Bob, see the quote about $83 /5-yr power

GAC

Article 1   Next Article    Return to Headlines

Moody's:Won't Downgrade Calif Utils To Junk Before Jan 4

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Moody's Investors Service doesn't expect to reduce the
debt ratings of California's two largest utilities below investment grade
status before state regulators meet on a rate hike on Jan. 4.
But the ratings agency said in a press release Friday that it might still cut
the ratings of PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison
International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison next week to a level
short of speculative status, and set strict terms for what it would consider
a favorable ruling by regulators on Jan. 4.

"Moody's will continue to review for possible downgrade the ratings of
Southern California Edison Company and its parent, Edison International, and
the ratings of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its parent, PG&E
Corporation, and may take additional rating action next week prior to the
January 4th meeting," Moody's said. "However, it is not anticipated at this
point that any rating action taken prior to the January 4th meeting would
result in the ratings of the utilities or their respective parents falling
below investment grade."

Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have lost a combined $8
billion since May buying wholesale power at prices that far exceed the fixed
rates they're allowed to charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power
plants the utilities still own, but the net losses are substantial and
mounting. Both utilities have said they soon will become unable to continue
buying power for their customers if the situation persists.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned Wednesday that both utilities face
imminent default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status
unless California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission agreed rate hikes
were needed.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise," the commission said
in a written statement. "It is our intent to maintain the utilities' access
to capital on reasonable terms."

But the commission deferred a final ruling on rates until Jan. 4, pending
hearings on the matter scheduled for next week.

Standard & Poor's wasn't immediately available to comment on the decision.

Moody's said Friday that the PUC's decision was a "necessary first step" in
restoring the utilities to financial viability. Comments by the PUC and other
officials indicated their desire to maintain the utilities' investment-grade
status, Moody's said.

But Moody's set strict terms for what must come out of the PUC's Jan. 4
meeting if the utilities are to avoid being downgraded to speculative status.

"Specifically, at that meeting, the utilities need to obtain the right to
immediately raise rates by a sizeable amount and must obtain the unquestioned
and unambiguous ability to recover past and future wholesale procurement
costs," Moody's said. "The failure by the CPUC to act in a prompt and
constructive way around these two issues could result in the utilities'
ratings being downgraded to below investment grade."

Such a downgrade would hurt the utilities' ability to fund power purchases
and day-to-day operations, Moody's said.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

Article 2   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

POWER POINTS: Calif Utils Won't Fail; Competition Will
By Mark Golden

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

A Dow Jones Newswires Column <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Fans of the movie "Erin Brockovich" have been tempted
to fantasize about executives from California's two main investor-owned
utilities, PG&E Corp. (PCG) and Edison International (EIX), heading to
bankruptcy court.

Dream on.

True, this week the utilities didn't get either of the two things they need
to escape the astronomically expensive spot market for electricity in
California: a rate increase and long-term contracts with independent
generators at prices they can afford under new rates. With lending sources
virtually dry, both utilities have said they are about to run out of the cash
needed to continue buying electricity in the spot market.

But hearings on a rate increase are scheduled to resume next week followed by
the California Public Utilities Commission vote on Jan. 4, and long-term
contract negotiations are to resume Jan. 3.

Both negotiations are likely to succeed in keeping the companies afloat
because almost all parties would lose with the utilities under Chapter 11
protection and because the price to save the utilities isn't that high. The
rate increase decision was postponed Thursday because California Governor
Gray Davis and his CPUC are trying to give the corporations only what they
need to survive and not a penny more. If Davis succeeds - he is insisting on
an independent audit of the holding companies and all subsidiaries -
shareholders can expect to see their dividends cut.

Sorting out the finances of the $21 billion PG&E, which is the 73rd largest
U.S. company, and $10 billion Edison International must be daunting.

But here are the basics: First, the utilities have to get out of the spot
market. SCE charges residential and small commercial customers 12 cents a
kilowatt-hour, of which 6.6 cents - or $66 a megawatt-hour - goes for
electricity. The rest covers transmission and distribution, some other costs
and the utility's profit.

In the day-ahead and spot market, where SCE has been buying almost half the
power it needs, the utility has been paying about $350/MWh. Rates, obviously,
won't be tripled so that SCE can continue to buy power in the spot market.

But the company can purchase five-year supply contracts at about $78/MWh
currently, which it could do with a mere half-cent increase in rates. Since
the company is already making plenty of money on the coal-fired and nuclear
generators that it owns, a half-cent increase on all the electricity it sells
could be applied to all of its outside purchasing, which comes to an extra
$10 a megawatt-hour.

Edison International is in a more dire immediate cash situation because the
utility is two-thirds of the parent company, but Pacific Gas & Electric faces
a more difficult situation operationally. PG&E gets only 5.4 cents/KWh, or
$54/MWh, from customers for electricity, while wholesale prices in northern
California are more expensive than in southern California. Finally, PG&E has
to buy about two-thirds of the power it needs in the wholesale market,
compared to SCE's 50%, because it sold off more of its power plants, as
dictated by deregulation legislation, more quickly than SCE.

Still, PG&E could pick up five-year supply contracts at about $83/MWh. A
two-cent increase to its basic rate of 10 cents would give PG&E $30 more per
megawatt-hour - or $85/MWh - to spend on power purchases.

But a 20% increase may not be necessary. The governor's staff needs to find
out the details on the substantial long-term deals PG&E had the foresight to
sign back in October. Those deals were done at less than $55/MWh, and they
kick in Jan. 1.

The governor's staff may also look at the unexpectedly high profits from
SCE's and PG&E's nuclear power plants. The utilities have cut costs at the
plants, so instead of making just 6% return on capital, the utilities have
been getting a net gain of 30% on nuclear revenues, according to Bob
Finkelstein of The Utilities Reform Network. If the utilities say
deregulation decisions such as the rate freeze must be reexamined because
they are bankrupting the utilities, then, TURN says, the deregulation
decisions that have resulted in unexpected gains for the utilities should be
looked at, too.

Nevertheless, retail competition in California is dead for another five
years. The utilities get their modest rate increases with the insistence that
they lock up their needed supplies under long-term contracts. The contracts
will be approved by the CPUC, which means the utilities are guaranteed to be
paid for the costs even if wholesale power prices fall below $80/MWh in three
to four years, as expected.

The only way to ensure that the utilities get paid is to add a new
"non-bypassable" transition cost to customer bills for five years, which
means that even if a customer chooses an alternate power supplier, they will
still be sending money back to PG&E and Edison to pay for this year's
debacle.

The current non-bypassable charges, which are scheduled to end in March 2002,
are what has killed retail competition since 1997. Competitors can't offer
much in the way of savings, so almost nobody bothers to switch.

Electricity traders and regulators wonder why the utilities keep buying so
much power at the last minute through the Independent System Operator, which
will pay almost anything to keep the lights on. Right now, the ISO is paying
$700/MWh for power that readily could have been bought Thursday for $400/MWh.

This practice over the past six months has run up Edison's debt to a
projected $2.3 billion at the end of December and PG&E's to $4 billion.
(Edison overstates its real losses by 50%; PG&E, by 33%.)

So, for about $6 billion dollars, the utilities will get a rate increase and
four more years of protection from competition in their $20 billion business.

These guys are good.

Was all this intentional? Go ask Erin Brockovich.

-By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604; mark.golden@dowjones.com

Article 3   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Industry Watchers Confident About Rate Increase for California Utilities

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Business News

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

NEW YORK -- Some observers now believe that troubled California utilities
Edison International and PG&E Corp. will get some relief at the start of the
new year after state regulators at least opened the door to electricity-rate
increases the two utilities said they need to stay in business.
Many expect the California Public Utility Commission to authorize a rate
increase at a scheduled Jan. 4 meeting. ABN Amro Inc. analyst Daniel Ford was
so optimistic he upgraded Edison shares to "buy" from "hold."

Shares of the two companies, which own the state's largest utilties, hit
52-week lows Thursday. In midday trading Friday on the New York Stock
Exchange, PG&E (PCG), which owns Pacific Gas & Electric, was up $1.06, or 6%,
to $19.31 while Edison International (EIX), parent of Southern California
Edison, was flat at $14.94.

On Thursday, the California PUC tried to reassure jittery credit markets that
they won't let the state's big utilities go broke. Still they stopped short
of ordering the kind of immediate relief utilities and their lenders want:
rate increases big enough to cover exploding wholesale power costs in the
state's deregulated energy market.

Instead, the California PUC ordered audits of utility records and scheduled
hearings for next week, needed to provide a legal basis for eliminating a
rate freeze that has protected most consumers from spiraling wholesale power
costs.

Soaring power costs in supply-short California have produced a political
crisis in the state, which four years ago led the nation in deregulating its
power industry. Wholesale electricity for delivery Sunday and Monday in the
West sold for $200 to $400 a megawatt-hour Thursday, about 10 times its
year-ago level.

Edison Internaitonal's Southern California Edison unit and PG&E's Pacific Gas
and Electric Co. have said they are more than $8 billion in debt due to the
price they must pay for electricity and the inability to pass on the higher
costs to consumers due to a state-mandated freeze. Between one-third and
one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power plants the utilities
still own in the state, but the net losses are substantial and mounting.

Both utilities have said they soon will become unable to continue buying
power for their customers if the situation persists. Earlier this week
ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned that both utilities face imminent
default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status unless
California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

The utilities' deteriorating credit situation has left some generators
reluctant to supply power to California without guarantees they'll be paid.
The Department of Energy has issued an emergency order requiring power
suppliers in the West to sell uncommitted electricity to California on demand
until Dec. 28.

Consumer groups, which say the utilities are overstating their financial
woes, decried the PUC decision.

According to Mr. Ford, the utility's fate now rests in the hands of the
Standard & Poor's. He expects S&P to downgrade Edison's utility debt by "a
notch or two to keep politicians honest," but stop short of giving the
companies junk bond ratings.

Another ratings concern, Moody's Investors Service, said it doesn't expect to
reduce the debt ratings of the two utilities below investment grade status
before regulators meet on Jan. 4. Moody's said it might cut the ratings next
week to a level short of speculative status, and set strict terms for what it
would consider a favorable ruling by regulators.

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

All Rights Reserved.

Article 5   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Consumer Grps Oppose Calif PUC Hint Will Raise Util Rates

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

<~> (This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Two consumer advocate groups Thursday objected to a
California Public Utilities Commission order suggesting it will decide Jan. 4
to increase retail electricity rates for customers of the state's two largest
investor-owned utilities.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise. It is our intent to
maintain the utilities' access to capital on reasonable terms," the order
says.

Spokesman Bob Finkelstein of San Francisco-based The Utility Reform Network
said such statements indicate the PUC is "kowtowing to Wall Street" rather
than protecting ratepayers.

Michael Shames, spokesman for San Diego-bas notion that rate increases are
inevitable, which isn't a position anyone in the consumer movement takes,"
Shames said.

The PUC will hold evidentiary hearings Dec. 27 and Dec. 28 on a rate
stabilization plan by Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California
Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The utilities have said they are more than $8 billion in debt due to an
inability to pass higes the PUC has something in mind to do, but they need to
claim they had a public process before doing it," Finkelstein said.

The PUC also will look into claims by the two consumer groups that the
utilities aren't as financially strapped as they say. The utilities' debt due
to "undercollections" is counterbalanced by a separate account of proceeds
from the sale of stranded assets, the consumer groups say.

-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872;
jessica.berthold@dowjones.RES1771

Calif Ruling On Pwr Rates Leaves Util Credit In Question

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~> By Andrew Dowell <~> Of
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- California regulators opened the door Thursday to the
retail rate hikes the state's two largest utilities say they need to stay in
business.

But they failed to take decisive action needed to settle the question of
whether PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International
(EIX) unit Southern California Edison will be able to sustain the mounting
costs of buying wholesale power for their customers.

Ratings agency Standard & Poor's warned Wednesday that both utilities face
imminent default and a downgrading of their debt ratings to junk-bond status
unless California officials acted immediately to raise rates and restore the
utilities to liquidity.

On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission agreed rate hikes
were needed.

"We believe that retail rates in California must rise," the commission said
in a written statement. "It is our intent to maintain the utilities' access
to capital on reasonable terms."

But the commission deferred a final ruling on rates until Jan. 4, pending
hearings on the matter scheduled for next week.

The utilities welcomed the possibility of a rate hike, but expressed concerns
that the commission hadn't acted decisively enough.

"This is a significant change in the commission's approach," said PG&E Corp.
spokesman Shawn Cooper. "The real question is whether the action they are
taking today will inspire confidence in the financial community to allow us
to continue to provide power to our customers. Hopefully, the financial
community will take the commission action seriously enough to wait until Dec.
27 and 28 to make a decision on our credit rating."

Southern California Edison said in a statement that it "wished the commission
had acted more decisively."

Standard & Poor's wasn't available to comment on how the PUC's action might
affect its outlook for the utilities.

Shares in PG&E Corp. and Edison International plunged to 52-week lows
Thursday ahead of the commission's ruling, which was expected.

     Utilities' Power-Market Losses Continue To Mount

Soaring power costs in supply-short California have produced a political
crisis in the state, which four years ago led the nation in deregulating its
electric utility industry. Wholesale electricity for delivery Sunday and
Monday in the West sold for $200-$400 a megawatt-hour Thursday, about 10
times its year-ago level.

The utilities have lost a combined $8 billion since May buying wholesale
power at such prices, which far exceed the fixed rates they're allowed to
charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of that figure is offset by profits from power
plants the utilities still own in the state, but the net losses are
substantial and mounting. Both utilities have said they soon will become
unable to continue buying power for their customers if the situation
persists.

Southern California Edison, which said this week it won't be able to pay a
power bill that comes due Jan. 4, said in a statement Thursday that it will
soon adopt a "cash preservation" plan that could involve layoffs and cuts in
operations. Company executives were in talks with bankruptcy attorneys
Thursday to plan their next move, a Southern California Edison executive
said.

The utilities' deteriorating creditworthiness has left some generators
reluctant to supply power to California without guarantees they'll be paid.
The U.S. Department of Energy has issued an emergency order requiring power
suppliers in the West to sell uncommitted electricity to California on demand
until Dec. 28.

Consumer groups, which say the utilities are overstating their financial
woes, decried the PUC decision.

"The most disturbing part is this notion that rate increases are inevitable,"
said Michael Shames, spokesman for San Diego-based Utility Consumers Action
Network.

The utilities were seeking rate increases of up to 30%. State officials were
reluctant to accept anything beyond 10%, an amount analysts said is
insufficient.

The commission said it deferred its decision on the matter to create time for
evidentiary hearings and an independent audit to determine how much of an
increase is needed.

Consumer groups, however, were skeptical.

"It is clearly a sham procedural course that indicates the PUC has something
in mind to do, but they need to claim they had a public process before doing
it," said Bob Finkelstein, spokesman for The Utility Reform Network.

The Cambridge Energy Research Associates said Thursday that California faces
another three years of high electricity prices and possible blackouts,
because the state's piecemeal response to the power crisis has discouraged
the development of new generating capacity.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

(Jason Leopold, Mark Golden and Jessica Berthold contributed to this article.)

Article 7   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

SoCal Gas Inventories Low, But Interruptions Doubtful
By Pat Maio

12/22/2000
Dow Jones News Service

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

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES <~> (This story was originally published late
Thursday.) <~>
LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Unlike the almost daily threats of rolling
blackouts from the electricity industry in California, the possibility of
natural gas interruptions is unlikely even though reserves are historically
low, said a company executive of Southern California Gas Co.

SoCal Gas is the gas distribution unit of San Diego-based Sempra Energy
(SRE), and serves 5 million customers.

Reserves of natural gas stored in four underground rock formations scattered
throughout Southern California are at lower levels than what SoCal Gas
normally maintains, said Anne Smith, vice president of customer service and
marketing at SoCal Gas, in a phone interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

SoCal Gas entered its winter season on Nov. 1 with 63 billion cubic feet of
gas in storage, about 30 Bcf less than its previous heating seasons, Smith
said.

The lower reserve levels are due to power plants in California siphoning out
the gas at unprecedented levels, she said.

The plants burn strictly gas, and are trying to meet the intense electrical
demand this winter after the state's certain source of power from hydro
generators in the Pacific Northwest had evaporated.

Lack of rain in the region this year is to blame for the hydro cutbacks,
Smith said.

As well, a cold snap in November, coupled with SoCal Gas's decision to buy
less gas this past summer for reserves, didn't help matters.

Smith isn't worried about the lower levels of gas in the company's storage
areas, which can hold up to 105 Bcf.

The cold weather in November forced SoCal Gas to pull out of storage about 13
Bcf in November, leaving a total of 50 Bcf, Smith said.

The stored gas is purchased as a hedge to protect the company from
fluctuations in natural gas prices -- which this month have soared to as high
as $60 per million British thermal units on the spot market.

For the most part, SoCal Gas imports its gas from out-of-state regions in
Texas and New Mexico via pipelines owned by El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPG) and
Enron Corp.'s (ENE) Transwestern pipeline.

El Paso and Transwestern are keeping up with demand, and report that their
pipelines are filled to the near the brim.

Over the past few weeks, Smith said it is pushing out through its system of
pipes about 3.45 Bcf to 3.5 Bcf of gas daily, to its customers.

"The way we see demand breakdown the last couple of weeks is generators using
about 1 Bcf a day, our core customers (4.8 million) about 1.5 Bcf and our
non-core" about 1 Bcf, she said. The non-core customers -- which number about
1,500 in total -- are industrial manufacturers who consume more than 250,000
therms of gas annually, Smith said.

In comparison, a home averages about 600 therms.

Smith's eyebrows have been raised by the rapid consumption of natural gas by
power plants, which use the commodity to run turbines for electrical
generation.

Historically electric power plants have consumed about 300 million to 400
million cubic feet a day of gas in SoCal Gas' service territory, she said.

"This is why we are seeing pipelines fuller than usual. There is continuing
demand by the electric generators," she said. "This is basically an increase
in demand for gas that has contributed to the national picture of why prices
(for gas) have gone up this year. Demand has outpaced production capacity,"
Smith explained.

A growing economy starved for electricity to run its Internet systems or
manufacturing businesses, have contributed to the reasons why gas prices have
soared this month, she said.

Power plant owners have passed along these higher gas costs to the utilities
where they sell their electricity.

This is partially why PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Edison
International's (EIX) Southern California Edison face financial insolvency
today.

They are having to borrow billions of dollars to pay for this higher-priced
electricity as part of the state's complex deregulation plan.

The power plants are owned by out-of-state companies like AES Corp. (AES),
Calpine Corp. (CPN) and Duke Energy Corp. (DUK).

The threat of rolling blackouts has several causes.

Some power plants run around the clock -- gobbling up the natural gas at a
rapid pace. But others have temporarily been shut down because environmental
laws prohibit them from emitting certain levels of pollutants annually.

SoCal Gas has managed to keep its gas costs relatively low by buying gas for
its core customers on long-term contracts at fixed prices.

This helps to insulate the company from price spikes on gas delivered to its
system at the California and Arizona and Nevada borders.

By buying gas this way, SoCal Gas was able to set a fixed charge of $6.53 per
MMBTU for its 4.8 million core customers in the month of December. A new
price is set to be established next week for January.

"We hope it holds steady in January," said Smith. "We are doing everything we
can."

-By Pat Maio, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3776;

patrick.maio@dowjones.com

Article 8   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

S&P:Diverse Holdings Insulate Generators From Calif Risk

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Independent generators selling power into California
face "extremely serious counterparty credit concerns," but the threat to
their financial positions from a default by one of the state's utilities is
mitigated by their positions in other power markets, Standard & Poor's said
Thursday.

The ratings agency affirmed its double-B-plus corporate credit and senior
unsecured debt ratings for one of those generators, Calpine Corp. (CPN), and
indicated that the positions of a number of other generators were similarly
stable.

Standard & Poor's, without commenting on ratings, said those generators
include Dynegy Inc. (DYN), The Williams Cos. (WMB), Reliant Energy Inc.
(REI), Southern Energy Inc. (SOE) and NRG Energy Inc. (NRG).

"Each company has a diverse asset portfolio that mitigates exposure to any
single market, such as California," S&P said. "Standard & Poor's has
concluded that the developers with merchant exposure to the California market
have sufficient financial liquidity to sustain long-term disruptions to their
markets."

S&P also said the generators have generally incorporated conservative pricing
assumptions well below California's current market prices.

The generators' main counterparties in California - PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit
Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison International (EIX) unit Southern
California Edison - have lost a combined $8 billion buying wholesale power at
prices far higher than they are allowed to charge their customers.

Between one-third and one-half of those losses are offset by the utilities'
own profits from generating power in the state, but they are still
substantial and mounting. Both utilities have said they face a serious
liquidity crisis.

S&P said Thursday that both companies face imminent default unless California
officials immediately come up with a way to correct the imbalance between
their buying and selling price for power, and said it would likely downgrade
the utilities' debt ratings to junk-bond status even if they avoid
bankruptcy.

The California Public Utilities Commission met Thursday and opened the door
to rate hikes, but deferred a final decision to its Jan. 4 meeting.

S&P wasn't available to comment on its outlook for PG&E and SCE or the
generators following the PUC's decision.

About 1,284 net megawatts of Calpine's total 4,900 net megawatts of
generation is exposed to California counterparty risk, S&P said. Nonetheless,
only about $400 million of Calpine's approximate $2 billion revenues for 2000
have seen exposure to California's energy markets, the ratings agency said.
Calpine's receivables total only about $75 million, S&P said.

"The affirmation comes during a period of extremely serious counterparty
credit concerns for generators selling into the California power markets,"
S&P said of its decision regarding Calpine.

-By Andrew Dowell, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4430;
andrew.dowell@dowjones.com

Article 9   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Chapter 11 Filing May Give Calif Utils Breathing Room

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

12/22/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service

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

(This article was originally published Thursday) <~>
By Jason Leopold

LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--If two of California's largest utilities file for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a move they said this week was possible, it
may give the companies some breathing room to allow for a much needed
internal reorganization, according to one California bankruptcy attorney.

"What Chapter 11 ultimately does is it allows a company to reorganize," said
Larry Peitzman, an attorney with the Southern California-based law firm of
Peitzman, Glassman and Whegg. "The whole purpose is to come up with a plan to
allow the company to service and pay back creditors and shareholders as much
as possible."

While in bankruptcy, a judge can order the state to raise the utilities
retail electricity rates if that would help the company generate revenue to
pay its creditors, Peitzman said.

Peitzman, who has worked on many large company bankruptcy cases in
California, said if PG&E Corp. unit (PCG) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and
Edison International unit (EIX) Southern California Edison file for
bankruptcy, the companies will be given an injunction by a court that will
prevent creditors from seizing the utilities assets, collecting money or
filing a lawsuit against the companies.

"Another reason to file for bankruptcy protection is the companies wouldn't
be forced to pay pre-bankruptcy debts if they have run up enormous bills,"
Peitzman said.

Executives at both PG&E and SoCal Edison said they may be forced to file for
bankruptcy protection because of a combined $8 billion debt in excess
wholesale power costs and the inability under state law to pass those costs
on to rate payers. However, between one-half and one-third of that money has
been paid into accounts held by the utilities to collect profits from the
generators they still own.

The utilities were hoping for an immediate rate hike Thursday by the state's
Public Utilities Commission, but commissioners said it would first hold
evidentiary hearings and conduct an internal audit of the companies. A rate
increase is still at least two weeks off, the commission said at its meeting.

   Utilities Can Conduct Business While In Bankruptcy

Peitzman said that while in bankruptcy, the companies could operate as a
"debtor in possession," which means the companies have the authority to
conduct business as usual without the consent of bankruptcy court. But if the
companies were to try and secure a loan, the loan would have to be approved
by a judge.

Although most Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases "can't survive," Peitzman said, the
state's two largest utilities - with millions of customers - may be an
exception.

"Inevitably they are going to continue to owe money because of the constant
shortfall they pay in (electricity costs) and what they charge their
customers," the attorney said. "But the bigger the company, the more likely
the company will survive. It will be devastating to lose such large
corporations."

If the companies fail to survive a Chapter 11 filing, the utilities' assets
would be liquidated to pay off their creditors, Peitzman said.

In a Chapter 11 filing, PG&E and SoCal Edison would put their creditors in
different classes and determine how much under the dollar each one would get
paid, Peitzman said.

"It can be as much as possible or less than 100 cents on the dollar," he
said.

In addition, any contracts that either companies held before a potential
bankruptcy filing would have to be honored regardless if the company can
fulfill its financial obligations to its counterpart, Peitzman said.

"That's one of the other benefits," he said. "It's called executory
contracts, which generally means both parties have material operations that
have yet to be performed. It may be long-term contracts and the company would
be able to enforce the other part to continue doing business. The other party
can't refuse to do business because of a stay."

Bankruptcy can last as long as a judge allows it, Peitzman said, pointing to
the Eastern Airlines bankruptcy case in the early 1980s which lasted for
years.

Neither company has indicated whether it will actually file for bankruptcy,
but SoCal Edison said in a filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Tuesday that it may not be able to pay its January power bill if
its retail rates are not immediately raised.

-By Jason Leopold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874;
jason.leopold@dowjones.com

Article 10   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

National Desk; Section A
Trying to Shore Up Utilities, California Plans Rate Increase
By LAURA M. HOLSON

12/22/2000
The New York Times

Page Page 16, Column 1
c. 2000 New York Times Company

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 21 -- The California Public Utilities Commission said today
that a rate increase for consumers was likely and that over the next weeks it
would inspect the books of the two major utilities to decide how much was
reasonable.
The move is an effort in part to show Wall Street that California is
committed to ensuring the health of the state's utilities.

On Wednesday, the agency that rates the credit-worthiness of both the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison said that if
meaningful action was not taken by Friday, the two utilities were headed for
bankruptcy. The agency is expected to comment on the commission's action
soon.

Gov. Gray Davis has been meeting this week with utility executives and
consumer advocates to come to an agreement on the size of a rate increase.
Mr. Davis, a Democrat, is also seeking the advice of financial experts,
including Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, whom he is
expected to meet with next week.

Some people close to those discussions suggested that 10 percent would be a
palatable rate increase, but the utilities are asking for more. The
commission will hold hearings next week, and just how much consumers will
have to pay should be decided by Jan. 4.

Four years ago, California agreed to deregulate its utilities with the hope
that competition would lower rates for households and businesses. But this
year, prices for wholesale electricity and natural gas have skyrocketed,
forcing utilities to incur costs of more than $8 billion that they cannot
pass to consumers because rates are frozen until 2002.

In recent weeks, the utilities have tried to make a case that, without rate
increases, service to consumers is threatened. John Bryson, chief executive
of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison,
has taken the unusual step of warning consumers in television and newspaper
advertisements in Southern California and in Sacramento that blackouts are
inevitable unless order is imposed.

In response to the announcement by the commission today, Southern California
Edison said it expected additional cost cutting and measures to preserve cash
soon.

But not all the commissioners believed that today's announcement would be
enough to placate financial analysts and investors, many of whom buy utility
stocks because they are perceived to be less risky than, for example,
Internet stocks. Analysts have recently downgraded the stocks of both Pacific
Gas and Electric and California Edison, which are trading near 52-week lows,
over fears about California's energy woes.

''When I look at the newspapers and peruse the Internet I get the decided
impression that Wall Street has spoken,'' said Richard Bilas, a commissioner.
''I don't know if this decision goes far enough.''

Article 11   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Fitch Comments On California Electric Utilities

12/22/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 22, 2000--Fitch views the California Public
Utilities Commission's (CPUC) interim decision to initiate proceedings to
consider raising retail rates as just one of the steps necessary to salvage
credit quality for the state's two largest utilities, Southern California
Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Pac Gas). The CPUC is
expected to reach a decision on rate increases and recovery mechanisms during
the first week of January, at which time Fitch will assess the appropriate
ratings for these companies. The outstanding issue is whether rate increases
will sufficiently offset high wholesale power prices being paid by the
companies.
The companies' securities ratings are likely to weaken, unless 1) full
recovery is provided for the large monies paid by the utilities above
existing retail rates and 2) price stability is ensured for the regional
market. The utilities are unable to tap new credit until the rate decision is
executed. They do have, however, sufficient cash and existing credit to
support them through the decision period of the first week in January. If a
suitable rate structure is passed by the CPUC at that time, the utilities'
banks would be more likely to consider additional funding.

Liquidity will remain strained, however, to the extent that regional power
prices remain high. While Energy Secretary Richardson has ordered certain
power producers to sell into the California market, wholesale prices remain
high and are above retail rates. No additional federal action has been taken.

The CPUC's decision in early January is not expected to completely resolve
the utilities' future. Given the large costs incurred and numerous
constituent groups affected, Fitch envisions a longer-term scenario of
consecutive rate increases associated with a fundamental overhaul of
California's power market. In conjunction with the governor's active
involvement, the California legislature is evaluating potential actions to
restructure the state's power situation. Legislative action remains possible
over the next three months, and could impact debt ratings.

The Rating Watch Negative designation remains in place for Pac Gas, SCE and
its parent, Edison International. The current ratings are:

Southern California Edison:

-- First Mortgage Bonds,`A';

-- Senior Unsecured Debt,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+';

-- Commercial Paper,`F2'.

Edison International:

-- Senior Unsecured Debt,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+';

-- Commercial Paper,`F2'.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

-- First Mortgage Bonds,`A-`;

-- Preferred Stock,`BBB+'.

EIX's ratings are also on Rating Watch Negative as approximately half of its
consolidated cash flow is provided by SCE. Fitch does not rate the securities
of Pac Gas' parent holding company, PG&E.

The ratings of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) are not pressured to
the extent of the utilities described above. Unlike the other utilities,
SDG&E is operating under a legislatively-imposed rate ceiling for residential
and small commercial loads. Its legislation also permits a balancing account
to accumulate uncollected power procurement costs. Less liquidity pressure
also exists at SDG&E due to its strong financial fundamentals (senior
unsecured debt rated 'AA-'). Fitch has a Rating Outlook Negative designation
on SDG&E's ratings due to potential increases in leverage while power
procurement costs are high. Sempra's ratings (senior unsecured debt rated
'A') have a stable outlook due to the strong and consistent cash flow derived
from its regulated natural gas distribution subsidiary, Southern California
Gas.

Based in Rosemead, California, SCE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Edison
International. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, California. SDG&E and its parent, Sempra Energy (SRE), are based
in San Diego, California.

CONTACT: Fitch Lori R. Woodland, 312/606-2309 (Chicago) Robert Hornick,
212/908-0523 (New York)
14:31 EST DECEMBER 22, 2000

Article 12   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

SCE Reacts to CPUC Interim Decision

12/21/2000
PR Newswire

(Copyright (c) 2000, PR Newswire)

ROSEMEAD, Calif., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Southern California Edison reacted
to today's California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) interim decision
by stating that it wished the commission had acted more decisively but would
work with the commission to take definitive action to address the current
crisis by Jan. 4, 2001.
The company said it was encouraged by the language in the CPUC's interim
decision that committed the commission to: <~> " ... take expedited actions
to fulfill our statutory obligations to <~> ensure that the utilities can
provide service at just and reasonable <~> rates. In our view, that mandate
means that we must avoid continuing <~> conditions that may jeopardize the
utilities' creditworthiness and their <~> ability to continue to procure
energy on behalf of customers. Therefore, <~> we believe that retail rates in
California must begin to rise. It is our <~> intent to maintain the
utilities' access to capital on reasonable terms. <~> We recognize that this
will require that we act expeditiously to address <~> the new FERC-imposed
reality of unlimited wholesale prices."

Nevertheless, SCE underscored that any solution to the current crisis
requires prompt, meaningful and final action by the commission ending the
rate freeze, providing for the recovery of procurement costs, and increasing
rates to a level that will restore the creditworthiness of California's
investor- owned utilities.

SCE added that it anticipated announcing additional cost-reduction and
cash-preservation measures in the near term that would be necessary to
protect the company's financial integrity while maintaining customer service.

An Edison International company, Southern California Edison is one of the
nation's largest electric utilities, serving a population of more than 11
million via 4.3 million customer accounts in a 50,000-square-mile service
area within central, coastal and Southern California.

/CONTACT: Southern California Edison, Corporate Communications, 626-302-2255/
19:24 EST

Article 13   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Ambac Financial Group has Insured Exposure to Southern California Edison and
Pacific Gas & Electric

12/21/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2000--Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (Ambac)
announced today that it has $75.1 million in insured net par exposure
outstanding to Southern California Edison.
The bonds are secured by a first mortgage or lien on substantially all of the
property and franchises now owned by Southern California Edison. Ambac has
$72.6 million in insured net par exposure outstanding to Pacific Gas &
Electric. These bonds are also secured by a first mortgage lien. Both
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have been warned by
Standard & Poor's that their ratings might drop below investment grade.

"The secured nature of our exposure, coupled with the essentiality of the
services the companies provide, cause us to be confident that the likelihood
of any permanent material loss is remote," said Robert J. Genader, Vice
Chairman. "On the other side of the coin, this difficult situation serves as
a strong reminder as to the value of bond insurance," he continued.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding
company whose affiliates provide financial guarantees and financial services
to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac
Assurance Corporation is the principal operating subsidiary of Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Ambac Assurance, a leading guarantor of municipal and
structured finance obligations, has earned triple-A ratings, the highest
ratings available from Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Standard & Poor's
Ratings Group, Fitch and Rating and Investment Information, Inc. Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(ticker symbol ABK).

CONTACT: Ambac Financial Group, Inc., New York Brian S. Moore, 212/208-3333
bmoore@ambac.com Website:www.ambac.com
16:37 EST DECEMBER 21, 2000

Article 14   Next Article  Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Corrects and Replaces Previous Announcement,
BW2354, NY-AMBAC-FINANCIAL

12/21/2000
Business Wire

(Copyright (c) 2000, Business Wire)

Business Editors
NOTE: The following news release replaces and corrects the

previous Ambac Financial Group, Inc. news release, which

ran earlier Thursday on Business Wire, BW2354

(NY-AMBAC-FINANCIAL)

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2000--

Ambac Financial Group has Insured Exposure to Southern

California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric

Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (Ambac) announced today that it has $75.1 million
in insured net par exposure outstanding to Southern California Edison.

The bonds are secured by a first mortgage or lien on substantially all of the
property and franchises now owned by Southern California Edison. Ambac has
$72.6 million in insured net par exposure outstanding to Pacific Gas &
Electric. These bonds are also secured by a first mortgage lien. Both
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have been warned by
Standard & Poor's that their ratings might drop below investment grade.

"The secured nature of our exposure, coupled with the essentiality of the
services the companies provide, cause us to be confident that the likelihood
of any permanent material loss is remote," said Robert J. Genader, Vice
Chairman. "On the other side of the coin, this difficult situation serves as
a strong reminder as to the value of bond insurance," he continued.

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding
company whose affiliates provide financial guarantees and financial services
to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac
Assurance Corporation is the principal operating subsidiary of Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. Ambac Assurance, a leading guarantor of municipal and
structured finance obligations, has earned triple-A ratings, the highest
ratings available from Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Standard & Poor's
Ratings Group, Fitch and Rating and Investment Information, Inc. Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(ticker symbol ABK).

CONTACT: Ambac Financial Group, Inc., New York Brian S. Moore, 212/208-3333
bmoore@ambac.com Website:www.ambac.com
16:36 EST DECEMBER 21, 2000

Article 18   Previous Article   Return to Headlines

Calif. puts IOUs' request for rate hikes on hold

12/11/2000
Megawatt Daily

(c) Copyright 2000 Pasha Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SoCalEd) were
disappointed Thursday in their bid to gain permission for a rate increase to
go into effect Jan. 1.
State regulators denied the utilities' request that they take immediate
action to approve the rate increases, saying that the requests are
"premature."

While regulators did not outright reject the utilities petitions, they
declined to implement the remedies requested until the cases can be reviewed
further at a later date.

The president of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Loretta Lynch, issued
two rulings at the commission's meeting Thursday "suspend[ing] the schedule
in the Rate Stabilization Plan applications recently filed by [PG&E and
SoCalEd]."

Both utilities filed papers separately with the PUC stating that they had
fulfilled the criteria set for ending a rate freeze imposed on them under
California's electric industry restructuring statute. The law allowed for a
transition period, during which the utilities were to pay off any "stranded
costs" related to investments in generation assets.

By keeping prices frozen at 1993 levels, legislators and utility
representatives who expected wholesale power prices would fall, thought the
measure would give the companies a chance to pay off those costs by a March
31, 2002, deadline. Instead, prices shot up and the utilities were left with
the responsibility to supply power to their customers while paying the
difference between high wholesale prices and lower retail rates.

Claiming "undercollections" totaling over $5 billion between them, the
utilities say they want the price freeze lifted and retail rates increased.
Last month, SoCalEd asked for permission for a 10% increase and PG&E for a
22% increase in its rates. ADP

 Display as:  Full Article Keywords in Context Full Article Plus Indexing
Return to Headlines

Copyright , 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.


expect some producer selling if/when mrkt stabilizes.

what production data are you looking at?

-----Original Message-----
From: Abramo, Caroline
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:55 AM
To: Arnold, John
Subject: RE: NG deal in California

custy interest from sell side?  or buy?

sounds like the producers are pretty hedged?

what do you think of the fact that production is disappointing?

that fact is keeping some from selling more (my guys).. but i argue that its already priced into the curve.. and economic outlook overwhelms..

??

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold, John
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:51 AM
To: Abramo, Caroline
Subject: RE: NG deal in California

not much from customers lately.  Customers waiting for market to stabilize before doing any hedging

-----Original Message-----
From: Abramo, Caroline
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:43 AM
To: Arnold, John
Subject: RE: NG deal in California

morning.. i wrote the top and robyn bottom.. we sent the bottom part to the customer who brought the article to our attention.. I'd like to say i read the gas daily everyday but i miss it a lot..

there are a few things going on.. the client is long cy02/short cy03 socal.. and the deal last week impacts that position.. thats their interest.

our interest is whether or not there are more of these deals coming.. which i was trying to figure out.

what have you been seeing flow-wise lately?

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold, John
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:34 AM
To: Abramo, Caroline
Subject: RE: NG deal in California

who wrote the market commentary are at the bottom of this and who wrote the rest?

-----Original Message-----
From: Abramo, Caroline
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:44 PM
To: Arnold, John; Maggi, Mike
Cc: Quigley, Dutch; Griffith, John; Zivic, Robyn
Subject: FW: NG deal in California

sorry not to send this earlier..

i checked out the dept water resources site.. (wwwowe.water.ca.gov).. nothing too illuminating except that their power costs have come down from over $300 in march to$45 this month but due to the nature the borrowing costs associated with the LT contracts, they will not be able to pass on much savings to consumers (gotta love that).

we were supposed to have received a copy of all their LT purchases in July. checking what happened there.  we know that there were 54 contracts signed .. half linked to gas which covered 1/3 of cali's total needs (looks like for 10 years).  some left open the possibility of the state procuring gas supplies for the plants.. dwr has signed 6 agreements w/ gas suppliers..pretty sure cali uses 25,000-45,000 MW per year which is about 70 contracts a day in gas terms.  If they locked in 1/3.. it would be about 25/day.. the deal they just did was about 16/day for just cal02..probably waiting for curve to flatten further to do more..

they purchased another 500 MW in Aug - the 17th (all 10-12 years)..and to date it looks like they have not purchased anything (have been selling into the grid daily) but not liquidating any previously negotiated LT deals (LT is anything beyond 3 months).

it sounds like they are planning on buying more of their gas requirements.. Sempra (who has LT power contracts with DWR and gives them the ability to buy 80% of their gas) said DWR had not purchased any gas yet.

Pls note story on page 5 & 6 of todays gas daily...

mentions California Dept of Water looking to hedge gas purchases for long-term contracts.

over the past few days we have seen Major Inv. Bk Buying  Cal 02 Nymex Calls and the same bank buying Cal 02 Socal basis calls - very good size

This, we believe, is a hedge for this DWR story. The article mentions that they were "looking at ways to expand its gas purchases".

The article does not mention, nor do we know, how far out they are looking to purchase.

Socal basis has moved on the back of this deal....
Last week:
Cal 02 = 9 cents    Cal 03 = 20 cents

Today
Cal 02 = 18.5 cents   Cal 03 = 22 cents....so the spread has moved from 11 cent  contango  to 3.5 cents.

<<102401.pdf>>

Other than the call buying we saw related to this deal, the rest of the flow we are seeing is : sellers of vol.
Last night settles:
Cal 02 vol  51.5% and Cal 03 vol 37.25% - and we are 1 % lower in Cal 02 since the open , and 0.5 % lower Cal 03.


Hunter

Did you know that the Extrinsic value of the Northern Border Trasport from Ventura to Chicago has increase from 4.7 Million to
7 Million over two months.

Lavo
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sullivan, Colleen
Sent:	Tuesday, February 13, 2001 10:32 AM
To:	Keavey, Peter; Cuilla, Martin; Holst, Keith; Allen, Phillip; Shively, Hunter; Neal, Scott
Cc:	Lavorato, John
Subject:	EXTRINSIC VALUE WORKSHEET

John Lavorato expressed concern last week that we may be falling into the same trap again regarding the extrinsic value in our transportation books.  I prepared a spreadsheet summarizing the EXTRINSIC VALUE ONLY (in total and $/MMBtu) that were in each of the books as of 12/5/00, 1/2/01 and 2/1/01.  Hopefully this will provide you with the information necessary to determine if this is, in fact, happening    Please note the following facts::

CENTRAL:
* The NB Ventura to Chicago capacity's extrinsic value has increased signficantly both in total dollars and in $/MMBtu.  This may need review.
* Note that, although the ANR & NGPL capacities to Consumers have decreased in total dollar extrinsic value, the $/MMBtu value is very high.  This may need review.
* The new capacity--NGPL Midcon to Chicago has an extremely high $/MMBtu value--$.2227/MMBtu.  This may need review.

WEST:
* The West added two new deals--the extrinsic value is so minimal there is no impact here.
* There were 3 capacity deals that, in December, had no extrinsic value--they have all increased in value but they appear to be properly valued now.
* The PGT capacity was sold, obviously showing no extrinsic value any longer.
* The EPNG Perm to Valero capacity decreased in value, both in total extrinsic dollars and $/MMBtu.

EAST:
* All capacity from Rayne to Leach decreased in total extrinsic dollar value, but the $/MMBtu increased on all except the longest term Rayne to Leach deal.
* All capacity from Onshore to Rayne increased in total dollar value, both in total and $/MMBtu.
       The net impact of these two changes was a net increase of approximately $267,000, but $/MMBtu mostly saw net increases.
* A new transaction on Tennessee accounted for the other $266,000 in extrinsic dollar value increase.
Here is your attachment:

If you have any questions, please advise.


Tana,

Enron Canada Corp. will be offering a Canadian power financial swap on EOL
within the next couple of weeks.  Can you confirm that the current EOL
financial GTC is sufficient for power trades.

Thanks!

Dianne


I talked to our CPUC attorney, Jeanne Bennett.

There is a CPUC tomorrow at which a vote could be taken
It is not on the agenda now, but that doesn't stop a vote
The CPUC could decide by majority vote to take up the issue at the meeting
and then vote to enact the ban on direct access -- all without any notice to
the public
We will have a representative at the meeting.
Jeff is contacting coalition members to work the legislative angle.
There is another CPUC meeting on 2/22

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854


John, in light of the support that she has from you, Randy, and Rob, I am ok
with your proposal.  Jim
---------------------- Forwarded by James Derrick/Corp/Enron on 12/03/2000
04:40 PM ---------------------------

Stephanie Harris
12/02/2000 10:51 AM
To: James Derrick/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Celina Ozorio

----- Forwarded by Stephanie Harris/Corp/Enron on 12/02/2000 10:48 AM -----

	John Novak
	12/01/2000 04:23 PM

		 To: Stephanie Harris/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Celina Ozorio

Stephanie -- Just in case this didn't make it to Jim, can you please pass
this along?  Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by John Novak/SA/Enron on 12/01/2000 07:20
PM ---------------------------

John Novak
11/30/2000 10:25 AM
To: James Derrick/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Rob Walls/NA/Enron@Enron, Randy Young/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: Celina Ozorio

Jim:

Celina Ozorio is a paralegal in the Rio office who has performed very well
this past year and who we would like recommend for promotion to a junior
attorney (Attorney I) position.  I have discussed this with both Randy and
Rob and they support this move.

Celina is a Brazilian-qualified lawyer with a U.S. LLM who was hired a year
ago as a paralegal rather than as an attorney due to her relative lack of law
firm experience.  During the past year she has been enthusiastic in pursuing
her professional development and demonstrating her capabilites as a
professional.  She has actively sought out opportunities to take on more
responsibility and to learn more about our business and has worked very hard
to win the confidence of the lawyers and clients with whom she works.  We
believe that she has demonstrated the ability to operate at the junior
attorney level now and the potential to develop into a solid senior Enron
attorney in the future.  As a junior attorney, she would continue to work
under the supervision of more senior attorneys and would have the opportunity
to continue her professional development.

I understand that we have done this elsewhere in the Company and believe that
it sends the right message to others in the department that there are
opportunities for advancement and that hard work and merit are rewarded.

Please let me know how you feel about this recommendation and whether you
think it would be appropriate for us to schedule her to visit with you in
Houston.  Thanks.

Regards,
 John


Mr. Bahl:

Further to our conversation, please see the attached draft of a Master Firm
Purchase/Sale Agreement between Enron North America and Royster Clark,
Inc.      Should you have  any questions and or issues you may wish to
discuss regarding this matter please feel free to give me a call.

Regards,
Debra Perlingiere
Enron North America Corp.
Legal Department
1400 Smith Street, EB 3885
Houston, Texas 77002
dperlin@enron.com
Phone 713-853-7658
Fax  713-646-3490


did you talk to the person looking for cotton?

To: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: FYI

you're lightening up.  good deal.


Today's IssueAlert Sponsors:

[IMAGE]

The IBM e-Energy Executive Forum ) "Personalization, Partnership, and
Profitability"

Designed for executives in the utility industry looking to leverage Customer
Relationship Management in the competitive marketplace. Topics will focus on
how process and technology can be leveraged to gain competitive advantage.
Featured speakers will include IT analysts, solution partners, IBM
executives, and customers including: John Goodman, President of e-Satisfy;
Richard Grimes, Director of CRM Energy Services; David Bonnett, Global
e-Energy Sales Executive, Siebel Systems.

www.ibm.com
[IMAGE]

Rapidpartsmart is the newest, most powerful online parts search engine in
the power industry. Rapidpartsmart is the complete source to locate, buy  and
sell engineered parts worldwide. Rapidpartsmart integrates over 5  million
supply items into asset management and work management systems to  ensure
that you know all supply sources, all the time. Rapidpartsmart  increases
supply options, reduces outage risks and cuts inventory  investment. Contact
John Kelly at (727) 669-3006 for more information or  go to
www.rapidpartsmart.com
[IMAGE]
The most comprehensive, up-to-date map of the North American Power System by
RDI/FT Energy is now available from SCIENTECH.

[IMAGE]

IssueAlert for  March 21, 2001

Dissension at FERC:
Commission Divided On Price Caps, Future Leadership

by Will McNamara
Director, Electric Industry Analysis

[News item from Reuters, March 20] The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) said it remained divided on whether it should impose a temporary cap
on wholesale prices in the western United States to prevent summer blackouts
and price spikes. The three FERC commissioners, who regulate interstate
electricity markets, testified at a House of Representatives Energy and Air
Quality subcommittee hearing as California braced for another day of
blackouts.

Analysis: Since the start of deregulation in the early 1990s, FERC's various
positions on how competition should unfold across the country have been
fairly consistent. Despite its changing members, as a whole the five-member
commission (with two positions currently open) has taken a "hands-off"
approach to its regulatory role, preferring instead to allow free market
forces to drive competition in the energy industry. In fact, Curt H,bert,
appointed as FERC chairman in January by President Bush, told me in an
interview during his tenure as a commissioner that he envisioned a time when
FERC would step out of its regulatory role altogether. However, significant
structural and philosophical changes within the FERC have surfaced since
January, dovetailing with the departure of former chairman James Hoecker. As
the federal regulatory body for the energy industry, FERC has the
responsibility for setting price caps in all regions across the country. The
debate over whether or not to take this controversial step seems to have
exposed some inherent dissension within FERC at the very time when the future
leadership of the commission has been cast in doubt.

At the House of Representatives meeting on March 20, H,bert, a Republican,
reiterated his objections to price caps. Chairman H,bert has maintained his
long-standing opinion that wholesale price caps have done and can do
"long-term damage." In January, H,bert told me, "I have seen no evidence that
price caps will have any positive impact in creating a balanced market."
Although still generally opposed to wholesale price caps on a federal or
regional level, H,bert is willing to consider them as one possibility among
other short-term resolutions to the ongoing market problems in California.
Reuters reported that H,bert said at the hearings that "such controls are not
a long-term solution and would discourage the industry from building more
power plants to supply the West." Rather, H,bert believes that power
generators need the financial incentive to build new power plants, both in
California and elsewhere. H,bert was quoted at the subcommittee hearings as
saying, "Market prices will increase supply and reduce demand, thus
correcting the current imbalance. Capping prices through regulation or
legislation will have exactly the opposite effect."

Despite H,bert's opposition to wholesale price caps, fellow Commissioner
William Massey, a Democrat, asserted that California and the western region
were in such a state of disrepair that a temporary "time out" or price cap
was needed to let the market stabilize. "The commission must act forcefully
and decisively to reassure market participants, policymakers and consumers
that jurisdictional wholesale markets will produce consumer benefits and just
and reasonable rates," Massey said. In addition, Massey reportedly also said
that "such a price cap could be calculated on a generator-by-generator basis
at each generator's variable operating cost, plus a reasonable capacity
adder, perhaps in the range of $25 per megawatt hour." Massey reiterated the
severity of the crisis in California, noting that whereas wholesale power in
the state cost $7 billion in 1999 it increased to $27 billion in 2000 and
could exceed $70 billion for 2001.

Rounding out the commission's divided opinion was Commissioner Linda Key
Breathitt, a Democrat, who said that all possible options should be analyzed
and debated. Breathitt did not specifically mention any preference for price
controls.

Chairman H,bert's stand against price caps is shared by Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham and seemingly the entire Bush administration. In fact,
Abraham said that price caps on wholesale energy will "discourage investment
in new generation at a time when it is most needed" and drive power producers
to other regions of the country (and further away from California). The
Energy Secretary reportedly issued an even stronger statement against price
caps during a Senate hearing on the electricity crisis in California. "The
only action the administration will not take is the implementation of price
caps," Abraham said.

Another House of Representatives Energy and Air Quality subcommittee hearing
is scheduled for later this week. Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas
Republican, noted that the subcommittee will work toward deciding whether or
not legislation regarding wholesale price caps should be developed over the
next few weeks.

This is not the first time that clear schisms have become visible within FERC
over major issues facing the energy industry. The commission also became
divided regarding the scope of regulation regarding regional transmission
organizations (RTOs). FERC's December 1999 vote on the Alliance RTO
illustrated dissension within the commission and the divergent philosophies
that the FERC commissioners hold regarding how the industry should be
regulated. Then-Commissioner H,bert was of the opinion that the Alliance RTO
met FERC guidelines for RTO formation, and was the sole member who
successfully pushed for voluntary rather than mandatory participation in an
RTO. However, H,bert stood as a minority. The other three commissioners at
FERC at the time (Hoecker, Massey and Breathitt) preferred to wield a tighter
regulatory hand and monitor how transmission owners comply with current
transmission policy. While H,bert supports the ownership of RTOs by utilities
and letting free market principles rule, the other commissioners at FERC
appeared to support only passive ownership of RTOs by utilities.

Meanwhile, speculation continues that President Bush will soon appoint Pat
Wood III, chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), to the
position of FERC chairman. H,bert was named chairman in February by President
Bush after James Hoecker resigned shortly before the new Republican
administration took office Jan. 20. At that time, the president did not
indicate that H,bert's appointment as chair was temporary. Wood was appointed
by then Texas Governor Bush to the PUCT in 1995 and played a primary role in
the development of that state's restructuring plan. (Electric choice begins
in Texas on June 1, 2001, with the start of a pilot program and then the
market opens fully to competition on Jan. 1, 2002).

The possible shift in leadership at FERC appears to be politically motivated.
There are two "Republican" openings to be filled at FERC by President Bush.
As noted, presently H,bert is the only Republican among the current three
members. Wood, reportedly a close ally and advisor to the former Texas
governor, has been repeatedly named as a strong candidate for one of the
Republican openings on FERC for some time. However, the Washington Post and
Reuters have reported that Wood will be appointed as FERC chairman, forcing
H,bert to step back into a role as commissioner. The report in Reuters
indicated that H,bert, a friend and prot,g, of Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-Miss.), is personally "fighting the planned move." The nomination
would require Senate confirmation.

Moreover, as political drivers continue to impact the structure of FERC, the
issue of price caps remains unresolved. The debate over price caps also has
divided others involved, strictly along party lines. Generally speaking,
Democrats believe that the federal government should step in to prevent what
has been called "price gouging" on the part of  energy companies. Republicans
believe that the government (including FERC and the Bush administration)
should maintain a "hands-off" approach and allow the marketplace to determine
prices. Speaking from a non-partisan point of view, some economists now
question whether*and not just how*deregulation of electricity markets should
occur at all. For instance, Alfred E. Kahn, the Cornell University economist
who helped deregulate other industries, says that electricity markets may not
lend themselves to full competition and that there may be a value in
retaining vertical integration among utilities (allowing a single regulated
power company to produce, transmit and distribute electricity). The movement
toward re-regulation certainly throws an additional wrinkle into the debate
over wholesale price caps.

Yet, in any event, once again California remains the catalyst for
decision-making on this issue. As rolling blackouts threaten to continue into
a third day in the state, federal lawmakers may be pressured to issue a
definitive position on wholesale price caps for California, which of course
would set a precedent for the rest of the country. As the industry's top
agency in charge of wholesale markets, FERC's ultimate position on price caps
carries tremendous influence. Despite the apparent dissension within the
commission and possible changes in its leadership, FERC is presently
challenged to formulate a solid policy on how wholesale transactions will be
conducted, or once and for all absolve itself from jurisdiction in this
area.

An archive list of previous IssueAlerts is available at
www.ConsultRCI.com

Reach thousands of utility analysts and decision makers every day. Your
company can schedule a sponsorship of IssueAlert by contacting Nancy Spring
via e-mail or calling (505)244-7613. Advertising opportunities are also
available on our website.
SCIENTECH is pleased to provide you with your free,  daily IssueAlert. Let us
know if we can help you with  in-depth analyses or any other SCIENTECH
information  products. If you would like to refer a colleague to receive our
free,  daily IssueAlerts, please reply to this email and include  their full
name and email address or register directly on our site.

If you no longer wish to receive this daily email, send a message to
IssueAlert, and include the word "delete" in the subject line.
SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts(SM) are compiled based on the  independent analysis
of SCIENTECH consultants. The opinions expressed in  SCIENTECH's IssueAlerts
are not intended to predict financial performance  of companies discussed, or
to be the basis for investment decisions of any  kind. SCIENTECH's sole
purpose in publishing its IssueAlerts is to offer  an independent perspective
regarding the key events occurring in the  energy industry, based on its
long-standing reputation as an expert on  energy issues.

Copyright 2001. SCIENTECH, Inc. All rights  reserved.


Tim, in the east power group and the gas groups, we are trying to build a
mid-market capability(deal flow, information and coverage) consistent with
the largest energy merchant in N.A..

Please see tha attached.  I would be curious to talk to you about your
structure, coverage functions and market building iniatives.

I recognize that you and your group have been the most effective and
proactive group in these areas for some time.  Is there areas where we could
be more aggressive or proactive?  Can I get you more resources to cover the
market more aggresively?

Lets discuss.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/09/2000
06:41 PM ---------------------------

	From:  Edward D Baughman                           06/07/2000 12:13 PM

To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: East Power Mid-Market Org. Chart

Dave & John:

As requested, the attached organization chart lays out the MM commercial
teams including regulatory experts. Please let me know if you have any
questions.

Regards,  Ed


I thought it might behoove you guys to know about this, even though I am
unclear as to its meaning myself. Basically, Cara made a change in scheduling
that she did not change in Enpower, and it has to do with an ongoing deal
being managed by the short and long term northwest desks.

In addition, Carla and I zeroed out a deal for Diana Scholtes in scheduling -
473338 - selling to Modesto at NP-15 for BOM on peak. For some reason, she
just needed it zeroed out for tomorrow, so we did not change the deal in deal
entry. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,
Kate
819-2181
---------------------- Forwarded by Kate Symes/PDX/ECT on 12/12/2000 05:46 PM
---------------------------

Cara Semperger
12/12/2000 03:45 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Smurfit Deals

I show now two Smurfit Deals,

403522 for 25 flat, at 54.65,    and 246859.1 for 15  hlh, AND 25 hlh,   and
246859 for 15 llh AND 25 llh.

I have zeroed out the 25's from 246859 in Scheduling, and we are flat now.  I
did not change it in the deal because we were calcing, and I want to check
with Diana first before doing it.

What I show in Scheduling is a sale to Smurfit for 40 mw flat, which is what
is actually scheduled


Bonnie White is the attorney.  I have already called her to find out what our collection process is (if any).  I know some guys named Guido and Mario who'll be happy to do it for 50% of the money.  I'll let you know what I find out.
kh

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Watson, Kimberly
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 10:54 AM
To:	Hyatt, Kevin
Subject:	FW: Oasis Dairy Farms Judgement

Kevin,

Who in legal have you been working with?  Tracy was wondering when we thought we would receive the money.

Thanks, Kim.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Geaccone, Tracy
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 10:34 AM
To:	Watson, Kimberly
Subject:	RE: Oasis Dairy Farms Judgement

Any idea when or if we will receive the money?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Watson, Kimberly
Sent:	Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:33 PM
To:	Moore, Jan; Geaccone, Tracy
Subject:	FW: Oasis Dairy Farms Judgement

FYI, Kim.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hyatt, Kevin
Sent:	Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:54 AM
To:	Moseley, Debbie; Watson, Kimberly; Cherry, Paul
Cc:	Gadd, Eric; Harris, Steven
Subject:	Oasis Dairy Farms Judgement

Earlier this year I requested that the Enron litigation unit file suit against Oasis Dairy for collection of unpaid transport bills on TW.  The suit was filed in the fifth judicial district court in Chaves County, NM.

On October 1, 2001, TW was granted summary judgement in the case by the court in the amount of $29,250.56 inclusive of back interest and attorney fees.  This amount will continue to accrue interest at 8.75% per annum until paid by Oasis.

If you would like a copy of the judgement, please let me know.

kh


Paul,  I am still here.  Where the heck are you?  I guess you are back in the
States by now.  What are you guy's up to?  How many kids do you have now?

As for Lisa and I, we are still DINKs (Double Income No Kids) in Houston.  I
am officially an attorney now working in the corporate legal department of
Enron Capital & Trade Resources.  I had to turn in my pocket protector when I
left my engineering job.  Lisa actually just joined Enron, so now it is all
in the family.  We are  doing good.  We bought a 50 yr old house near
downtown about 1 year ago and have been restoring it ever since.  It really
is amazing how all that Bob Villa watching is now paying dividends.  I am
considering getting a tool belt with my name engraved on it.  We are both
doing good.  Life for me is good, now that I don't have to go to school in
the evening or study for the bar exam.  I am just enjoying my free time now.

I still keep up with George and Ernie occasionally.  George still lives in
Austin and is single.  I visit him a couple of times a year.  You wouldn't
believe it.  He still has the same furniture in his apartment that he had in
college.  Kind of like stepping into a time warp.  Ernie just finished
getting his MBA at UT this spring.  He will be working in San Antonio for
Frito Lay (no doubt designing a chip that won't break when you dip it).  He
now has a little girl with another kid on the way.  I think due sometime this
summer.  He has really changed since undergrad.  A responsible young man now.

How are Mom and Pop Bieraugel doing? (Is the Big 10 going to take it in the
shorts this year?)  Are they still in the Washington area?  Lisa had talked
to your mom about a year ago when she was trying to track you down for my
graduation party.  Sounded like all was well in the Bieraugel household.  I
think she said John was in Alaska?

Anyway, drop me a note when you get a chance.  It is really great to hear
from you again.  We need to keep in touch.

Gerald,


Kay / Fred:

I did my best to get through it but my eyes are growing weary. Kay - please
let me and Fred know when we can review this. I think at this point it would
be helpful for you to review the attached document, and then for you Fred and
I to discuss your comments.

Please let me know when you want to get together.

Thanks,

Ben


solid perspective on current situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmert, Caroline
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:37 PM
To: Platter, Phillip
Subject: FW: Afghani - American perspective

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Allen Harrison [mailto:mah@teleport.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:13 AM
To: Mail List #1; mail list 2; Mail list 3; Mail list #4; Oregonian; Portland Tribune; KKJZ Smooth Jazz And fabulous people!
Subject: Afghani - American perspective

Dear Friends, The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim
Ansary. Tamim is an Afghani-American writer. He is also one of the most
brilliant people I know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he
talks, I listen. Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we
are in. -Gary

Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to
the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this
would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with
this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage.
What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because
I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years
I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell
anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is
no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity
in New York.

I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even
the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant
psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you
think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only
that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were
the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone
would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest
of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban?
The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated,
suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are
500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no
food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying
these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land
mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of
the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone
Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses?
Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at
least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the
Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans,
they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying
over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the
criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've
been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with
true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in
there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do
what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms
about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand.
What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because
some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin
Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any
troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let
us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will
other Muslim nations just stand by?

You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between
Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's
exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and
statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat
the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize
the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the
west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with
nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of
view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that
would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die,
not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?

Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Tamim Ansary

  _____

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information in Yahoo! News <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/> .


It will escalate over time. That's how it worked for me.

	From:  Kathleen Carnahan                           10/10/2000 11:38 AM

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

Subject: Re:

I'm not really discouraged, but some of the time I don't think I'm really
earning my keep, if you know what I mean.  These Options are really keeping
me busy, and they are interesting.  After working with Deborah, I guess I'm
just used to doing more.  So, I guess I'll just relax and enjoy the new job!

K-

To: Kathleen Carnahan/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:

Hey, don't get discouraged yet.  There are lots of interesting things going
on around here.  The stuff I'm working on is very interesting as far as I'm
concerned.  Now, it isn't always as WEIRD as what you were used to.

Kay


John,

Attached is an electronic copy of the reports you wanted.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Chris


I thought that the recruiting championship was the only one that mattered.

To: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Luis Mena/NA/Enron@Enron, Matthew
Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryan Hull/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Chad Landry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip M Love/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Very Interesting


Hey,

I checked out the Houston Chronicle website and there were two Preludes that
would be comparable to mine.  One was advertised for $21,995(which is the
blue book) and the other was advertised for $18,900ish.  Of course both were
being sold by dealers, so I probably couldn't get quite that much.  But I can
probably get enough to make it worthwhile to go ahead and sell my car.  I
just wonder how long it would take before it actually sold.

That's what I've accomplished since lunch.  Talk to ya later,
Robin


The target date specified in an open audit observation has been reached.
Click on the document link below to view the observation / action step(s).
Please provide action step implementation detail along with completion date
and submit return response to Donna Lowry.  If you should have any questions
relating to this audit, please call the Observation Contact listed in the
following observation (document link).  Thank you.  NOTE:  EACH E-MAIL
REPRESENTS A SEPARATE AUDIT OBSERVATION.

Click on this link to view document -->


Start Date: 1/10/02; HourAhead hour: 19;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  No variances detected.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2002011019.txt


---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Bass/HOU/ECT on 02/06/2001 10:50 AM
---------------------------

"Larry W. Bass" <lwbthemarine@bigplanet.com> on 02/06/2001 10:28:40 AM
To: KATHY BASS <daphneco64@bigplanet.com>, kb <daphneco64@yahoo.com>, jason
<jason.bass2@compaq.com>, eric preston bass <Eric.Bass@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Fw: Closed book quiz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Rains" <jmrtexas@swbell.net>
To: <jmrtexas@swbell.net>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:42 PM
Subject: Closed book quiz

>
>
> Take a moment to read this and you will understand why I am sending it to
> you, with love,
>
> jack
>
> This isn't like other quizes....don't bother getting a
> pen and paper...just read
>
>
>
> Stolen from elsewhere, but the sentiment is true.
>
> 1. Name the five wealthiest people in the world.
>
> 2. Name the last five Heisman trophy winners.
>
> 3. Name the last five winners of the Miss America
> contest.
>
> 4. Name ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer
> prize.
>
> 5. Name the last half dozen Academy Award winners for
> Best Actor and
> Actress.
>
> 6. Name the last decade's worth of World Series
> Winners.
>
>
> How did you do?
>
> The point is, none of us remembers the headliners of
> yesterday. These
> are
> no second-rate achievers. They're the best in their
> fields.  But the
> applause dies. Awards tarnish. Achievements are
> forgotten. Accolades
> and
> certificates are buried with their owners.
>
> Now here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:
>
> 1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through
> school.
>
> 2. Name three friends who have helped you through a
> difficult time.
>
> 3. Name five people who have taught you something
> worthwhile.
>
>
> 4. Think of a few people who have made you feel
> appreciated and
> special.
>
> 5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.
>
> 6. Name a half dozen heroes whose stories have
> inspired you.
>
> Easier?
>
> The lesson?
>
> The people who make a difference in your life aren't
> the ones with the
> most credentials, the most money, or the most awards.
> They're the ones
> who
> care.
>
> When you have a chance, pass this on to people who've
> made a
> difference in your life.
>
>
>
> I did.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> jack
>


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Geaccone, Tracy
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:54 PM
To:	Keiser, John; Gilbert, Steve
Subject:	FW: template for Lay Reviews

opps, forgot the attachements

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Geaccone, Tracy
Sent:	Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:53 PM
To:	Keiser, John; Gilbert, Steve
Subject:	template for Lay Reviews

Please change EGS to ETS.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Lets use the Arial font.

Thanks

Tracy


Jeff,
SOOoo sorry! We got 1 number wrong- here is the right #
tracking # 1z 150 x09 03 3938 7473
Let's us know if we can help out with anything else.
Best,
Greg
--
Greg Wooten
Patrick Parrish
Mondo Cane
143 West 22nd Street
New York, New York 10011
1.646.486.7616
1.646.486.7615 Fax

> From: Jeffrey.A.Shankman@enron.com
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:47:36 -0600
> To: mondomodern@earthlink.net
> Subject: RE: requested pix from Mondo Cane
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I tried checking the tracking number, and it doesn't appear to be a valid
> number.  Can you check the number and send it to me so I can check.
> Thanks...Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Mondo Cane <mondomodern@earthlink.net>@ENRON
> Sent:   Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:38 AM
> To:     Shankman, Jeffrey A.
> Subject:  Re: requested pix from Mondo Cane
>
> Hi Jeff,
> Your lamp was picked up by UPS on Friday, November 16. It is traveling
> UPS
> Ground (tracking # 1z 150 x09 03 3938 7453). With the holiday week, I
> would
> expect you'll get it just post-Thanksgiving. Let us know if we can do
> anything else. Have a great holiday.
> best, Greg
> --
> Greg Wooten
> Patrick Parrish
> Mondo Cane
> 143 West 22nd Street
> New York, New York 10011
> 1.646.486.7616
> 1.646.486.7615 Fax
>
>> From: Jeffrey.A.Shankman@enron.com
>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:23:54 -0600
>> To: mondomodern@earthlink.net
>> Subject: RE: requested pix from Mondo Cane
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I'd like to get the shipping info on the light fixture so I know when
> to
>> expect it due to the holiday.
>>
>> See you soon,
>>
>> Jeff Shankman
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:   Mondo Cane <mondomodern@earthlink.net>@ENRON
>> Sent:   Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:40 PM
>> To:     Shankman, Jeffrey A.
>> Subject:  requested pix from Mondo Cane
>>
>> Hey Jeff: Here are the photos of the James Mont settees and the Gio
>> Ponti
>> enamel you requested at the Modernism show.
>>
>> The zigzag lamp is being packed and will be on its way via UPS by
>> Thursday,
>> and your receipt is in the mail.
>>
>> Pair James Mont settees:
>> Dimensions: 54" w x 32" deep x 26.5" high
>> Price: $17,000.00
>>
>> Gio Ponti for Del Campo enamel:
>> Dimensions: 12.5" long x 5" deep x .75" high
>> Price: $850.00
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions. Hope we see you again
> soon
>> in
>> New York!
>>
>> Becca
>>
>> --
>> Greg Wooten
>> Patrick Parrish
>> Mondo Cane
>> 143 West 22nd Street
>> New York, New York 10011
>> 1.646.486.7616
>> 1.646.486.7615 Fax
>>
>>
>> - Mont settees 3.JPG copy << File: Mont settees 3.JPG copy >>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant
> affiliate and
>> may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
> the
>> intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
> others
>> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> authorized
>> to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to
> Enron
>> Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all
> copies of the
>> message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to
> be an
>> offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and
>> enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates)
> and the
>> intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by
> anyone as
>> the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
>> **********************************************************************
>
>


I will be taken a vacation day Tuesday Nov.20th if you have any questions please contact Sandy McNichols at 713-853-6766.

Thank you,
Adrial Boals


Hey there, the dress is at Louise Blum in the Gallareria II, 713-622-5571 and
my consultant is Cynthia Petteway. Thanks!
Love, Liz


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Trogg522@aol.com@ENRON
Sent:	Monday, October 22, 2001 9:18 PM
To:	scotth1965@hotmail.com; Germany, Chris
Subject:	Lawsuit info

This looks like one of those things all us employee's should sign up for.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/011022/nem054_1.html


We have received the following executed ISDA Master Agreement:

Type of Contract: ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency-Cross Border)

Effective Date:  05/15/00

Executed Date:  06/09/00

Enron Entity:  Enron North America Corp.

Counterparty:  Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Transactions Covered: All products covered except pulp & paper and FX

ALL PARTIES PLEASE NOTE:

1. DIVISION TRADING.  This counterparty may elect to do additional financial
trading under two divisions, its Core Procurement Department or its
California Gas Transmission Department.  If the Counterparty does elect to
trade under these divisions, such trades should also be done under this
master agreement.  No other divisions should be approved for any financial
trading for Pacific Gas & Electric Company without prior approval from
Legal.  However, for regulatory purposes, payments cannot be netted between
Pacific Gas & Electric Company and any/either of the two divisions.  All
payments must be treated separately.  It is critical that the
PAYMENT/SETTLEMENT GROUP captures this correctly.

(CREDIT, the agreement does provide for closeout netting.)

2. Canadian and US Trades:  All financial trades with this counterparty,
whether entered in with Houston or Calgary traders must be done under this
master agreement.  THE CONFIRMATION DESK needs to make note of this.

3. GLOBAL CONTRACTS:  When we open them up to trade online, we need to make
sure that all of the financial products go under this master agreement.
Under no circumstance should they see a GTC if they transact any financial
product.

3. ONLINE TRADING:  It is critical that  the above information is captured
correctly before we can open them up for online trading.  I will verbally
confirm with each of the Online Team, Confirmation Desk, Global Contracts,
and Payments/Settlements that we have this setup correctly before Legal
approves them to trade online.


Start Date: 4/23/01; HourAhead hour: 6;  HourAhead schedule download failed.
Manual intervention required.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001042306.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:  29.00 / Final:  28.97)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ARCO
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/23/01
  UNIT_ID: CARBGN_6_UNIT 1


Steve, please accept our condolences for the loss of you father.  The
Governor and I put family first and in this time our hearts and thoughts are
with you as a son.  We look forward to meeting with you at another time.
Paul did a great job and we thank ENRON for having a good strategy and good
people to manage it.  Stephen Reynolds


FYI

gngr
713-853-7751
----- Forwarded by Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron on 06/07/2001 11:21 AM -----

	Janette Elbertson@ECT
	06/07/2001 10:07 AM

		 To: Al_Alexanderson@pgn.com, cecklund@llgm.com, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com, Dan
Leff/HOU/EES@EES, david_aamodt@pgn.com, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES,
Douglas_Nichols@pgn.com, gfergus@brobeck.com, Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT,
jklauber@llgm.com, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, James
Derrick/Enron@EnronXGate, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joseph
Alamo/NA/Enron@Enron, Lisa Mellencamp/HOU/ECT@ECT, Louise
Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT, mday@gmssr.com, mark.e.haedicke@enron.com, Mark
Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Michael Smith/ENRON@enronxgate, Michael
Tribolet/ENRON@enronXgate, Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard B
Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Rick
Buy/Enron@EnronXGate, robert.c.williams@enron.com, Robin_Tompkins@pgn.com,
sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J
Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES, William
S Bradford/Enron@EnronXGate
		 cc: Cristina Zavala/SF/ECT@ECT, Debra Davidson/Enron@EnronXGate, Karen K
Heathman/Enron@EnronXGate, Kay Chapman/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger Dernehl@enron,
Jody Underwood/NA/Enron, Kathy Dodgen@EES, Kimberly Hillis/Enron@EnronXGate,
Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Linda J Simmons/HOU/ECT@ECT, Liz M
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mercy Gil/Enron@EnronXGate, Stephanie
Harris/Enron@EnronXGate, Tammie Schoppe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Twanda Sweet/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: California Litigation Weekly Conference Call

The California Litigation weekly conference call scheduled for 2:00 p.m.
today has been cancelled.

Also, please note there will not be a call on Thursday, June 15.

Thank you.

Janette Elbertson
Enron Wholesale Services
Legal Department - EB3326
Telephone:  (713) 853-7906
Fax:  (713) 646-2600
janette.elbertson@enron.com


Were these deals confirmed?  What are the pipes and contracts?

D
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 03/29/2000
12:21 PM ---------------------------

Kristen J Hanson
03/29/2000 09:28 AM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Lisa Csikos/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: Jan & Feb Midcon Invoices

Daren,
Do you have any information on these deals?  We cannot collect the cash from
Midcon if we can't prove to them the
deals are valid.

Thanks,
Kris

Tina Valadez
03/29/2000 09:19 AM
To: Kristen J Hanson/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Jan & Feb Midcon Invoices

---------------------- Forwarded by Tina Valadez/HOU/ECT on 03/29/2000 09:17
AM ---------------------------

Tina Valadez
03/27/2000 08:52 AM
To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Jan & Feb Midcon Invoices

Pat Dresner (accountant) at Midcon Texas says she does not show these deals
in her system and she can not pay on them.  You created the deals in Sitara
and I don't have another trader's name.  Could you please talk to your KN
trader regarding this situation?  If Midcon really got this gas, then someone
at KN should tell their accountant about the deal.

Prod Mo. Entity     Point  Volume  Total Amount  Sitara #
1/2000  Midcon Texas Gas Services Corp. 0984132 20000  $51,600.00 157006
2/2000  Midcon Texas Gas Services  0984132 36000  $90,900.00 166523
2/2000  Midcon Texas Pipeline Corp.  0984132 80,000  $206,800.00 170133

Please let me know as soon as possible what you find out.  The 2/2000
production invoices are due to be paid 3/27.

Thank You,
Tina Valadez
3-7548