7x (Burton) caught everyone,s attention this week as it was
introduced, maneuvered through the legislative process and also signed by
the Governor within a 24 hour period.  SB 7x clarifies the authority of the
Department of Water Resources on a temporary basis to purchase electricity
(in lieu of AB 1x).  It gives the agency a 12-day window to purchase
electricity and sell it at cost. The legislation specifies that no contract
may be entered into later than February 15, 2001 and it sunsets on that
date.

-- The next legislative step taken this week was to continue the progress
made in the Assembly last week on AB 1x (Keeley/Migden).  AB 1x authorizes
the Department of Water Resources to contract with any person or entity to
purchase electricity for up to 5.5. center per kWh.  The Senate Energy
Committee met Friday afternoon to debate the measure.  Committee members
themselves brought up a number of concerns, including those previously
articulated by IEP and some member companies.  Specifically, IEP opposes the
5.5 cap and language that implies entities that &furnish8 power would be
&public utilities.8  Both were highlighted in today,s hearing by the Chair
of the committee and the author as provisions that need to be addressed
before the bill moves forward.   The committee expects to be drafting
potential amendments over the weekend  and will resume deliberations on
Monday at a time to be announced.  I am faxing the amendments proposed and
submitted to the committee by Southern for your review which address these
issues and more.

-- Senator Burton also held a press conference this week to introduce SB 6x
which would create a state power authority that has the power to, among
other things, finance the construction of additional generating capacity and
provide financing for older plants to make necessary retrofits for
efficiency improvements.  Power generated from this financing will be sold
to the state at cost.  The press release is attached.

-- Still sitting on the back burner for the moment (which could change at
any moment) is any legislative play on long-term contracting and siting
changes.  IEP has provided comments on both issues and is participating in
any discussions on these issues as they arise.

-- Last but not least, the QF issues has reached the legislative arena this
week.  Asm. Keeley has been intent on getting all the parties together to
negotiate the SCE QF contracts.  Negotiations will continue through the
weekend.

UPCOMING EVENTS:

--  There will be a Senate Energy Committee hearing on Monday to continue
deliberations on AB 1x (Keeley).  So far, I have no other scheduled meetings
or hearings for next week.  Stay Tuned.

--end--

Julee Malinowski-Ball
Senior Associate
Edson + Modisette
916-552-7070
FAX-552-7075
jmball@ns.net


Mark

Are you implementing procedures equivalent to ours?  Thanks

Paul
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul Simons/LON/ECT on 29/03/2000 15:22
---------------------------

Tomas Valnek
29/03/2000 15:06
To: Paul Simons/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Melanie Doyle/LON/ECT@ECT, Bryan Seyfried/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Chinese Walls in Hosuton

Paul

Does your policies on Chinese Walls apply in Houston as well? The reason for
my query is that a New York recruiter asked me some details about a credit
analyst position that would be based in Houston? For instance would it be
possible for the successful candidate to lever of the knowledge of Houston
Credit and other origination groups?

Regards

Tomas


We should get it today;  I'll messenger it over when it arrives.  mhc

"Notestine, Kerry" <KNotestine@littler.com> on 05/11/2000 08:59:54 AM
To: "'Michelle.Cash@enron.com'" <Michelle.Cash@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: Enron Europe

Thanks.  Also, where are we on the check for Malme?  Anne Marie inquired a
couple of days ago.

Kerry E Notestine
Littler Mendelson, PC
1900 Chevron Tower
1301 McKinney Street
Houston, Texas 77010
713.652.4748
713.951.9212 (fax)
knotestine@littler.com
www.littler.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle.Cash@enron.com [mailto:Michelle.Cash@enron.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 8:38 AM
To: KNotestine@littler.com
Subject: Re: Enron Europe

I'll look into it for you. Michelle

"Notestine, Kerry" <KNotestine@littler.com> on 05/10/2000 06:28:34 PM

To:   "'mcash@enron.com'" <mcash@enron.com>
cc:   "Williams, Dwayne" <DeWilliams@littler.com>
Subject:  Enron Europe

Michelle:

Enron has not paid us for the work we did for them related to the NJ law
issue.  The amount is $  8115.84.  Any thoughts about what we can do to
collect that amount?

Kerry E Notestine
Littler Mendelson, PC
1900 Chevron Tower
1301 McKinney Street
Houston, Texas 77010
713.652.4748
713.951.9212 (fax)
knotestine@littler.com
www.littler.com

----
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the
sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@littler.com

Littler Mendelson, P.C.
http://www.littler.com

----
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
email and delete all copies of this message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@littler.com

Littler Mendelson, P.C.
http://www.littler.com


Summary:

Late night efforts by the California assembly to craft a legislative solution
are falling short of market and creditor expectations.  Bankruptcy appears
increasingly likely, but the dynamics of a Ch.11 proceeding remain unclear.
SoCal Edison is likely to be the first in Ch.11 following its suspended
payments to creditors yesterday and is now in a 30 day cure period.  Attempts
to bring in the assets of the parent companies are unlikely to succeed.
Bankruptcy would provide Davis with some political cover to implement the
tough decisions that he has so far avoided on the questions of rate hikes and
other costs to taxpayers connected to the proposed operations of the
California Power Authority.

1. Legislation Passes Assembly, But Generators and Consumers Remain Unhappy

The first legislation (AB 1X)  passed the California general assembly last
night, but both generators and consumers are unhappy with the terms.
Generators object to the 5.5 cent per KW/H price in the proposed long-term
contract, while consumer groups such as the Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights object to the state acting as a purchaser of power.  The
legislation is expected to pass the Senate today and to be signed by Governor
Davis as early as tonight.

Press and source reporting this morning confirms that the principal financial
creditors and utility analysts are also unimpressed with the bill, which is
viewed as insubstantial and falling short of creating a solution to the
financial pressures on the utilities.

2. Financial Institutions Exposure to California Utilities

Bank of America: $215 million
J.P. Morgan: $202 million

There is a total of $12 billion in outstanding loans, but much of this
(arranged by Societe General) is to the parents National Energy Group and
Edison International.  The $417 million mentioned above is the most immediate
concern.  The Southern California Edison loans are subject to immediate
repayment in the aftermath of yesterday's rating downgrade to junk status.

The Fed will not be involved, except in a routine way as a bank regulator
making sure that the appropriate risk reserves are made against the
utilities' loans and securities. There is no moral hazard here, because the
Fed is not going to guarantee any of the utilities' credits, which, by the
way, they do not have the authority to do.

3. PG&E/National Energy Group- Shielding Assets

Despite considerable anger at  PG&E for reorganizing to shield its profitable
assets from its debt-plagued utility business, it would seem that Davis has
little authority to intervene. The question of "fraudulent conveyance", which
is a term in bankruptcy law for transferring assets to favored parties not
long before a filing (which transfer can then be reversed by the court) would
not seem to apply here, since PG&E went through a regulatory process before
FERC to seek approval for the reorganization on Friday.  While courts are
reluctant to overturn regulatory agencies, impaired creditors in a bankruptcy
proceeding could attempt an appeal.

4. Involuntary Bankruptcy- Which Creditor Moves First?

As for who is likely to move first, it is typically the smaller creditors or
those who won't receive a good price on post-petition business. In this
situation our source does not know who that would be, but believes it is more
likely that the utilities will file a voluntary petition before one of their
major creditors files an involuntary petition.

If Dynergy files a petition with a federal bankruptcy court today, the debtor
utilities can delay the process for weeks if they choose to, particularly
since there is no allegation of fraud or criminal misappropriation of
assets.  In bankruptcy proceedings (which is what is going on here), this
sort of talk by a creditor such as Dynegy is just the usual "polite
conversational opener," akin to comments about the weather or inquiries about
one's family's health.

5. Edison Teetering on the Brink- Moves Into 30 Day Cure Period

Yesterday, Southern California Edison temporarily suspended a $230 million
bond principal and interest payments as well as $151 million to suppliers of
renewable power and $215 million due to the California PX.  Both utilities
are under severe short-term debt pressure, but Edison is in the worst
position.

Edison
Due Thursday: Dynegy note; Dynegy has threaten to take take Edison into
bankruptcy court if they default

PG&E
Current available: $500M in cash and reserves
Due Feb:
 1st - $580M to ISO
 15th - $431M to California Power Exchange

Contrary to press reports and leaks from the Governor's office yesterday
about political brinksmanship, Edison is clearly not playing negotiating
games and is really short of cash. In this situation, it is unlikely that its
executives will be making fraudulent statements. The bonds on which they
failed to pay would have a 30-day cure period. After that the trustees will
move on Edison, if Edison has not already filed.  They have three ways of
financing power purchases going forward: 1) the state continues to buy power
and sell Edison (and PG&E) power on a short-term basis under existing
authority; or 2) pending the passage of today's legislation, the state
legislature authorizes the purchase of power through long-term contracts
under the proposed borrowing authority; or 3) Edison files for reorganization
under Chapter 11 and obtains almost immediately superpriority post-petition
lines of credit secured against its unmortgaged assets, which it uses to pay
for power until the PUC and the rest of the state government recognize that
rates have to increase.

6. New Hampshire Experience A Guide for Davis?

Following the bankruptcy of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the
bankruptcy judge was authorized by a higher court to mandate rate hikes.  The
prospect of imposed rate hikes from the bankruptcy court caused the state
government to subsequently determine that rate hikes to consumers were
unavoidable, passing a seven year rate hike of 7.5 percent.

For Davis, a similar scenario would provide him with some political cover, if
he were forced by the bankruptcy court to pass through rate hikes as part of
a settlement.


December 15, 2000

     Teco Tap       106.250 / HPL Gas Daily

     LS HPL LSK IC       30.000 / Enron

December 16, 2000

     Teco Tap       5.000 / Enron ; 120.000 / HPL Gas Daily

December 17, 2000

     Teco Tap       2.917 / Enron ; 120.000 / HPL Gas Daily


Rod,
Attached below is the draft Deal Approval Sheet for the Trailblazer
construction project.  Jerry Martin mentioned that ETS might be interested in
including an alternative in the bid response that offered a lease option on
the deal.
Jerry has asked me to follow up with you on this possibility.
What additional information would be helpful in considering the lease and
what would be the next steps?

---------------------- Forwarded by Sarabeth Smith/OTS/Enron on 12/06/2000
07:45 AM ---------------------------

Sarabeth Smith
12/05/2000 07:39 PM
To: Arnold L Eisenstein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Norm
Spalding/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Don Hawkins/OTS/Enron@Enron

Subject: Revised Trailblazer DASH

Arnold,
Attached is the revised DASH for Trailblazer,

In red on the first page the statement about the finance commitments needs to
be changed, however, you should probably provide the verbage for that because
you know what you want to say about the cancellation and cashflow curves.

Also, some of the names for sign off like G. Matthews (spelling?) need to be
verified and their project function should be verified also.

After you update the file, just e-mail the 2nd revision back to me.

We should probably consider setting up a directory on the OTS server as we go
forward to make the sharing of files easier.


Rick,
As follow-up to our discussion of today, we would like to explain our concerns.
EEL entities are under control of an administrator - Price Waterhouse - who represents the interest of the creditors of those entities.
All decisions regarding those entities are being made by the administrator.  Michael Brown, Fernley Dyson, John Sherriff are not in the building and to the best of my knowledge have resigned all directorships.
Most of the remaining employees (300) are working for the administrator.
There are, however, interests of Enron Corp which are housed in Enron House may not be getting the attention they deserve or , potentially more concerning, are being used or eyed by the locals for their benefit.

Examples are :
1) the contractual assets in ECTRIC which include financial trades, weather derivatives, nordic energy, some crude and products trading.
2) large in the money pumped storage trade which is in a US-based LLC - in the money by a net $50MM
3) Enron Direct is being offered for sale (JV with EES)
4) The TXU VPS contracts (currently under termination dispute) is being negotiated solely by administrators and their employees

Transactions are being terminated by counterparties, deals are being cut between the administrators and commercial for the dispostion of assets, and value is being eroded because no support staff will work without a reasonable expectation of being paid.  Finally, the administrators have been here for several weeks and seem woefully prepared to take on the task at hand.

We suggest that the Houston-based 'investor' (whether that is current managment or a trustee) ought to reconstitute some form of governance over its activities in Europe so that it can be assured of receiving maximum value for its assets here.

Currently, we have little capability to cause the local staff to provide us with the information and access to make informed decisions.

Please give us a call so we can discuss a course of action, if any, you would like us to take.

Ted


Jeff Porter is the CES person responsible for looking at their transport.
Last week, he said he was working on their transport numbers.  Also,
yesterday I informed Jeff about some transport CGAS had listed on the EBB.


----- Forwarded by Steven J Kean/NA/Enron on 03/09/2001 01:08 PM -----

	Tamara Hopkins/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/08/2001 08:53 AM

		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc:
		 Subject: Tammy Hopkins - Resume

 Steve, for the last two years I have been working for Shelley and my
responsibilities include working with the ETS  and NBPL to determine our
positions as it relates to the standardization process at GISB.  In the last
budget process, it was decided to reduce our level of support at GISB and my
position will be eliminated March 31.  I have been working with Cindy and her
Redeployment Team to look at other opportunities within Enron but to date, I
have not received an offer.  I would be interested in talking to someone in
your organization about any opportunities within Government Affairs.  If
there are any opportunities in your areas, could you direct me to the
appropriate person?

    Thanks!

      Tammy Hopkins


Here's the latest from GE.

When I spoke to Rob Stevens, he had a question about whether Mitsui needed to
review the final drafts of the GE agreements. I don't know the resolution of
that issue.

As you know, the current arrangement with GE requires payment within 3 days
of signing of the contracts, which means we have to be prepared to assign the
contract, then wire the money from EEIM to Mitsui immediately so that Mitsui
can pay GE, and GE can refund ENA.  Has EEIM been funded yet and has Mitsui
bought in on the payment plan?

I do not know the status of the tax issues raised by Jeff. I would also like
to make sure that Jeff agrees with the mechanism of superseding the prior
agreement with GE.

Kay

---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 06/06/2000 09:54
AM ---------------------------

jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com on 06/06/2000 09:47:54 AM
To: Kay.Mann@enron.com
cc: jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com, Brian.D.Barto@enron.com,
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com, David.K.Bargainer@enron.com,
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com

Subject: RE: Letter agreement

Kay,
I'm faxing to you the documents highlighted in RED, below.
So, it looks like we need to supercede these documents, along with the
assignment and assumption agreement.
I believe the entities I mentioned yesterday are still applicable.
If you have a different opinion, let me know.
Give me a call at 518-385-7722, and let's get the documents in condition to
be signed today or tomorrow.
Regards,
Jeff Smith

-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, June 06, 2000 3:44 AM
To:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com
Cc:   Kay.Mann@enron.com; jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com;
Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; john.schroeder@ps.ge.com
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

Thank you.  That would be helpful.
Kay

karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com>  on 06/06/2000
07:28:24 AM
To:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
   David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

The "MOU" consists of the GE proposal #80518 w/ offer letter of August 12,
1998, and J.M. Bollinger's (President, Cogen Tech) acceptance letter of
August 14, 1998.  These letters set the framework of the agreement,
including payment / termination schedule.  Invoicing & payments began in
September, 1998..and have continued on that basis until each of the
individual contracts for Linden & "Midwest" were consummated.  In Dec., 99,
at Enron's request,we allocated  funds paid to date to Linden and the "third
unit".  We'll forward copies of above.
Karl Siverling
-----Original Message-----
From:   Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com>
[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] <mailto:[mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]>
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 6:27 PM
To:   jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Cc:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com; <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com;>
Kay.Mann@enron.com; <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com;>
karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com; <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com;>
john.schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

The collective memory at ENA is that there wasn't an MOU per se, just the
assignment and assumption agreement.
Kay

jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>  on 06/05/2000
03:51:46 PM
To:   Brian.D.Barto@enron.com <mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com> ,
Kay.Mann@enron.com <mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com> ,
David.K.Bargainer@enron.com <mailto:David.K.Bargainer@enron.com> ,
   john.schroeder@ps.ge.com <mailto:john.schroeder@ps.ge.com> ,
jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

Brian,
I spoke to Karl today, and we tried to find the "MOU".  All we have found
was the "Assignment & Assumption Letter" you mention.  In that document, the
Enron and GE entities were; Enron Capitol & Trade Resources Corp. and
General Electric Company, respectively.
Regards,
Jeff Smith

-----Original Message-----
From:   Brian D Barto [mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]
<mailto:[mailto:Brian.D.Barto@enron.com]>
Sent:   Monday, June 05, 2000 12:45 PM
To:   Kay Mann
Cc:   karl.siverling@ps.ge.com; <mailto:karl.siverling@ps.ge.com;>  David
K Bargainer;
John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com; <mailto:John.Schroeder@ps.ge.com;>
Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com <mailto:Jeffreye.smith@ps.ge.com>
Subject:   RE: Letter agreement

I have a copy of the "Assignment and Assumption Letter"  where GE agreed
that Cogen Technologies could assign the rights to purchase the Units to
Enron Capital and Trade Resources, Corp.
The initials at the ECT signature block is Doug Pedigo's.
I have always been a little confused when Karl Siverling talks about
voiding
an
MOU, because I do not remember ever seeing an MOU for the Cogen Tech units.
Perhaps we could ask Karl to send us a copy of the document he intends to
void to make the process easier.


thanks for hanging out with me this weekend.
i had a good time, and i appreciate you being there for me.

b.


Thanks for your support.  We checked into the matching, but unfortunately
since the group raising this money was not formed as a Charitable
Organization under the tax reg's, the ability to get Enron to match is not
availible.  The goal of each golfer is to raise at least $1000 towards the
$150K goal, and your donation puts me over the $1K bar.

Thanks again.

Fred

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:37 PM
To: Mitro, Fred
Subject: Re: Golf for Sarah

I can't open the form, but I'm good for $50.  Is this something Enron can
match?

From: Fred Mitro/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/01/2001 01:34 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Golf for Sarah

Kay:

Here is the information on the charity golf outing we discussed.  Check out
sarahssoldiers.com for more information on Sarah and the efforts to help
her.

Attached at the bottom of this email is a pledge form.

Thanks for your support in this good cause.

Fred

---------------------- Forwarded by Fred Mitro/HOU/ECT on 04/12/2001 03:54 PM
---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Stephen Morse@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 04/12/2001 03:00:16 PM
To:

Enron Golfers:

Hey guys, Sarah Edwards is a friend of a friend's daughter who desperately
needs help to stay alive and all you duffers out there can help:

The 100 holes for golf for Sarah Edwards will be Monday June 4 at
Sweetwater CC. Sarah needs a lung transplant and
approximately $150,000 of the costs are not covered by insurance or
medicaid.

For more info on Sarah, visit Sarahssoldiers.com

Here is how the 100 holes for golf works:

*Free golf at Sweetwater
*You play as many holes as you can (100 is not mandatory)
* We provide your lunch, drinks and snacks
* You get pledges from your friends to play
*pledges may be flat amounts, per hole, per birdie or per eagle

Lets all keep Sarah alive! Can I get some other tentative commitments?

thanks!

Steve

Steve Morse
Enron Broadband Services
713-853-7137-work
713-569-7912-cell
email:  stephen_morse@enron.net
 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>

 - pledge.doc << File: pledge.doc >>


Here is the latest version of the contract, which just went out to the
customer.  The next step is a negotiations meeting scheduled for this
Thursday.  Our objective is still a close early next week.

Cheers,

Harald

---------------------- Forwarded by Harald Jensen/HOU/EES on 06/05/2001 03:04
PM ---------------------------

	Enron Energy Services

	From:  Mike D Smith                           06/05/2001 02:52 PM

To: ESwenson@kslaw.com, reggie_hedgebeth@homedepot.com,
jim_laird@homedepot.com, jmuelle@simpson.com
cc: Laurie Malone/HOU/EES@EES, Harald Jensen/HOU/EES@EES, Angela
Schwarz/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: Documents

Attached you will find the master agreement and the confirmation for the CA
facilities.  I have marked in red provisions that we have added or deleted
based upon our conversation last week and your subsequent comments.  We will
need to discuss further with you any comments that you have given that we
have  not addressed in this draft.

We look forward to meeting with you on Thurs.  MDS


Please arrange as many of these as you can.  Michelle

-----Original Message-----
From: Skinner, Cindy
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:04 AM
To: Cash, Michelle
Subject: FW: Mid Year PRC
Sensitivity: Confidential

Attached is the email between Robin Johnson and Melissa Becker I described to you.

Also, while at Nepco, I would suggest you have an introductory meeting with:

    John Gillis (President)
    Dan Haas (SVP of Operations)   (#2 guy)
    Mike Indivero (Sr. Dir. - HR)
    Robin Johnson (Lead Generalist)
    Gloria Rivas (HR Training & Dev.)
    David Lund (AGC)

-----Original Message-----
From: Skinner, Cindy
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 1:31 PM
To: mike.indivero@nepco.com
Subject: FW: Mid Year PRC
Sensitivity: Confidential

Mike:

I was somewhat disturbed by Robin's email below and unclear as to why Melissa Becker needed to know how NEPCO participated in the PRC process.  I would like to discuss this with you as soon as you return from your trip.  I realize NEPCO is a little different.  However, Robin and the rest of the NEPCO team need to understand that as long as they are part of Enron, they will, in some form or fashion, participate in the current performance management process.  Robin needs to discontinue using the term "forced" and begin using the term "preferred".  Also, please explain to Robin that in the overall EEOS PRC meeting held in Houston, in which both John Gillis and Dan Haas participated as voting committee members,  the Enron-wide preferred distribution process was adhered to.  I would like to clear up this confusion as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Cindy

-----Original Message-----
From: Walton, Sheila
Sent: Thu 7/19/2001 6:52 PM
To: Skinner, Cindy
Cc:
Subject: FW: Mid Year PRC

FYI.  Is it wise to put this in writing???

Sheila

-----Original Message-----
From: Becker, Melissa
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:37 AM
To: Walton, Sheila; Yowman, Andrea
Subject: FW: Mid Year PRC

FYI

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Robin
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:38 AM
To: Becker, Melissa
Cc: Mike.Indivero@nepco.com
Subject: RE: Mid Year PRC

Hi Melissa:

Sorry for the late response.  NEPCO did not participate in the preferred
distribution for PRC.  The only group that I am aware of within NEPCO that
was "forced" to recognize it was the HR department and we are still
discussing the outcome of that exercise and forced ratings.  Let me know if
you have any other questions!

THANKS!

Robin Johnson
HR Manager
11831 North Creek Parkway, North
Bothell, WA  98011
425-415-3178
Fax:  425-415-3199

-----Original Message-----
From: Becker, Melissa [ <mailto:Melissa.Becker@ENRON.com>]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:41 PM
To: robinj@nepco.com
Subject: Mid Year PRC

Hi Robin.  Hope all is going well in Bothell.  I have a quick question
about PRC ( the performance review process we use in Houston).  Does
NEPCO use the same process of 360 feedback, followed by assigning
employee ratings based on a preferred distribution, followed by
communication with the employee?  I heard that some parts of NEPCO use
it and some don't.  Could you give me the "lowdown?"  Thanks!


Per Mr. Steven Kean, of Enron Corp. please see below ( Appendix C - Order 888
"Allegations of Public Utilities Exercising Transmission
Dominance).

                                                                 APPENDIX C

          Allegations of Public Utilities Exercising Transmission Dominance

          I.  Examples From Proceedings Before Administrative Law Judges

               These are examples of allegations that various public

          utilities have refused to provide comparable service, either

          through refusals to wheel, dilatory tactics that so protracted

          negotiations as to effectively deny wheeling, refusals to provide

          service priority equal to native load, or refusals to provide

          service flexibility equivalent to the utility's own use.

               A.  American Electric Power Service Corp. (AEP)

               In 1993, AEP filed, on behalf of its public utility

          associate companies, an open access tariff that offered only firm

          point-to-point service with very limited flexibility.  It did not

          offer network service, flexible point-to-point service, or non-

          firm service.  Thus, it did not provide customers with the same

          flexibility that AEP itself has.  Nor did it provide a service

          priority equivalent to that enjoyed by native load.  The

          Commission set AEP's tariff for hearing and, on rehearing, held

          that in order not to be unduly discriminatory, the tariff had to

          offer comparable service.  American Electric Power Service Corp.,

          64 FERC 4 61,279 (1993), reh'g, 67 FERC 4 61,168 (1994).

               At hearing, Raj Rao of Indiana Michigan Power Agency (IMPA)

          (Ex. IMPA-1, Feb 23, 1994) and Kenneth Hegemann of American

          Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (AMP-Ohio) (Ex. AMPO-1, Feb 23, 1994),

          both senior management officials, testified concerning AEP's
,

                                        - 2 -

          alleged discriminatory practices. 1/  AMP-Ohio is an

          association of municipalities in Ohio, some of whose members

          depend on AEP for transmission and partial requirements service.

          IMPA is an association of municipalities in Indiana, and many of

          IMPA's loads are captive to the AEP transmission system.  The

          witnesses alleged as follows:

                    1.  In anticipation of high peak demands, AEP would

               contract for large blocks of available short-term power,

               withhold sale of short-term power, refuse to transmit third

               party short-term power, and require purchases from AEP at

               the emergency rate (100 mill/kwh) when an emergency might

               not exist.  Ex. AMPO-1 at 6.

                    2.  In December 1989, AMP-Ohio negotiated a 20 MW

               purchase of short-term power from Louisville Gas & Electric

               Company (LG&E).  AEP refused to wheel because LG&E had

               earlier that day told AEP it had no power to sell to AEP.

               AEP then bought the power from LG&E and offered to resell it

               to AMP-Ohio.  Ex. AMPO-1 at 6-7.

                    3.  In January 1990, AMP-Ohio solicited bids for

               February power purchases from a number of utilities

               including AEP.  AEP was not the winning bid.  AMP-Ohio made

               arrangements to purchase the power from four winning bidders

               and sought transmission through AEP.  When AMP-Ohio gave AEP

          1/   After the Rehearing Order expanding the scope of the
               proceeding, AMP-Ohio and IMPA withdrew this testimony as no
               longer necessary.  This withdrawal does not change the fact
               that the testimony was sworn to under oath.
,

                                        - 3 -

               the schedule for delivery, AEP refused to transmit the

               power, matched the average price of the winning bids, and

               made the sale itself.  Ex. AMPO-1 at 7.

                    4.  In August 1993, an AMP-Ohio member (Columbus, Ohio)

               was purchasing 10 MW of hourly non-displacement power from

               AEP and, after AEP raised its price to 60 mills/kwh, sought

               another source for the next hour.  Consumers Power Company

               and Detroit Edison Company both offered non-displacement

               power at 40 mills.  AEP refused to transmit, saying it had a

               600 MW unit out and could not resell power from another

               source. 2/  Columbus cancelled the transaction and had to

               buy 10 MW of power from AEP at 100 mills/kwh.  Ex. AMPO-1 at

               7-8.

                    5.  In July 1993, two AMP-Ohio members (Columbus and

               St. Mary's) had been buying hourly non-displacement power

               from AEP when the price rose to 35 mills.  Dayton Power &

               Light Company (DP&L) offered to sell at 23 mills and AEP

               agreed to transmit for one hour.  But for the next hour, AEP

               said it had problems with its system, refused to transmit

               the power, kept the power from DP&L for itself and offered

               to sell power to AMP-Ohio for Columbus and St. Mary's at 100

          2/   AEP generally limited its offer of short-term transmission
               to buy/sell transactions; that is, AEP would buy the power
               from the seller and resell it to the purchaser.
               Supplemental testimony of AEP Witness Baker (Ex. A-73) at
               27-29.  Often, the terms of the buy/sell transaction
               required transmission dependent utilities (TDUs) to maintain
               reserves and meet contractual commitments for at least a
               year.  Id.
,

                                        - 4 -

               mills.  Columbus increased its local generation, but St.

               Mary's purchased 8 MW at 100 mills.  For the next hour, AMP-

               Ohio arranged with DP&L for another 8 MW, hoping AEP would

               transmit under the 24 hour buy-sell agreement.  AEP did

               transmit this power.  Seven hours later in the day, St.

               Mary's Greenup Hydro project power was available and the 8

               MW from DP&L was no longer needed.  If St. Mary's had been

               receiving the hourly power that AEP had refused to transmit,

               St. Mary's could have switched to Greenup power.  But

               because AMP-Ohio had changed to daily service, St. Mary's

               had to pay a demand charge for the entire day, even though

               it used the power only 7 hours and would have paid less

               under the hourly rate.  Ex. AMPO-1 at 8-9.

                    6.  In January 1994, AMP-Ohio sought to transfer power

               from one member with generation to other members, which

               required transmission over AEP and Toledo Edison lines.

               Toledo Edison said yes, AEP said no.  AMP-Ohio's northern

               members purchased emergency power from Toledo Edison.  AMP-

               Ohio then reminded AEP that it had agreed not to deny

               transmission and AEP agreed to transmit.  Ex. AMPO-1 at 9.

                    7.  IMPA arranged to buy 80 MW of short-term power from

               LG&E and have it wheeled, using buy-sell arrangements,

               through Public Service Company of Indiana (PSI) and AEP to

               serve IMPA's load at Richmond (an IMPA member).  The

               delivered price was $.292 per kW-day plus a 1 mill adder.

               At the same time AEP arranged to buy 300 MW from PSI at $.30
,

                                        - 5 -

               per kW day plus out-of-pocket energy costs.  Hence, PSI was

               shipping a total of 380 MW to AEP with 80 MW of that amount

               to be delivered to IMPA's load at Richmond.  Then, on a day

               when IMPA should have received the 80 MW, AEP told IMPA that

               PSI had sold everything to AEP and that IMPA would have to

               buy from AEP at $.63 per kW day plus the cost of energy from

               AEP.  IMPA purchased from AEP under protest.  AEP used its

               control over transmission to intercept the 80 MW at a lower

               price and resell it as short-term power to IMPA.  AEP

               claimed that PSI had terminated its sales to AEP on that

               day.  But the 80 MW was independent of PSI's other sales to

               AEP and would not have been interrupted if AEP had not

               interrupted it.  IMPA-1 at 7.

                    8.  IMPA has combustion turbines owned by and located

               at one member, which IMPA would like to connect to the Joint

               Transmission System owned by IMPA, CINergy and Wabash Valley

               Power Association.  To do so, IMPA needed a metering

               agreement with AEP, to which AEP would not agree.  IMPA-1 at

               6.

                    9.  In January 1994, IMPA had power to sell from its

               turbines when AEP and others needed power.  IMPA offered

               power to AEP but AEP it said could not purchase the power

               without an existing contract.  Moreover, since there was no

               short-term tariff, IMPA could not sell the power to another

               utility.  IMPA-1 at 6.

                    10.  Another example of the utility engaging in
,

                                        - 6 -

               dilatory tactics that raised the customer's transaction

               costs and effectively denied transmission is the "sham

               transaction" provision proposed by AEP.  As filed, AEP's

               tariffs permitted it to deny service merely because a

               portion of the transmitted power might be used to serve a

               former retail customer of AEP.  See, e.g., Ex. BR&WVP-1 (J.

               Bertram Solomon testimony, February 23, 1994).  (As part of

               a settlement AEP filed the pro forma tariff and withdrew

               this provision.)

                    11.  Finally, AEP's originally filed tariff contained a

               "prodigal customer" provision.  Under this provision,

               transmission customers who sought to convert back to

               requirements service had to give AEP five years' notice, in

               which case AEP and the customer would enter into

               negotiations to determine whether AEP will provide service

               at all and if so under what rate, terms, and conditions.

               Ex. S-39 at 1 (Staff testimony).  AEP did not require notice

               from all new customers, only from prodigal customers.  Id.

               at 2.  That a potential customer was previously served by

               AEP is not a reason to treat the customer differently.  (AEP

               withdrew this provision when it filed the pro forma tariff.)

                    B.  Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy)

               Entergy filed a partial settlement largely adopting the NOPR

          pro forma tariffs except for two provisions (headroom and

          ancillary services).  Because the settlement predated the filing

          date for customer testimony before the ALJ, the customers did not
,

                                        - 7 -

          address the need for Entergy to file a tariff.  However,

          customers did make allegations of discriminatory practices, as

          follows.

                    1.  Customers alleged that Entergy flat-out refused to

               wheel.  Louisiana Energy and Power Authority (LEPA) witness

               Sylvan J. Richard testified that LEPA's predecessor systems

               could not obtain interconnections from Entergy.  Ex. SJR-1

               at 50.

                    2.  Customers also alleged that Entergy refused to

               provide service priority equal to native load and refused to

               provide service flexibility equivalent to the utility's own

               use.  For example, LEPA witness Richard testified that even

               after state commissions ordered interconnections and other

               coordination services, LEPA's predecessors were still not

               able to obtain coordination services because Entergy was not

               willing to coordinate and because the transmission service

               it did offer was inflexible, unidirectional point-to-point

               service, which prevented economic coordination with others.

               Id. at 50-51.

                    3.  South Mississippi Electric Power Association

               (SMEPA) witness J. Bertram Solomon testified that Entergy's

               original "open access" tariff was restricted to point-to-

               point service, proposed separate charges for each operating

               company, and required the cancellation of existing

               agreements in order to take service under the proposed

               tariff.  Ex. SMEPA-10 at 28.  Entergy eventually filed a
,

                                        - 8 -

               network tariff, but proposed different local facilities

               charges for the various Entergy public utility operating

               subsidiaries.  Id. at 29.  Since these local facilities

               charges were higher than the transmission component of the

               subsidiaries' bundled rates, Entergy obtained a competitive

               advantage.  Id.

                    4.  The Arkansas Cities and Cooperatives (ACC) is a

               group of cities and cooperatives that own or operate

               electric generation or distribution systems in Arkansas.

               ACC Witness Steven Merchant testified that Entergy has

               segregated the wholesale market between two of its

               subsidiaries, Arkansas Power & Light Copmpany (APL) and

               Entergy Power, Inc. (EPI).  Ex. SMM-1 at 16.  In marketing

               power and energy in Arkansas, EPI is subject to an Arkansas

               Commission order that bars EPI from competing with APL for

               wholesale loads without first obtaining a waiver.  Id.

               Recently, EPI requested this waiver for all wholesale

               transactions in Arkansas except for wholesale customers

               currently served by an Entergy subsidiary; in other words,

               EPI requested the Arkansas Commission to expand competition

               for all wholesale customers except where EPI might compete

               with APL.  Id.  ACC witness Merchant concluded that, since

               EPI does not compete with APL, Entergy insulates APL's

               wholesale business from competition and denies those

               wholesale customers access to EPI as a source of power,

               thereby limiting alternative generation sources available to
,

                                        - 9 -

               ACC.  Id. at 17-19.  (Entergy's witness Kenney stated that

               Entergy has recently filed a joint motion with ACC to the

               Arkansas Commission seeking to extend the waiver and permit

               EPI to sell to APL's wholesale customers.  Ex. JFK-11 at 14-

               15.)

               C.  Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)

               Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) attached several

          documents to its 1988 complaint in Docket No. EL89-4.  These

          documents were provided to support NCPA's claim that PG&E's

          unreasonable practices under the PG&E/NCPA Interconnection

          Agreement (IA) effectively denied NCPA access to transmission

          properly requested under the IA.  Although the parties eventually

          settled and the Commission terminated the docket with a letter

          order dated May 18, 1988, these documents provide allegations of

          PG&E using dilatory tactics that so protracted negotiations as to

          effectively equal a refusal to wheel. 3/

                    1.  PG&E stated that since transmission was not

               currently available, it was entitled to wait 72 months

               before providing transmission; that is, transmission access

               could not be granted before the passing of the 72-month

               notice period.  NCPA 1988 Complaint, Ex. 3.  However, the IA

          3/   All of these incidents are related to and examples of PG&E's
               conduct described in the NOPR (FERC Stats. & Regs. 4 32,514
               at 33,073 n.151), that is, the history of PG&E's attempt to
               avoid its commitments made to the California owners of the
               California Oregon Transmission Project (COTP).  However,
               these incidents are not exactly the same as the incidents
               described in the NOPR, because NCPA is not one of the owners
               of the COTP.
,

                                        - 10 -

               provided that transmission be provided when it becomes

               actually available.  PG&E also requested substantial

               additional information, which NCPA considered beyond that

               reasonably necessary for a study, but still provided.  PG&E

               then determined that transmission was not available,

               reasoning that transmission was unavailable unless all the

               transmission requested could be provided 8760 hours per year

               without restrictions or limitations, extending through the

               expiration of the agreement in 2013.  NCPA 1988 Complaint at

               9.

                    2.  On November 27, 1987, NCPA made a new transmission

               request to PG&E, seeking 50 MW of bi-directional

               transmission at Midway.  NCPA 1988 Complaint, Ex. 5.  On

               January 28, 1988, PG&E filed an interconnection agreement

               with Turlock Irrigation District (TID) that provided TID

               with 50 MW of bi-directional transmission at Midway.

               Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 42 FERC 4 61,406, order on

               reh'g, 43 FERC 4 61,403 (1988).  On February 22, 1988, PG&E

               advised NCPA that all firm transmission service available at

               Midway had been fully subscribed.  NCPA 1988 Complaint, Ex.

               6.  Then, on March 29, 1988, PG&E filed with the Commission

               an interconnection agreement with Modesto Irrigation

               District (MID), that provided MID with 50 MW of bi-

               directional transmission at Midway.  Pacific Gas & Electric

               Company, 44 FERC 4 61,010 (1988).  At about the same time

               (in the last week in March 1988), PG&E advised NCPA that the
,

                                        - 11 -

               allocations of transmission to TID, MID, and others,

               including a not yet finalized allocation to Sacramento

               Municipality Utility District, had used all the transmission

               available at Midway.  NCPA 1988 Complaint, Exs. 7 and 8.

               D.  Northeast Utilities Service Company (NU)

               This is the case where Northeast Utilities acquired Public

          Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) (Docket No. EC90-10).  New

          England Power Company (NEP) witness Robert Bigelow's direct

          testimony expressed concern over the "relatively restrictive

          transmission policies of both" NU, on behalf of Northeast

          Utilities' public utility subsidiaries, and PSNH.  Bigelow Direct

          Testimony at 21 (filed May 25, 1990).  In his cross rebuttal

          testimony, Mr. Bigelow testified that "NU has a poor track record

          as a provider of transmission service" and "PSNH also has an

          abhorrent track record as a provider of transmission services."

          Bigelow Cross Rebuttal Testimony, at 3 (filed June 20, 1990).

          Mr. Bigelow described both NU's and NEP's (his own company)

          failure to provide service flexibility equivalent to their own

          use.  Except for NEP's TDUs, both NEP and NU historically

          provided only point-to-point transmission, which required

          separate scheduling for each transaction.  Bigelow Cross Rebuttal

          at 4.

               E.  Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and
                   Electric Company

               The evidence in this merger proceeding (Docket No. EC89-5)

          included testimony from a number of witnesses describing
,

                                        - 12 -

          instances of Edison's conduct.  Richard Greenwalt was the power

          supply supervisor for the City of Riverside, California.  He was

          responsible for scheduling all purchases of energy for Riverside

          and for the cities of Azusa, Banning and Colton, California.

          Greenwalt testimony at 1 (November 1989).  (These four cities and

          Anaheim, California, are collectively referred to as the Southern

          Cities or Cities.)  Joseph Hsu was the Director of Utilities for

          Azusa.  Hsu testimony at 1 (November 1989).  Gale Drews was the

          electric utility director of Colton.  Drews testimony at 1-2

          (November 1989).  Bill Carnahan was the director for Riverside.

          Carnahan testimony at 1 (November 1989).  Gordon Hoyt was the

          general manager of the Anaheim power department.  Hoyt testimony

          at 1 (November 1989).  Dan McCann was the power coordination

          supervisor for Anaheim.  He supervised Anaheim's load scheduling

          and is a former Edison employee, having worked for Edison for 20

          years.  McCann Testimony at 1-2 (November 1989).  These witnesses

          testified that Edison refused to wheel as follows.

                    1.  Edison's policy was to curtail the Cities any time

               it could be justified using any of a list of acceptable

               reasons to deny interruptible transmission service.  Id. at

               22-23.

                    2.  Edison would not generally provide transmission

               service when Edison could save money by itself purchasing

               the economy energy that would be wheeled.  McCann testimony

               at 19.  The Cities called Edison every hour to request

               interruptible transmission service.  Id..  Edison often
,

                                        - 13 -

               refused to sell energy available in the Western Systems

               Power Pool to the Cities and then made available higher cost

               contract energy or partial requirements service.  Id. at 19-

               20.

                    3.  When Anaheim requested Edison provide firm

               transmission of power from neighboring states, Edison would

               often agree to provide non-firm service but would not

               integrate the capacity for many years in the future, saying

               that its control area did not need capacity at that time.

               Hoyt testimony at 9.  Since the selling utility was

               interested in a sale of capacity, not just energy, the

               transaction would not occur.  Id.  Edison repeatedly used

               its control over transmission to deny Anaheim access to low-

               cost firm power.  Id. at 9-10.

                    4.  While Edison provided short-term firm transmission

               service to the Cities, it would only provide long-term firm

               service for three specific resources:  the SONGS nuclear

               plant, a specific IPP, and Hoover Dam power.  Hoyt testimony

               at 20.  One of Edison's reasons for denying long-term

               transmission was that Edison desired to reserve the

               transmission for its own future (unspecified) needs.  Id.

                    5.  In the 1970s, Edison refused to allow the Cities

               access to the Pacific Intertie.  Hoyt testimony at 21; Drews

               testimony at 7-8.

                    6.  In 1988, Edison refused to provide transmission

               service for a Cities power purchase from Public Service
,

                                        - 14 -

               Company of New Mexico (PSNM) from Palo Verde Nuclear

               station.  Hoyt testimony at 21.

                    7.  Edison has refused to provide requested firm

               transmission from

                    - California-Oregon border to Midway Station

                    - Nevada-Oregon Border to Sylmar Substation

                    - Palo Verde Switchyard to Vista

                    - SONGS Switchyard to Vista.

               Carnahan testimony at 15.

                    8.  Riverside requested transmission from Palo Verde

               and was told that such service was not available.  Carnahan

               testimony at 16.  Edison offered Riverside only 12 MW of

               curtailable transmission entitlement to provide Riverside's

               share of Palo Verde.  Id.  This service was neither large

                    enough or long enough, and Edison insisted on

                    unreasonable terms and conditions.  Id.

                    9.  Azusa, Banning and Colton had a contract with

               Edison that entitled them to use their Palo Verde firm

               transmission path to schedule energy to meet their contract

               energy obligation.  Edison refused to permit the three

               cities to use that path.  Edison did not contest that the

               contracts allowed this use, but said that the scheduling of

               such small amounts of energy for the three cities would be

               too burdensome.  Greenwalt testimony at 14.

                    10.  Edison would not respond in a timely manner to the

               Cities' requests, routinely taking months to respond.  Drews
,

                                        - 15 -

               testimony at 15.

                    11.  During the 1980s, Edison provided Colton with some

               transmission service to allow the Cities to reach certain

               suppliers, but limited the choices available to the Cities

               and imposed terms and conditions that increased the Cities'

               costs and placed Colton at a disadvantage against Edison.

               Drews testimony at 9.  Arranging alternative generation

               sources was difficult because the Cities always had to first

               get Edison to state whether it would provide transmission.

                    12.  During 1988 and 1989, a dispute arose between

               Edison and the Cities concerning the Hoover Uprating

               Project.  Drews testimony at 16.  Edison argued that for the

               months when units were out of service for uprating, and

               Southern Cities capacity was reduced to zero, Southern

               Cities would not receive an energy credit, even though

               energy was still available and used by Edison.  But the

               contracts allowed a participant who did not have capacity to

               still schedule its energy as non-firm energy on the capacity

               of another participant.  Id. at 16-17.

                    13.  In 1986, Azusa negotiated a power purchase

               contract with the California Department of Water Resources

               in increments of first 5 MW and then 2 MW (for a total of 7

               MW).  Hsu testimony at 14.  First Edison assured Azusa that

               the transmission for the additional 2 MW would not be a

               problem.  Id.  Then Edison would not agree to amend the

               transmission service agreement for the additional 2 MW.  Id.
,

                                        - 16 -

                    14.  In 1986, Azusa notified Edison of Special

               Condition 12 4/ purchases from PG&E and requested firm

               transmission service.  Id.  Two months before service was to

               begin, Edison notified the Cities of a problem with the

               transmission lines.  Id.  Transmission was eventually

               granted, but only after a four-month delay and substantial

               losses to the Cities.  Id.  Then Edison decided there was no

               problem with its transmission facilities.  Id. at 14-15.

                    15.  In 1986-87, the Cities purchased 20 MW from PG&E

               and 80 MW from Deseret G&T Cooperative.  Hoyt testimony at

               7-8.  Edison stated that without reinforcement of its

               transmission system, Edison would not provide the

               transmission.  Id.  There was a five-month delay during

               which the Cities were forced to purchase from Edison at a

               higher cost.  Id. at 8-9.  Then Edison decided that the

               transmission system did not need reinforcement.  Id. at 8.

                    16.  Edison also refused to provide a service priority

               equal to that of native load.  It would curtail the Cities

               in order to purchase more economy energy for itself.  McCann

               testimony at 28.  If Edison could make the purchase, it

               would curtail the City and use the energy for itself.  Id.

               When Edison curtailed the Cities, they were not able to

          4/   Special Condition 12 of the Integrated Operations Agreement
               between Edison and the Southern Cities defined certain
               Special Condition 12 resources and allowed the Cities to
               make certain uses of those resources, subject to certain
               restrictions.
,

                                        - 17 -

               purchase economy energy and instead purchased energy from

               Edison.  Id. at 24.

                    17.  According to Edison, the interruptible

               transmission it provided the Cities was interruptible for

               any reason.  Id. at 20.  A purchase could be terminated the

               hour after it is begun or even during the hour.  Id.  As a

               result, the Cities lost opportunities to make advantageous

               economy purchases.  Id. at 20-21.

                    18.  Edison also refused to provide customers

               flexibility similar to the flexibility Edison provided

               itself.  Edison's refusal to provide bi-directional

               transmission service restricted the Cities' abilities to

               purchase hydroelectric energy from the Pacific Northwest.

               Hoyt testimony at 22.  Because most contracts with Northwest

               utilities require a return of power, the Northwest utilities

               would not deal with the Cities without transmission to

               return energy.  Id. at 22-23.  Edison did provide bi-

               directional transmission to the Los Angeles Department of

               Water & Power (LADWP) to accommodate flows to and from

               Arizona.  Id.

                    19.  Riverside was unable to obtain non-firm service

               more than two hours in advance of need.  Carnahan testimony

               at 18.

                    20.  Riverside and Colton were both served out of

               Edison's Vista substation.  Although the two cities were on

               the same 69 kV bus, Edison would not allow them to sell
,

                                        - 18 -

               energy to each other.  Greenwalt testimony at 17.

                    21.  Riverside's agreement with Edison allowed

               Riverside to purchase a block of energy through the WSPP and

               divide it up among the four Cities (Azusa, Banning, Colton

               and Riverside).  Greenwalt testimony at 17.  When Riverside

               had excess energy from other sources, Edison would not

               permit it to sell that energy to the other three cities.

               Id.  For example, Riverside attempted to sell Deseret energy

               transmitted by LADWP to the Edison system.  Id. at 17-18.

               LADWP would not break out the Cities' shares of that energy,

               and Edison would not accept the energy as a delivery for all

               four cities.  Id. at 18.  Edison argued that because this

               energy was excess energy that Riverside could not use,

               Riverside did not have transmission rights to bring it into

               the control area.  Id.  As a result, Riverside paid for the

               energy delivered by LADWP to the Edison control area, but

               could not sell it to the other three cities, and gave it to

               Edison itself, which consumed the energy without making any

               payment for it.  Id.  Riverside tried a number of

               alternative paths, including using WSPP transmission where

               Riverside paid Edison 5 mills to connect to Azusa, 5 mills

               to connect to Banning, and 5 mills to connect to Colton for

               each megawatthour.  While this approach was successful for a

               while, eventually Edison refused to permit these sales.

                    22.  Edison claimed that the Cities only have

               transmission rights to bring in enough Special Condition 12
,

                                        - 19 -

               energy to satisfy the Cities' load.  Greenwalt testimony at

               18.

                    23.  Edison contended that the Cities' load

               requirements were satisfied first by integrated resources

               and then by Special Condition 12 and economy energy

               purchases.  Id. at 19.  When the Cities' integrated

               resources exceeded their load, any Special Condition 12

               resources became excess.  Under Riverside's Deseret

               contract, the Cities were required to take a minimum of 35

               MW each hour.  Id.  Edison acknowledged that it was

               obligated to buy, or allow the Cities to sell, any excess

               energy from Riverside's integrated resources.  Id.  However,

               Edison refused to give the Cities credit for excess Special

               Condition 12 energy brought into the area, claiming that the

               Cities could not have brought it in because they did not

               have transmission rights.  Id.

          II.  Other Examples of Transmission Disputes

               Disputes over transmission are not uncommon, contrary to

          EEI's suggestion.  Some recent examples taken from pleadings and

          other documents and from Commission orders reveal that it has

          been very difficult for various entities in the electric power

          industry to agree on transmission rights.  These examples also

          reveal that even after issuance of AEP and the Open Access NOPR

          with its proposed pro forma tariffs, there has been considerable

          controversy over whether various utilities' "open access" tariffs

          deviate from those tariffs.  (The Commission has allowed
,

                                        - 20 -

          utilities that adopt tariffs that match or exceed the non-rate

          terms and conditions in the NOPR pro forma tariffs to obtain

          certain benefits.)

                    A.  In a letter of February 3, 1995 to Mr. Gerald

               Richman of the Commission's Enforcement section in the

               Office of the General Counsel, Steven J. Kean, Vice

               President, Regulatory Affairs, Enron Power Marketing, Inc.

               (Enron) alleged that Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NiMo)

               refused to wheel power from Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E)

               to Enron under RG&E's transmission contract with NiMo;

               however, when Enron revealed the buyer, NiMo did wheel power

               for RG&E to the buyer.  Mr. Kean alleged that this was not

               an isolated incident.  NiMo argued that the contract did not

               require it to provide RG&E with transmission to Enron.  It

               also said that the principle of comparability does not

               require the service.  Letter of November 21, 1994 from NiMo

               representative A. Karen Hill to Gerald Richman.

                    B.  The Commission's Task Force Hot Line (Hot

               Line) received a complaint that a member of the New

               York Power Pool (NYPP) refused to transmit power that

               another member bought from a power marketer.  In a

               letter of November 17, 1994, from Chair Moler to Mr.

               William J. Balet, Executive Director of NYPP, Chair

               Moler explained that the Commission's enforcement staff

               had investigated and found the allegation to be true.
,

                                        - 21 -

                    C.  In Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency

               v. Northern States Power Company (Minnesota), 73 FERC 4

               61,350 (1995), NSP and SMMPA had a contract under which

               NSP agreed to provide transmission service.  However,

               the parties had numerous disputes over the service.

               The Commission found that NSP had misinterpreted the

               contract in several ways.  For, example, SMMPA argued

               that it should be able to directly schedule its

               deliveries of energy out of the NSP control area and

               that it should not be limited to particular points of

               delivery.  NSP argued that only it was entitled to

               control the physical operation of scheduling.  The

               Commission found that the clear language of the

               contracts gave SMMPA the authority to schedule its own

               power.

                    D.  Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, 72 FERC 4 61,223

               (1995), involved MAPP's membership criteria, which made it

               impossible for a power marketer to join MAPP and obtain the

               benefits of certain transmission services available only to

               MAPP members.  The Commission found that the membership

               criteria may be unreasonable, particularly since there may

               be less burdensome ways of setting up membership criteria

               for non-traditional entities.

,


Week from HELL!!!!


Hey!

Kathy from EPE asked if we could start to put all the preschedules with the exception of the SPS studd in the original preschedule are and not in the direct bill area.

Geir


Wholesale electric prices soar anew
By Carrie Peyton
Bee Staff Writer
(Published Dec. 13, 2000)

With wholesale prices again soaring on California's biggest power-trading
market, grid operators called the year's 30th "stage two" electric emergency
Tuesday.
One consumer group estimated that if those prices continued and were passed
along to ratepayers, the average Californian's electric bill would be $620 in
December.
Electric rates are currently frozen, although Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
and Southern California Edison are fighting in federal court and before the
state Public Utilities Commission to end the freeze and pass along their
costs.
Although prices reached $1,500 a megawatt-hour Tuesday on the California
Power Exchange, where most of the state's electricity is traded, problems
with new trading rules drove the average price much lower.
The issue, which revolves around how prices should be revised to reflect
space crunches on transmission lines, is fueling anxiety between two
California power agencies, the PX and the Independent System Operator, which
runs the transmission grid.
On Tuesday, the glitch produced two sets of prices -- an average of $1,182 a
megawatt-hour before the transmission calculations dropped it to $258.
One year ago, the average PX price was about $30.
The issue is expected to simmer at least until Friday, when the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission will consider the state's electricity chaos.
Meanwhile, Tuesday's wholesale costs fueled more calls to re-regulate
electricity.
"The prices that we're seeing are so out of whack ... it's just obscene,"
said Doug Heller, a consumer advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights, which promises a 2002 ballot initiative on the issue.
As the ISO declared a "stage two" emergency Tuesday and called for continuing
efforts to conserve electricity, the agency's chief operating officer, Kellan
Fluckiger, predicted that more power could soon be available.
Power plants capable of generating 1,000 to 1,500 megawatts are expected back
on line by the end of the week, Fluckiger said.
By week's end, only about 7,000 megawatts of capacity might be off line, he
said, compared with 11,000 megawatts last week.
Copyright , The Sacramento Bee


In the next few days, 250 randomly selected U.S.-based employees will receive Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work for in America" survey.  Check your home mailbox.  You could be one of the lucky ones to receive this very important survey.

The input you provide in this survey is the most important element in the evaluation process.  Your honest and open responses, as well as written comments about your personal Enron experiences, will help Fortune gain an insider's viewpoint.

So look for the survey in your home mailbox.  Thanks for your participation.


From East Power's perspective, the East PJM development site is the only site/turbine of interest and we should pursue pending transmission analysis to ensure the site is within the congested area of East PJM.

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Don (Asset Mktg)
Sent: Sat 10/13/2001 11:32 AM
To: Jacoby, Ben; Whitaker, Rick; Marks, David; Presto, Kevin M.; Davis, Mark Dana; Calger, Christopher F.; Tricoli, Carl
Cc: Duran, W. David; Kitchen, Louise
Subject: Development/Turbine Opportunity

I have just received a letter which outlines the following sites and turbines which are for sale in the market.  Please let me know if any of you have any interest and we will sign the CA and get more detailed information.  I have additional details at my desk but will limit this email to a brief summary.

SITES
Site A: PJM  - Central (PA) 1100 MW gas/oil fired CC using Siemens V84.2 or GE 7FA.  Brownfield site located on Susquehanna River in PA.

Site B: PJM - East (NJ) 550 MW gas/oil fired CC using GE 7FA. Brownfield site along Delaware River in NJ.
Site C: PJM - West (PA) 1100 MW gas/oil fired CC using Siemens V84.2 or GE 7FA. Greenfield in western PA.
Site D: PJM - West (PA) 1100 MW gas/oil fired CC using GE 7FA.  Brownfield in western PA. Site is located on existing gas storage field.

Some of the sites have access to multiple gas and oil pipelines.  All four sites have queue positions in the PJM process and have received completed PJM Feasibility Studies.  Two of the sites have completed Impact Studies.

TURBINES
6 Siemens V84.2 gas turbine generators with deliveries from Aug 2002-April 2003.
2 Alstom Steam Turbines for V84.2 applications with delivery May 2003 and Oct. 2003.

6 GE 7FA Turbines for duel fuel operation with dry low-NOx combustors.  Delivery is as follows: 2 - Nov. 2002,  2 - March 2003, 2 - Nov. 2003.

3 Alstom Steam Turbines for 7 FA Application with delivery May, July and Oct 2003.

Let me know if anyone has any interest.

Thanks,

Don


Outlined below are some details of the existing curve validation process and
its application to the proposed validation of tariff curves.

Wholesale Curve Validation

The existing process incorporates validation of all wholesale curves and
includes monthly validations and random curve reviews. Every month, results
of the validation are summarized in a memo and distributed to the Senior
Management. Results of the random curve reviews are brought up to the
attention of Desk Heads responsible for the respective curves and Senior
Management as necessary.

Curve Assessment
 Green:
  - curve is reasonable
  - small P&L impact from curve shift
 Yellow:
  - curve is illiquid
  - medium-to-large position and P&L impact from curve shift
  - some ability to validate prices from external sources
 Red:
   - curve mark is inaccurate (based on external data obtained)
  -  curve is illiquid: no ability to validate externally
  - significant positions and P&L impact from curve shift

Curves that are inaccurately marked based on data obtained from external
sources are urged by the Senior Management to be corrected. In the cases
where external data is not available or clear, the Senior Management urges
the respective Desk Head not to increase an already large illiquid position
or to built in a risk premium by widening the respective bid/offer spread and
not to take on positions inside of that spread.

Selection Criteria
The criteria for monthly curve selection are the following:
 P&L sensitivity
 Largest positions
 Staleness (curves have not been marked for a period of time)
 Completeness (curves that have not been validated in a long time)

The main criteria for random curve validation is new deals.

Curve Validation Tools
Broker Quotes/Other external data
Graph Analysis (curve slope vs. a peer group, curve humps/sculpting vs. a
peer group, curve shift vs. position shift, etc.)
New Deal Analysis (comparison of curve marks and executed/quoted prices)
Boundary Analysis/V@R Simulations (comparison of curve to simulated curve
boundaries using Enron's V@R Engine)
SAVA Model Comparison (comparison of curves to model generated results)

Tariff Curve Validation

Scope/Timing:
ASAP - 20 curves with the largest positions related to deals pending review:
(Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats, Starwood) - to ensure timely and smooth approval of
these deals.
Next 30-days - 20 curves with the largest positions/P&L impact
Monthly/Quarterly - 20 curves selected based on criteria described above
Randomly - curves with significant positions/P&L impact, resulting from new
deals

Data Gathering:

This Month:  Listing of 20 curves (related to deals in progress) and the
related support requested by EGA (to be provided by Scott Stoness)
On-going Basis:  The process of obtaining data should be streamlined and the
curve validation process should be relatively painless:
    - RAC should have access to the curve data (Minal Dalia is fully devoted
to EES and is currently residing on the EES floor)
    - Curve assumptions should be documented (to be provided by Scott Stoness)

Execution/Reporting:

RAC, EGA and EES Risk Management Group work together on curve validation
utilizing available tools and work on developing new tools
Utilize the Wholesale Curve Assessment methodology (Green, Yellow, Red)
Generate a curve validation report (see template attached)
Provide feedback to the Desk Heads and distribute the Curve Validation Report
to Enron and EES Senior Management

Other Curves

Other curves related to EES business should be gradually incorporated into
the aforesaid process (ancillary services, congestion, DSM and labor related
curves) - let us set a timetable.

In conclusion, curve validation results should be evaluated in conjunction
with other risk analytics: stress testing of prices, volatilities and
correlations, Value-at-Risk/Capital-at-Risk analysis, performance measures,
capital allocation framework, etc.

Vlady.


Jeff asked that I send this to you.  THIS MUST BE FILED BY FRIDAY.  We're trying to get as many parties as possible to join with us. Love to have you with us.

Here is the first draft.


Well, I think there is a light at the end of the tunnel...but not soon enough
for Armin.  I am afraid he is not going to make it to the end of the week, his
parents have him soooo stressed out.  I won't even go into what all they are
doing to him, you wouldn't beleive it!

Claudia, our housekeeper, is WONDERFUL! She has us all cleaned out and
organized, IT'S GREAT!  I don't have to do a thing, no vacuum, no laundry, no
cleaning, no ironing, nothing!!! AND  she's a great cook!  Right now she's
cooking my favorite...schweinebraten with klo?e and sauce!  She makes enough
for
lunch that we can have it in the evening if I don't want to cook.  I am
getting
spoiled rotten and I love it!  She's also very good company, alot of fun.  I
can't wait until we are all at the new building, all moved into the house too.

The carpet man is at the building now putting down the glue stuff that the
carpet sits on for the office, the carpet comes tomorrow!  Then we can start
putting furniture in!  I have already packed up all the files that I could and
those boxes are in the archive room at the new office.  The phone gets turned
on, on Friday!  I will have a direct number to my desk, I think it's going to
be
991199119, I have 50 to choose from and I think I like that one.  Then for the
private house 991199111.  Armin and Lolo have to program the system this week,
they don't always have alot of luck when they tackle this task...cross your
fingers for them!  Armin needs something to go smoothly for a change.

Today we received our first payment from a customer!  It's so exciting to
finally make some money from all the work Armin does!  I hope it keeps coming
in
and the stock market keeps going up and the Euro down!  Then we can finish the
house!!!  I still still don't know the date for when that will be, I hope in
another month to know more.  Armin wants to do so much of the work himself
but I
don't know when he has the time. J_rgen, Lolo, Mitch and John all have been
helping him.

Our highs here are not hitting 30o F.  But at least it's dry, the snow is gone
and there isn't ice on the streets. Have ya'll warmed up there now?   Our
coldest temp this year was like 16oF and I didn#t like that but at least it's
dry.

Well, Claudia said lunch is ready, so gotta go for now!  I will try to do
better
on my emails I haven#t been sending many lately to anyone!  Hope you are
well!  (Got any gossip???)

Love,
Connie, Armin and Angus


Looks fine to me.

Kay

From: Gregg Penman on 10/26/2000 01:49 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Risk Committee approval

per the policy, the risk committee has to approve the initial policy.  can
you look at this and let me know if it works.

Thanks,

Gregg


the closest airport to long beach is long beach.  you can get a direct
flight i'm sure.  let me know, i still need to buy you dinner and let you
spill all your knowledge of the gas market......

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim.Ward@enron.com [mailto:Kim.Ward@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:54 AM
To: estrickland@mieco.com
Subject:

Hey, where is the closest airport to Long Beach?  May be in town on april
26th.  Trying to get from San Jose to Long Beach.


RedMeteor.com	www.redmeteor.com	Broker/matching site
		Crude Oil, Electricity, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids
HoustonStreet.com	www.houstonstreet.com	Broker/matching site
		Electricity
Altra Energy Technologies, Inc.	www.altra.com	Broker/matching site with some
electronic back-office services and software packages
		Natural Gas, Power
Enermetrix.com Exchange	www.enermetrix.com	Many-to-many Exchange?
		Electricity
Coral	www.coralconnect.com	&One-to-many8 proprietary site
Bloomberg Power Match

NGX	www.ngx.com	Many-to-many Exchange w/ clearing
		Natural gas
CoalHub	www.freemarkets.coalhub.com	Auction site ) details unknown
		Coal

Essentials	www.essentials.com	Retail electricity, natural gas, propane,
internet access, communications
Utility.com	www.utility.com	Retail electricity, internet service provider and
home warranties

ChemConnect	www.chemconnect.com	Broker/matching site
		Chemicals
GE Polymerland	www.gepolymerland.com	&Big Toe8 for polymer resins?
PlasticsNet	www.plasticsnet.com

RateXchange		Bandwidth

PetroCosm	www.petrocosm.com	&Energy Industry Marketplace8 ) probably limited to
oil filed equipment, etc.
Schlumberger IndigoPool	www.indigopool.com	Information only re: Oil and Gas properties
offered for sale


Attached is PIRA's extended Daily Demand Report.

Please contact Morris Greenberg and Victoria Watkins for more information
regarding these reports at [mailto:morris@pira.com] and
[mailto:vwatkins@pira.com], respectively. For distribution requests, contact
John Graziano at [mailto:jgraziano@pira.com]. We can all be reached at (212)
686-6808.

 - ed042601.pdf
 - ed042601.xls


In case you did not have this,Fairbanks is our contact re stolen property.
Freddie took the property
----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 04/22/2001 01:48 PM -----

To Do

Subject:
Call Jonathon Fairbanks 713-850-9002w/713-703-8294c and Freddy Fredrickson
713-882-2279c re stolen mat

Starts:

Priority:

Due:

Type:

Others cannot see any details about this event.

Have Notes notify you before the event.

Categorize:

Description:


let's try to set-up a call with Geof on Wednesday or Thursday.

hunter


I have changed the Trade Zone on the meter mentioned below.  If anybody has any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,
Ryan Sheeren

Enron Net Works
Global Facilities
ryan.sheeren@enron.com
(713)853-5817

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Grant, George
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 3:14 PM
To:	Love, Phillip M.; Pendergrass, Cora; Sheeren, Ryan; Severson, Russ
Cc:	Kinsey, Lisa; Sweitzer, Tara
Subject:	RE: New Trade Zone for PGLC

I meant the new TTP zone, so no problem. I went ahead and mapped PGLC/TTP just like PGLC/NGPL.

GG

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Love, Phillip M.
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 2:03 PM
To:	Pendergrass, Cora; Grant, George; Sheeren, Ryan; Severson, Russ
Cc:	Kinsey, Lisa; Sweitzer, Tara
Subject:	RE: New Trade Zone for PGLC

Russ/George - has this new location been mapped to the same curves as the previous location - PGLC/NGPL?  From my standpoint, I think that is the only thing that needs to be done with the exception of changing/adding swaps on these deals.  Please let me know.  Thanks.
PL

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Pendergrass, Cora
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 1:52 PM
To:	Grant, George; Sheeren, Ryan; Severson, Russ
Cc:	Kinsey, Lisa; Love, Phillip M.; Sweitzer, Tara
Subject:	RE: New Trade Zone for PGLC

We have moved november deals to the new location?? is that going to be a problem??  They were previously on PGLC/NGPL/909285 and they were moved to PGLC/NGPL/TTP.  These deals will need to be moved to the new trade zone of TTP.    Is there anything else we need  to do for Sitara?? and if so who do we need to contact?   THanks!!

COra

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Grant, George
Sent:	Friday, October 19, 2001 1:15 PM
To:	Sheeren, Ryan; Severson, Russ
Cc:	Pendergrass, Cora; Kinsey, Lisa
Subject:	RE: New Trade Zone for PGLC

 It is important to note that no deals can be moved to this new location until this location is mapped in Sitara,(mid, notional, and gas daily curves)
otherwise any deals booked there will error out in CPR.

Thanks
GG

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sheeren, Ryan
Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:57 PM
To:	Grant, George; Severson, Russ
Subject:	FW: New Trade Zone for PGLC

FYI

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Pendergrass, Cora
Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:50 AM
To:	Sheeren, Ryan
Subject:	RE: New Trade Zone for PGLC

Ok i am getting with Patrice.  We were thinking that it would be November 1 but I think Patrice wants this set up ASAP
I will get back with you as quickly as I know.  Thanks!!!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sheeren, Ryan
Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:38 AM
To:	Pendergrass, Cora
Subject:	FW: New Trade Zone for PGLC
Importance:	High

Cora,
	George Grant has set up the new Trade Zone, TTP, for Meter No. TTP, on PGLC.  He has told me there are 44 deals behind Meter No.

TTP with the Trade Zone of PGLC.  Please let me know when a good time to change the Trade Zone is.

Thank you,
Ryan Sheeren

Enron Net Works
Global Facilities
ryan.sheeren@enron.com
(713)853-5817

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sheeren, Ryan
Sent:	Wednesday, October 17, 2001 2:00 PM
To:	Grant, George; Sweitzer, Tara
Subject:	FW: New Trade Zone for PGLC
Importance:	High

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sheeren, Ryan
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:48 PM
To:	Grant, George; Severson, Russ
Cc:	Hilliard, Marlene
Subject:	FW: New Trade Zone for PGLC
Importance:	High

Mr. Grant,

	Cora Pendergrass is  asking for a Trade Zone in PGLC to be created.  She also would like me to change the Trade Zone on meter

TTP to this new Trade Zone.  She has told me she has already changed the deals behind the meter to match the new Trade Zone.

I will change the Trade Zone with your final approval.

Trade Zone:	  PGLC TTP		Meter:	TTP		Pipecode:      PGLC

Please let me know as soon as possible.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hilliard, Marlene
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:04 PM
To:	Sheeren, Ryan
Subject:	FW: New Trade Zone for PGLC
Importance:	High

Will you please take of this.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Pendergrass, Cora
Sent:	Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:03 PM
To:	Severson, Russ; Campos, Sylvia A.; Hilliard, Marlene
Cc:	Kinsey, Lisa
Subject:	New Trade Zone for PGLC
Importance:	High

Effective November 1, 2001 we need to set up a new trade  zone for PGLC.  The new zone should be called PGLC TTP.  The meter number TTP should be mapped to this new trade zone.  It is currently under NGPL.  We have moved deals for November 1, 2001 to this new point on ENA, EMW and ENV.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  Also we are trying to get to a point to upload this file for next month so when this is updated can you let me know?  Thanks for your help!!

Cora
3-9138


these looks good to me except for the lower case "h" in the Hub phys that we
already talked about.

fletch


nov 29th........

  later .....


Stinson,

The 1st presentation.

Vince


This is an update on the O:Research folder.  We have had a case of sevral files getting deleted from the folder last evening.

The IT folks are currently restoring these from the backup they had from yesterday.  They will be replacing the files that were deleted but will not be overwriting those files that are still there.

This incident puts an air of urgency on the O:Research directory access project that I had written to the group about.  Bhala has been coming around to members in your groups over the last week to get a list of folders that you are responsible for, and the desired access rights to these folders.  This is information that only you can provide, and without this we cannot start limiting the access of people already having access to the folders.  (Incidently, I am currently rejecting all write access requests from outside the group till I have approval from one of you).

Please do treat this as an urgent undertaking in light of the incident yesterday.  We have already created a separate O:Research/External folder where we need to house all those folder/files where access is broader than the Research group.  Please help us expedite this process.  We would like to have this in place before the weekend.

Regards,
Sandeep.


Finney,

Congratulations on the new baby!

Are you sure you picked up the right one at the hospital?  She is too cute to
have anything to do with you.  Hope everybody is doing good and ya'll are
getting at least a little sleep.

Daren


Yes, thanks.  I was aware.  I just couldn't remember if it was you or Terry.

Thanks, Kim.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Buchanan, John
Sent:	Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:41 AM
To:	Watson, Kimberly
Subject:	RE: New TW Hotline

Kim,
The new TW Hotline was implemented Monday which included customer notification in the form of a Popup message in TMS and a Critical Notice which sent an Email. The new Hotline phone number is 713-853-3044. I was under the impression that Terry Kowalke had notified you of the implementation, TK was also made aware.

John Buchanan

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Watson, Kimberly
Sent:	Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:37 AM
To:	Buchanan, John
Subject:	RE: New TW Hotline

John, sorry for the late response, but I think you can implement immediately.  I was in a meeting last week and this was discussed (I don't remember if you were there or not) but I'm thinking that you may have already proceeded ahead for implementation which is great, thanks!

Kim.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Buchanan, John
Sent:	Friday, February 01, 2002 1:08 PM
To:	Watson, Kimberly; Lohman, TK; Kowalke, Terry
Cc:	Corman, Shelley; Holmes, Bradley; Blair, Lynn
Subject:	New TW Hotline

The telephony group has the new TW Hotline number and extensions ready for use, I have the solution center entering the greetings and Terry Kowalke has a new form and procedure for the Customer Service Reps. to use for updates.

How much notification would you like to give the TW customers before implementing the new TW Hotline phone number?
We can do a Popup notification along with changing the number on the Web page, we can also put out a Critical message which will send an Email to customers. Do you think we need to do more?

Thanks: John Buchanan


Today we filed with FERC 5 paper direct testimonies and numerous exhibits that constitute Enron's affirmative case against the Pacific Northwest refund claims.  The filing, in Gary's and my view, is quite strong and is part of and supported by the larger sellers' group - the Transaction Finality Group.  In addition, we filed under seal Enron's ripple case offer of proof.  This was made possible by a motion that we won this morning that allowed us to proceed with aggregate claims in a quasi-public forum, but, at the same time, file our individual ripple claims only with the judge, protected from all public disclosure.  Please call me if you have any questions.

Jeffrey D. (Dan) Watkiss
Bracewell & Patterson, LLP
2000 K St., N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, D.C.   20006-1872
(202) 828-5851
dwatkiss@bracepatt.con
jdwatkiss@aol.com


Attached are the 750 & 1000 MMcf/d cases we discussed earlier.  I've copied Doug Cybrek too so he will have the latest.

Ron Matthews


FREE ACCESS TO 11 HARDCORE SITES!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?11FreeSites

CUM SHOTS - Hot chicks that will suck you dry and beg for more!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?CumShotFantasy

BIG TITS - Hooters so huge a man could get lost for days!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?BigTitFantasy

HOUSE WIVES - Would you want other men jerking off to pics of your wife?
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?HouseWifeFantasy

PURE SMUT - The original house of pure filth and smut!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?SmutFantasy

BLACK CHICKS - Ever seen a black snatch up close?  Shockingly pink!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?AfricanFantasy

ASIAN LADIES - Schoolgirls that look pure and innocent, gang banged in girls room
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?AsianFantasy

VOYEUR - You just want to watch?  They didn't know they were being filmed!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?VoyeurFantasy

LESBIANS - Bright red lips on pure pink wet pussy...What a sight!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?LesboFantasy

TEENS - To young to be tainted, they just loves sex, pure and simple!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?TeenageFantasy

PANTY SHOTS - Wet white cotton, see-through black lace...Your choice!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?PantyFantasy

ANAL SEX - Fucked up the ass so hard that it might not work as nature intended anymore...
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?AssFantasy

FETISH - Ever seen a hot blonde nurse give an enema to a scared french maid?
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?IllFantasy

Still undecided?
CLICK HERE TO VIEW YOUR CHOICES!
http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?11FreeSites

You are subscribed as dutch.quigley@enron.com
To unsubscribe, follw this link http://list.emailbucks.com/unsubscribe.jsp?id=MdzqJp%2FH4VZlqHGW47QfPLhvxj%2BuvvsGiHdocdjSsSk%3D


I spoke with Stuart Zisman and he assured me that there are no deals being considered for assignment in relation to the sale of New Albany.

Stacey

From:	Theresa Vos/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/21/2001 09:26 AM
To:	Jon Paul Lewis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacey W White/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Jody Pierce/ENRON@enronXgate, Georgeanne Hodges/ENRON@enronXgate, Stuart Zisman/ENRON@enronXgate

Subject:	New Albany

As you may or may not know, we are in the processing of selling New Albany.  Does the Capacity Payment that was marked in January $12.5MM need to be unwound with the sale?  If so, what is the impact if it is unwound at 9/30/01.  I am putting together a calculation on the gain or loss on sale and I need this information before it can be distributed.

Thanks!
theresa
x58173


Thought you might find this interesting!


All:  I spoke with Kim this morning and although she is anxious to meet
everyone, we decided that it would be more productive to try to schedule a
luncheon meeting to discuss current issues related to the confirmation desk.
I understand that Joe Hunter, Melissa Murphy and David Dupre will be
providing Kim with a list of "issues" and we have been invited to add to that
list.

Please send me your list of any confirmation issues that you would like
raised with Kim which I will cumulate and forward.

You may ignore the message below.  Thanks.  Sara

----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 10/26/2000 10:17 AM -----

	Yolanda Ford
	10/25/2000 05:01 PM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan
Bailey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Samantha Boyd/NA/Enron@Enron,
Stephanie Panus/NA/Enron@Enron, Melissa Ann Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert
Bruce/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Brent Hendry/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: Kim S Theriot/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yolanda Pena/Corp/Enron@Enron, Becky
Spencer/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Financial Confirmations Issues

Please plan to attend a meeting regarding Financial Issues on Monday the 30th
from 10:00am to 11:00am in EB3125B.  If you are unable to attend please call
me directly at X3-9030. The meeting will be hosted by Kim Theriot Manager of
Power and Gas Documentation.

Many Thanks,
Yolanda