Richard, FYI.  I will be trying to set up a meeting today with Alan
Aronowitz,John Nowlan, you and me to discuss.  Deborah, please print out and
file.

        B.K.D.
----- Forwarded by Britt Davis/Corp/Enron on 08/02/2000 09:02 AM -----

	Matthias Lee@ECT
	08/02/2000 05:12 AM

		 To: Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT,
david.best@clyde.co.uk, ngregson@wfw.com, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: PACIFIC VIRGO - FRT CHASER

Britt

Would be grateful for your instructions on whether  we are authorised to
respond to Owners as regards freight in the manner suggested by David.

Regards
Matt
---------------------- Forwarded by Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT on 08/02/2000 06:05
PM ---------------------------

Eric Tan
08/02/2000 01:09 PM
To: Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT@ECT
cc: "Clifford Bennett" <minton@singnet.com.sg>, Richard
Slovenski/SIN/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT, Victor
Santos/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John Chismar/SIN/ECT@ECT, Carol
Chew/SIN/ECT@ECT, ngregson@wfw.com, Michael J Gasper/HOU/ECT@ECT, John H
Harrison/HOU/ECT@ECT, James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan
Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Philips/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael A
Robison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Harry M Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Graham Cane/LON/ECT@ECT,
Wietze Dingeldein/LON/ECT@ECT, Britt Davis/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
david.best@clyde.co.uk

Subject: PACIFIC VIRGO - FRT CHASER

Another  chaser from  Owners of Pacific Virgo requesting an immediate respond
from Enron on the freight payment.

---------------------- Forwarded by Eric Tan/SIN/ECT on 02/08/2000 13:05
---------------------------

"Helen Cheo"<tankers@ssysin.com.sg> on 02/08/2000 12:06:20
To:
cc:
Subject: PACIFIC VIRGO - FRT CHASER

Date: 02/08/2000 12:06:20
Ref: HC580581

02AUG00

PACIFIC VIRGO/ENRON  CP 13JUN00
===
FLWG  RCVD

//QTE//

TO : SSY SPORE
ATTN : MR. JOHN DWANE / MS. HELEN CHEO

ASPER BLW MSG YESTERDAY, OWNERS STRONGLY REQUESTING CHRTS
TO MAKE A REPLY BY RETURN.

QTE

Please pass the following to the Chtrs/Enron.

Qte;
Attn:Mr.Eric Tan - Director,Operations
     Enron Capital & Trade Resources Singapore Pte Ltd

Aug/01,2000

As per telecon this afternoon between Mr.Eric Tan and Ishibashi,
as Mr.Eric Tan promised, please explain the reasons of freight
payment
delayed for our Pacific Virgo - 2nd voyage(Batangas/Yosu)and advise
us
the date of such freight payment, by tomorrow(Aug/02)morning.

We as the Owners hereby reserve the right to claim all consequence(s)
of loss/damage arising from the delayed payment, including
the interest(s)payable from the due date of the freight.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thanks and Regards

Mitsubishi Corporation as Owners of Pacific Virgo
Unqte;

Regards.
M.Ishibashi / NF-C
Mitsubishi Corporation Tokyo

//UNQTE//

BRGRDS
HELEN CHEO


FYI,
It has been a valiant effort but as soon as we free up space on the Notes
server it fills back in.
So as a result we will be shutting down the notes server tonight from 8:00 PM
until 12:00 AM to rebuild the data drives. This will provide more space to
work with and allow for room to grow.
We will also be turning on a purge agent in 2 weeks that will eliminate mail
from your Inbox, Sent Mail and Trash after it reaches 30 days of age.
Please shut down Lotus Notes before you leave to night to help ensure we do
not lose any data.

Thanks,
Mike Mc.


thanks.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Parks, Joe
Sent:	Friday, March 08, 2002 2:42 PM
To:	Hernandez, Alex
Subject:	RE: Contacts ?

no

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hernandez, Alex
Sent:	Friday, March 08, 2002 2:40 PM
To:	Germany, Chris; Concannon, Ruth; Parks, Joe
Subject:	Contacts ?

Joe, Chris, Ruth -

Do you have contacts at Chevron-Texaco, and ConEd that I could call regarding the auction of the gas contracts ?

Thanks.

Alex Hernandez
713-345-4059


One more agenda item, based upon discussions generated on the FIX module last
time should probably be "Proposed Rollout Priorities".  i.e, Global Products,
Metals, etc.

---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Solmonson/HOU/ECT on 12/06/2000
01:43 PM ---------------------------

Mary Solmonson
12/06/2000 01:05 PM
To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Patti Thompson/HOU/ECT@ECT, James Scribner/Corp/Enron@Enron
Subject: Cost Meeting Attendees

Here's the schedule for the cost savings meetings on the Commodity Logic
Modules on 12/12.

Core Attendees:
 Sally Beck
 Tom Gros
 Mary Solmonson
 James Scribner
 Bob Hall
 Leslie Reeves

3:00 pm  Financial Invoice Exchange
   Kristin Cantu
   Rebecca Ford (?)
   Kim Theriot

3:30 pm  Confirm Central
   Brad Romine
   Patrick Scales
   Kim Theriot
   Melissa Murphy (?)

4:00 pm  Contract Exchange
   Carrie Slagle
   Molly Sumrow
   Bob Superty

Suggested Agenda/Format for each module:

 Overview of Module      - 5 mins
 Current Process, New Process, Activities impacted - 10 mins
 Estimated savings and timing    - 5 mins
 Questions      - 10 mins


Sure, let's talk.

Kim Kouri
11/30/2000 09:27 AM
To: Michelle Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Park-n-ride and Deal Profitability

Michelle is it possible to evaluate a park-n-ride in deal profitability?  If
not would this be valuable?  If it would be Mei-Ling and I would like to meet
with you to understand what we might have to modify.


Tim

If at all possible I would like us to pass on talking publicly about this
topic.

John


Errol,

Do you have any news on the $579,708.72 payment for Vitro Corporativo?
The customer is asking about this payment. Please let me know.

Agustin Perez


Dear Friend,

Thousands more Americans have signed their Petition to
Certify the Bush Victory at
http://www.electionIntegrity2000.com . We,re building a tidal
wave of public support for fairness and integrity in the
aftermath of this presidential election.

Make no mistake, Al Gore,s team of lawyers and activists are
fighting to the finish in a desperate attempt to overturn the
results in Florida.  Here,s the latest:

After hand picking Florida counties to conduct recount after
recount and using the Florida Supreme Court to help them
rewrite the election rules, it still didn,t look like Al Gore
was going to be able to manufacture enough votes to win.  But
they want this election and they,re not giving up without a
fight.

Statistically, early returns from the manual recounts (hand-
counts) did not show Al Gore overtaking George W. Bush,s lead
in Florida.  So the Democrats have simply changed the
"hand-counting" rules again.  The new rules say that ballots
with dimples, loose chad or any indentation in the area of
the box should be counted.

No punch hole in the ballot is necessary for Gore to gain
a vote!

This amounts to mind reading because the activists conducting
the recount are allowed to divine the intent of the voter.

Gore,s team argues that "every vote should be counted" hoping
to gain votes in their favor, but they use every technicality
to disqualify thousands of military ballots delivered without
a post mark.  Why?

Because these ballots likely favor Bush at a rate of 2 to 1!

And even though military servicemen abroad can,t control how
their mail is delivered, Gore,s allies are fighting to deny
their votes.

We the American people must fight this systematic and
calculated effort to overturn the election.  We must fight
in the media.  We must fight in the courts.  We must fight
in the Florida legislature.  We must fight for public
opinion.

One way you can help is by urging your friends and family to
join our online campaign to Certify the Bush Victory at
http://www.algorelost.org or
http://www.electionintegrity2000.com right now.

Spread the word by forwarding this e-mail!

For Election Integrity,

Bruce Eberle

AOL FRIENDLY LINK:
ElectionIntegrity2000.com

============================================================
If you would no longer like to receive information from
ElectionIntegrity2000.com, reply to this e-mail and place
the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
============================================================


---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron on 01/04/2001
08:41 AM ---------------------------

firstcall.notes@tfn.com on 01/04/2001 11:27:59 AM
To: mark.koenig@enron.com
cc:

Subject: SQUEEZING BLOOD FROM A STONE: SEEKING CLARITY IN THE CALIF. CR...
(Part 1 of 2)

                          FIRST CALL RESEARCH NETWORK

08:07am EST 04-Jan-01 Salomon Smith Barney (Raymond Niles 212-816-2807) AES
DYN
SQUEEZING BLOOD FROM A STONE: SEEKING CLARITY IN THE CALIF. CR... (Part 1 of
2)

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY                                             Industry Note

Power & Natural Gas
SQUEEZING BLOOD FROM A STONE: SEEKING CLARITY IN THE CALIF. CRISIS

January 4, 2001    SUMMARY
                   * California utilities (PCG, EIX) threaten bankruptcy in
Raymond Niles        face of cash squeeze and decision by California Public
212-816-2807         Utilities Commission to grant a 7%-15% rate increase
ray.niles@ssmb.com   versus the 20%-30% hoped for by the utilities. Two key
                     points:
                   * (1) Based on the companies' statements, we think there
                     is material risk that the California utilities will
                     declare bankruptcy, although this still remains the least
                     likely outcome, in our view.  We maintain our 3H
(Neutral,
                     High Risk) rating on PCG at the present time.
                   * (2) We recommend investors hold the course on Energy
                     Merchants and Competitive Generators.  Favorable
long-term
                     fundamentals remain in place.  Ultimately, we think a
                     market-oriented solution will favor these companies, but
                     anticipate near-term uncertainty as the California
                     situation plays itself out.  Companies with most to least
                     California exposure are: CPN, SOE, DYN, NRG, DUK, REI,
                     AES, ENE.
TWO MESSAGES TO INVESTORS

(1) Worry about the California electric utilities:  PCG and EIX.  Material
bankruptcy risk exists for these companies.  Although we do not think it is
the
most likely outcome, we think the risk of a bankruptcy has been heightened by
the small rate increase proposed by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
Even if bankruptcy does not occur, we think that the California utilities will
continue to be challenged by weak balance sheets and ongoing cash flow
concerns
if adequate rate increases are not enacted.

(2) Hold the course on the Energy Merchants and Competitive Generators.  The
long-term fundamentals for these companies remains firm, in our view.  For the
generators, we forecast 20%-25% higher power prices, nationwide, in 2001 vs.
2000.  At the same time, we see the "spark spread", or the spread between
power
(revenues) and gas (costs) widening by several percentage points during the
same time period.  Both of these factors are positive for earnings.  For the
marketers, the opportunity to hedge and manage energy price risk has only been
heightened by the turmoil in California.  We also remain bullish on these
companies.

Exposures of Generators to California Power Markets (Megawatts)

 Company       Rating/Px     Total         California    % of Total
 AES#          1-H $52       29,798         4,100        13.8%
 CPN#          1-H $42         5,912        1,355        22.9%
 DYN#          1-H $51         8,804        1,400        15.9%
 NRG#          1-H $28       13,500         1,586        11.7%
 SOE#          1-H $28       14,622         3,185        21.8%
 ENE#          1-H $80         3,000             60        2.0%
 DUK*#         2-M $83         9,285        3,615        38.9%*
 REI*$#        3-M $43       12,869         3,767        29.3%*
*DUK and REI also have extensive regulated utility operations, so there
corporate financial exposure to California is far less than the percentages
indicated

WHAT LIES AHEAD?  POINTS TO CONSIDER:

(1) Someone must pay for the cost of power in California.  Currently, natural
gas prices are around $20 per mcf or million BTU's, which equates to
electricity prices north of $200 per megawatt-hour.  This reflects the cost of
burning gas to create electricity, and does not consider other costs, such as
pollution emissions, operating and maintenance costs, and the capital costs of
plant investment.

(2) The long-term problem in California (and elsewhere in the country) will
not
be solved without the construction of new power plants.  All the bellyaching
in
the world about high wholesale power prices will not solve the problem, which
is:  California does not have enough power plants.  The wholesale price of
electricity reflects supply and demand.  There are not enough electrons in the
state's power grid.  More electrons will come either from new plants (power
generation) or marketing (shipping more electricity into the state).  We also
think concomitant infrastructure must be enhanced, such as natural gas
pipeline
and electric transmission capacity.

(3) The generators and marketers are solving the problem.  Companies such as
Dynegy, Enron, El Paso Energy, Duke Energy, Calpine, Southern Energy, AES, NRG
Energy and others are either building the plants and/or marketing the power
and
natural gas that will, in the long run, "solve" California's power crisis.  In
fact, the high prices they are receiving for power and gas are both the
incentives and the reward for them to do so.  In our view, if sufficient new
generating capacity is built in California, the wholesale price of power will
fall.  We think if policies were enacted today to facilitate the construction
of new plants, by 2002 power prices could be materially lower than they are
today.

(4) Re-regulation would only lengthen and deepen the power crisis in
California.  Capping wholesale power prices, imposing windfall profits taxes
or
other "punitive" measures will not cause a single new power plant to be built
or a single new electron to be sold in the state.  Such measures would dis-
incentivize new plant construction and actually lengthen the crisis.  We
already think that the threat of re-regulation has had the perverse effect of
raising wholesale power prices by dis-incentivizing sales into the state.

OUR INVESTMENT CONCLUSIONS

First, the long-term outlook for competitive energy suppliers is favorable.
They are supplying a commodity in short supply.  As long as the supply-demand
balance, and price volatility remain, we expect strong earnings visibility
from
this core group of companies.  We especially recommend accumulating positions
in these companies ahead of the summer peak electricity earnings season.

Second, attempts to re-regulate or "punish" energy wholesalers could create
near-term volatility in the stocks; we recommend buying on such weakness.
Given our long-term view, we do not think that attempts to re-regulate will be
successful.  In fact, by doing so, policymakers would merely lengthen and
deepen the crisis that already exists.  Also, recognition that the wholesale
market is working well in other regions, such as Texas, would only stimulate a
debate that would lead to ultimate removal of any controls, in our view.

                            Price  1/3/01 2002 2002 LTG 2002
Company          SYM Rating Target Price  EST  P/E  EST PEG
                 M
Energy Merchants
Enron Corp.#     ENE 1H     $100   79.88  1.98 40.3 20% 2.0
Duke Energy #    DUK 2M     $95    82.75  5.10 16.2 10% 1.6
El Paso Energy#  EPG 1H     $80    70.25  3.70 19.0 15% 1.3
Dynegy Inc.#     DYN 1H     $70    51.31  2.25 22.8 20% 1.1

Power Producers
Southern Energy# SOE 1H     $37    27.94  1.35 20.7 25% 0.8
Calpine Corp.#   CPN 1H     $60    41.75  1.58 26.4 35% 0.8
AES Corp.#       AES 1H     $85    51.75  2.50 20.7 30% 0.7
NRG Energy#      NR  1H     $40    27.56  1.70 16.2 25% 0.6
#  Within the past three years, Salomon Smith Barney, including its parent,
subsidiaries and/or affiliates, has acted as manager or co-manager of a public
offering of this company.

WHAT'S AHEAD?  NEAR-TERM EVENTS

Near-term, we await several events.  Each of these has the potential for
creating trading opportunities in the stocks.

(1) Decision by S&P and Moody's on whether to downgrade the debt of PCG and
EIX.  They have threatened to lower the ratings on both companies to "junk"
status (i.e., below investment grade) if the CPUC does not grant a sufficient
rate increase.  We think that the 7%-15% rate increase proposed by the CPUC is
probably not sufficient to please the rating agencies, and that a debt
downgrade is likely.  We think a debt downgrade is largely priced into the
stocks, but the action still could create volatility.

(2) An emergency legislative hearing is underway.  This hearing is deciding,
among other measures, whether to impose a "windfall profits tax" or other
punitive measures on the wholesale energy suppliers.  Given what we said
above,
we think such a move could hurt the energy suppliers, but only on a near-term
basis.  We would recommend buying on such weakness.  An action that would be
positive, in our view, would be any move by the legislature to address the
root
cause of California's problem:  the restrictive policies that make it
difficult
to build plants in the state (e.g.: pollution rules, siting permits, etc).

(3) Decisions by the utilities on whether to declare bankruptcy.  The
utilities
suffer from a negative cash flow, and have incurred over $8 billion in
incremental costs to pay for power.  Their cash gross margin is negative
because they receive a low (regulated) price for retail power and pay a high
(unregulated) price for wholesale power.  The utilities' lenders are watching
carefully to see if any rate increase proposed by the CPUC is sufficient to
address this imbalance before they will lend more money on a short-term basis.
If the utilities cannot get short-term funding, we think insolvency is a
likely
eventuality, in our view.  We still think bankruptcy is the least likely
outcome, and for that reason, a bankruptcy announcement would have a negative
effect on the stock prices of the utilities as well as the wholesale energy
suppliers.

(4) Final decision by the CPUC on their proposed rate increase.  A final
decision on the 7%-15% proposed increase will be made today.  If the CPUC
decides to go with a higher or more favorable rate increase, this would be
positive for the utilities and marketers..

(5) Credit risk to suppliers - worst case analysis.  The generators and
marketers who sell power to the California utilities have significant credit
risks associated with those exposures.  The figure below attempts to quantify
those risks, which could result in a one-time earnings hit.  The figures we
have calculated are a worst-case analysis, in our view, and any actual
exposure
are likely to be much less.  First, these risks will only become a reality in
the case of the utilities' bankruptcy.  Second, even given this worst-case
bankruptcy scenario, the generators and marketers will likely be treated
favorably in the bankruptcy case, given their status as trade creditors (30-45
day receivables).  Third, based on our conversations with these companies,
they
have already taken steps to mitigate these exposures by tightening credit
limits, requiring payments in cash, etc.

          12/00     MWHs Produced @     Exposure @      Potential EPS
          CA MW         40% factor      $200 Price         Exposure

Raymond Niles 212-816-2807
First Call Corporation, a Thomson Financial company.
All rights reserved.  888.558.2500

Note ID: 320970
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       To update your order or to receive research on other companies,
              please call your Account Manager at (800) 262-6000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Thomson Financial Investor Relations  TEL: 800-262-6000
         75 Wall Street, 18th Floor            FAX: 212-363-3971
         New York, NY  10005                   EMAIL: firstcall.notes@tfn.com

      First Call is a registered trademark of the First Call Corporation


Little correction going forward

The higher of
St 65 Offer plus $.27
TCO Offer plus $.19

---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Germany/HOU/ECT on 05/02/2001 12:56 PM ---------------------------

	  From:  Chris Germany                           05/02/2001 10:53 AM

To:	Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Gillespie/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John Hodge/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:	Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:	OGY using VNG capacity

Currently, we are unable to use IT to serve Ogy at Doyle on Transco.  I have devised a super scientific method for pricing VNG space for Ogy.  Poke all the holes in it you want.

Use the following formulas to determine the price to Ogy

The higher of
St 65 Offer plus $.35
TCO Offer plus $.14

Good Luck


Good Afternoon Team,

Belo issued its statistical report for the month of September.  Newspaper Group total revenues were down 10% in September on a pro forma basis. September 2001 had one more Sunday than September 2000.  Excluding the effect of the extra Sunday this year, Newspaper Group revenues were down approximately 16% . The Newspaper Group's revenue loss specifically related to the attacks was about $2 million.  At The Dallas Morning News, total full-run advertising linage, including preprints and supplements, was down 10.9% versus 2000.  Classified volumes were down 12.8%  with continued weakness in classified employment.   At The Providence Journal, total full-run advertising linage, including preprints and supplements, decreased 8.3 %.   Retail and classified volumes decreased 9.5% and 7.3 %, respectively.   The decrease in ad linage has decreased ad revenues to Belo -- which has negatively impacted Belo's total revenues.  Many publishers also find themselves in this weak position... and producers are struggling amidst sluggish newsprint demand.

Ayesha


* CA Senate passed SBX1 43 today
---------------------- Forwarded by Edward Hamb/HOU/EES on 03/13/2001 11:59
AM ---------------------------

James M Wood
03/12/2001 05:38 PM
To: ehamb@enron.com
cc:
Subject: NEWS:  Legislation for 6.5 cent bill

is it a rate freeze or the rate ceiling
---------------------- Forwarded by James M Wood/HOU/EES on 03/12/2001 05:37
PM ---------------------------

	Enron Energy Services

	From:  Jennifer Rudolph                           03/12/2001 10:01 AM

To: CA Team
cc:
Subject: NEWS:  Legislation for 6.5 cent bill

*  from Utility Risk Management

---------------------- Forwarded by Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES on 03/12/2001
10:00 AM ---------------------------

Tamara Johnson
03/12/2001 09:54 AM

I found out late Friday that the bill passed out of the Senate on Thursday
and went to the Assembly for a vote.
By putting a cap on all customers served by SDG&E, the government is
essentially putting customers of all three IOU's on the same footing, which
allows for a common surcharge to be levied on all the customers.  The 6.5
cent ceiling is comparable to the frozen rates of SCE and PG&E plus the 1cent
surcharge levied in January.

Here's the analysis that is put out at the Senate...

Here's the bill itself...

Rosalinda Tijerina
03/12/2001 09:41 AM
To: Tamara Johnson/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: NEWS: 6.5 cent bill passes Senate

---------------------- Forwarded by Rosalinda Tijerina/HOU/EES on 03/12/2001
09:41 AM ---------------------------
From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 03/10/2001 12:03 PM
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Angela Schwarz/HOU/EES@EES, Beverly
Aden/HOU/EES@EES, Bill Votaw/HOU/EES@EES, Brenda Barreda/HOU/EES@EES, Carol
Moffett/HOU/EES@EES, Cathy Corbin/HOU/EES@EES, Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Christina Liscano/HOU/EES@EES, Craig H Sutter/HOU/EES@EES, Dan
Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Debora Whitehead/HOU/EES@EES, Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES,
Don Black/HOU/EES@EES, Dorothy Youngblood/HOU/ECT@ECT, Douglas
Huth/HOU/EES@EES, Edward Sacks/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Eric Melvin/HOU/EES@EES,
Erika Dupre/HOU/EES@EES, Evan Hughes/HOU/EES@EES, Fran Deltoro/HOU/EES@EES,
Gayle W Muench/HOU/EES@EES, Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@ENRON, Gordon
Savage/HOU/EES@EES, Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES, Harry
Kingerski/NA/Enron@ENRON, Iris Waser/HOU/EES@EES, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@ENRON, James W Lewis/HOU/EES@EES, James Wright/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Jeff Messina/HOU/EES@EES, Jeremy
Blachman/HOU/EES@EES, Jess Hewitt/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kathy Bass/HOU/EES@EES, Kathy
Dodgen/HOU/EES@EES, Ken Gustafson/HOU/EES@EES, Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES,
Leasa Lopez/HOU/EES@EES, Leticia Botello/HOU/EES@EES, Mark S
Muller/HOU/EES@EES, Marsha Suggs/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES,
Meredith M Eggleston/HOU/EES@EES, Michael Etringer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael
Mann/HOU/EES@EES, Michelle D Cisneros/HOU/ECT@ECT, mpalmer@enron.com, Neil
Bresnan/HOU/EES@EES, Neil Hong/HOU/EES@EES, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Paula
Warren/HOU/EES@EES, Richard L Zdunkewicz/HOU/EES@EES, Richard
Leibert/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@ENRON, Rita
Hennessy/NA/Enron@ENRON, Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES, Rosalinda
Tijerina/HOU/EES@EES, Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@ENRON, Sarah
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Gahn/HOU/EES@EES, Scott Stoness/HOU/EES@EES,
Sharon Dick/HOU/EES@EES, skean@enron.com, Tanya Leslie/HOU/EES@EES, Tasha
Lair/HOU/EES@EES, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terri Greenlee/NA/Enron@ENRON, Tim
Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tony Spruiell/HOU/EES@EES, Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES,
Vladimir Gorny/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wanda Curry/HOU/EES@EES, William S
Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathryn Corbally/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jubran
Whalan/HOU/EES@EES, triley@enron.com, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert C
Williams/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, James
Wright/Western Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Dirk vanUlden/Western
Region/The Bentley Company@Exchange, Steve Walker/SFO/EES@EES, Jennifer
Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES, Martin Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES, Douglas
Condon/SFO/EES@EES, wgang@enron.com, Scott Govenar <sgovenar@govadv.com>,
Hedy Govenar <hgovenar@govadv.com> @ ENRON, jklauber@llgm.com, Mike D
Smith/HOU/EES@EES, John Neslage/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Janel
Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron, Eric Letke/DUB/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: NEWS: 6.5 cent bill passes Senate

----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/10/2001 12:09 PM -----

	Jennifer Rudolph@EES
	03/08/2001 03:31 PM

		 To: CA Team
		 cc:
		 Subject: NEWS: 6.5 cent bill passes Senate

* CA Senate passed SBX1 43 today
* Now, the bill goes to the Assembly
* Looking for article...
* More to come


Please find attached the agenda for the meeting of i2's Audit Committee
scheduled for 11 a.m. -- 2 p.m. CST on Wednesday, October 10.  Do not
hesitate to contact me at (469) 357-4497 or Shea Dugger at (469) 357-4195
if you have any questions or comments regarding the attached.  Thank you.

                                        Keith Larney

____________________________

Keith L. Larney
i2 Technologies, Inc.
11701 Luna Rd.
Dallas, TX 75234
Direct: 469-357-4497
Fax: 469-357-6566
 - Audit Committee Agenda 3Q 2001.doc


Reagan,

I am still reviewing the numbers but here are some initial thoughts.

Are you proposing a cost plus contract with no cap?

What role would you play in obtaining financing?  Any experience with FHA
221(d) loans?

Although your fees are lower than George and Larry I am still getting market
quotes lower yet.  I have received estimates structured as follows:

  5% - onsite expenses, supervision, clean up, equipment
  2%- overhead
  4%- profit

I just wanted to give you this initial feedback.  I have also attached an
extremely primitive spreadsheet to outline the project.  As you can see even
reducing the builders fees to the numbers above the project would only
generate $219,194 of cash flow for a return of 21%.  I am not thrilled about
such a low return.  I think I need to find a way to get the total cost down
to $10,500,000 which would boost the return to 31%.  Any ideas?

I realize that you are offering significant development experience plus you
local connections.  I am not discounting those services.   I will be out of
the office for the rest of the week, but I will call you early next week.

Phillip


BKranz@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

Jim,

Thank you for providing your suggestions for proceeding with the assessment
of BME/RT pricing issues assigned to the S&P working group by the BIC
Chairperson at the MC last week.  The compilation and review of data that
you have proposed would take some time and coordination from staff in
several departments including Operations.  Due to the conditions we are
experiencing this week, we will be unable to provide this data in time for
the next S&P meeting.  Because of this, I would propose that we post this
list with the meeting materials for the 20th and that we will provide as
much information on our assessment of the issue as we can at this meeting.

Regards,

Bradley Kranz
NYISO
----- Forwarded by Bradley Kranz/NYISO on 08/09/01 10:00 -----

                    scheije@selectenergy.com
                    Sent by:                                To:     nyiso_tech_exchange@global2000.net
                    owner-nyiso_tech_exchange@lists.        cc:
                    thebiz.net                              Subject:     S&P Mtg re: BME/RT Issues

                    08/07/01 09:39
                    Please respond to
                    market_relations

scheije@selectenergy.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List:

I apologize for the larger circulation of this email than to just the S&P
WG.

The MC last week urged a rapid consideration of the interactions between
BME and SCD and their related prices from the hot, high load days of July
24 and 25.

To pursue this there is additional information needed from the ISO. Below
is a preliminary list I compiled that would be useful in assessing the
situation.

Data should be provided for relevant hours i.e. those with high BME or RT
prices or both. Particularly for those hours with binding reserve
constraints in HA or RT.

1 RT reserve levels in each hour (it is recognized that the value
fluctuates but the the point is to get an idea of apporximately how short
the ISO was of reserves, if at all)

2 Similar information should be obtained for our neighbors; PJM, NE and
IMO. Also, could the ISO describe what the others do hour ahead to prepare
for the next operating hour under circumstances such as we encountered
those two days? NY has the unfortunate position of producing prices related
to decisions for which it pays otherwise - what were our neighbors doing?

3 An accounting, by hour, of reserves carried on exports out of NY

4 Identification of any non-ICAP based exports that may have been counted
for reserve; this shouldn't happen as it puts non-ICAP providers in the
position of being recalled...

5 BME reserve deficiencies by hour; were the reserve levels always met,
albeit at extreme prices, or was the ISO unable to cover the requirements
in advance?

6 Based on Mike Calimano's report, there were "a couple hundred Mws" of
operating units not seen by BME; this situation needs to be (1) confirmed
and (2) explained and corrected

The following are sort of 2nd tier questions:

1 If the ISO was short of reserves in RT why weren't the EDRP resources,
who were notified, not called into play to aid in curing the deficiency?
There should have been no economic judgement call by operators (if the
first two hours were at $500 that was likely cheaper than what BME was
taking in if the BME prices applied to settlement under ECA B). BME made no
judgement call when its prices spiked due to the 30 M NSR scarcity and took
available imports.

2 What would have been the System State(s) if the reserve margins had been
held in RT (assuming ISO was short in RT)? Would this have forced a Major
Emergency and subsequent voltage reductions, public appeals etc? Had this
been done would have the EDRP Mws been activated?

I would also like to offer the following as potential changes to be
considered. They are based on the limited discussions that have taken place
so far.

1 Include exports that are being counted as reserve in BME as it evaluates
its reserve position. Since BME is deciding which transactions will be
scheduled, operators would need to indicate which transactions and how many
Mws could be counted in RT as reserves. The implications for the solution
algorithm are unclear - can BME recognize the additional reserves thus
carried? Would it result in fewer imports and lower BME prices? What if the
reserve requirements used as input to BME were manipulated downward for
reserves on exports? What happens if BME did not schedule the export(s)?

2 Subject to the ISO providing detailed RT reserve info, it seems that the
reserves should be carried in RT and that SCD should not be allowed to
dispatch with units that were not available to BME (thus resulting in the
large price disparities). If the ISO had adequate reserves in RT, SCD
should not be allowed to produce RT price reductions relative to what BME
is doing. However, having said this, if there are no energy resources to
maintain reserve levels AND the ISO needs to maintain its regulation room,
the next thing to go is load. To my long understanding, we do not shed load
to avoid shedding load (at least not to maintain reserves...)

Perhaps if BME has some adjustments and the missing Mws are accounted for,
little needs to be done in RT. (This does not mean that SCD handles GTs
correctly - that is still a commit problem it is incapable of resolving...)

3 At one point, we had approved use of BME prices to settle all HA
transactions. This approach was scuttled by the ISO when they discovered
that there were persistent, unidirectional price differences between the
proxy busses and their connected in-NY zones. We then retreated to
automating what is done under ECA B; substituting BME prices only under
constrained ramp or ATC conditions.

The ISO should review this again. Does the price difference remain,
inviting gaming? If so, is there a way for the MMU to watch for or prevent
inappropriate opportunistic behavior? A full, partial 3rd settlement would
lessen the sting of HA prices that are out of synch with RT.

4 The ISO should review the multipliers in the LP solution that insure that
energy, then regulation and then the 3 types of reserve are maintained.
They should be no more than required for a proper solution outcome. Prices
at $65000 are not necessary and misleading (while mathematically
correct...). Also, if we are to consider settling transactions at BME
prices, such an outcome would result in considerable opposition...

5 Another non-controversial change would be to extend the DADRP
participants to hour ahead evaluation. In the instant circumstance, it is
likely that BME would have chosen some of those loads opposed to imports
(there was no congestion so some of those western loads might have looked
pretty good...). Since there is the issue that the DADRP is subsidized, I
would propose that, if extended to BME, that the DA bids be used for BME
evaluation. If nothing else look at it as sending money to companies in
NYS.

Jim


(Embedded image moved to file: pic21994.pcx)

            New McDermott, Will & Emery "On the Subject..." Release

Attached please find a link to a new "On the Subject..." release now available
on the McDermott, Will & Emery website. This release discusses the November
29th
en banc Federal Circuit decision concerning changes in the laws regarding
patent
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  As a result of the decision
in
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., a patentee will be
less able to rely on the doctrine of equivalents when trying to prove
infringement.  The article was authored by Brian Ferguson, who is a partner in
Intellectual Property Department, resident in McDermott, Will & Emery's
Washington, D.C. office.

http://www.mwe.com/news/ots1200b.htm

For more information regarding this subject, or if you would like a hard copy
of
this release please contact you regular McDermott, Will and Emery attorney,
or:

R. V. Lupo at 202/756-8366 or rlupo@mwe.com
Brian E. Ferguson at 202/756-8371 or bferguson@mwe.com
Paul Devinsky at 202/756-8369 or pdevinsky@mwe.com
Stephen A. Becker at 202/756-8608 or sbecker@mwe.com

******************************************************************************
*******

This message is a PRIVATE communication.   If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not disclose it to
others.  Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this
message, and then delete it from your system.  Thank you.
******************************************************************************
*******

For more information on McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY please visit our website at:
http://www.mwe.com/

 - pic21994.pcx


The following expense report is ready for approval:

Employee Name: Matthew F. Lenhart
Status last changed by:  Automated Administrator
Expense Report Name: MLenhart 10
Report Total: $929.29
Amount Due Employee: $929.29

To approve this expense report, click on the following link for Concur Expense.
http://expensexms.enron.com


Pls review the attached ASAP.  Write in the names / addresses as needed, draw
a line thru those not needed.  Get your revisions to me.  We need to send
this list to Cordes by close of business Friday 7/21 for Stan's reorg
announcement.
thx
KH


Kathryn, add whatever comments you have especially the one about going back to sep, then i'm going to rewrite this email and send it out to all these people down below.

Kay, who should I work with at Weil?
Jeff, Loretta, are you the right contacts for me at PwC?
Shemin, my first queston for you is will ENA have to pay the producers for December (possibly January)?
Kathryn, what are the imbalances for EES on 11/30/01

I've added Kathryn Bussell to the list.  Kathryn is over the EES Logistics group.  EES has been signing some of the producer letters allowing the producers

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	McMichael Jr., Ed
Sent:	Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:14 PM
To:	Germany, Chris; '"Proctor, Shemin V." <sproctor@akllp.com>@ENRON'
Cc:	Mann, Kay; Price, Wade R.; Concannon, Ruth; Garza, Maria; Jeff Benton (E-mail); Loretta Cross (E-mail)
Subject:	RE: Dominion Producers

Chris,
I need you to lead the effort to work with/through legal to fully explore our alternatives and then recommend a solution to resolve.  PwC and Weil probably need to be informed of your efforts.  If you have any questions, please ask.
Ed

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Germany, Chris
Sent:	Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:28 AM
To:	'"Proctor, Shemin V." <sproctor@akllp.com>@ENRON'; McMichael Jr., Ed
Cc:	Mann, Kay; Price, Wade R.; Concannon, Ruth; Garza, Maria
Subject:	RE: Dominion Producers

Listed below are ENA's pool balances as of 11/30/01 and 12/31/01.  From ENA's perspective, I would prefer to terminate the pools effective 11/30/01.  That would leave ENA with a negative pre-petition imbalance on Dominion and ENA would not have to pay the producers for December production or worry about selling a positive imbalance in an un-friendly market.  However, Dominion will probably not let ENA terminate the pools until 12/31/2001 due to the negative cumulative imbalance.

Questions that need to be answered,
	** will ENA have to pay the producers for December (possibly January) production if Dominion will not let ENA terminate the pools any earlier?
	** how will Dominion handle the positive imbalance if the pool is terminated on 12/31/01 or later?

The operations contact at Dominion is Iris King (304-627-3213), she is one of the managers over the operations group.  In my opinion, we should terminate the pools as early as possible.

3/5/02 Per Vickie Coen at Dominion
ENA Pool Balances as of
			11/30/01	12/31/01
Gat North		1,323		2,187
Tran North		0		0
Gat South		(26,482)		31,583
Tran South		5,412		8,143

Cumulative		(19,747)		41,913
Dom Inside Ferc		$3.37		$2.42

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Proctor, Shemin V." <sproctor@akllp.com>@ENRON
Sent:	Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:31 AM
To:	Germany, Chris
Cc:	Mann, Kay; Price, Wade R.
Subject:	Dominion

Hi Chris,
I am just checking to see whether you sent me your conclusions regarding
whether ENA should terminate the pooling agreement with Dominion. Do we
still need to speak with Iris? And, can we set up a meeting with Ed
McMichael so that we can make a decision and move forward? Please call
(5-3910) or email me.
Thanks,
Shemin


Please feel free to forward this.

I am a senior financial advisor with American Express Financial Advisors in
the Woodlands, TX.  If you or someone you knows has experience helping to
run an office in a fast paced environment and has an interest in the
financial world, I would love to visit .  I am offering a competitive
salary, great work environment, fabulous learning opportunities and an
unlimited growth potential.  Benefits are included.

Position Purpose:

To assist me in areas of financial planning, marketing and administration.
 Tasks include but are not limited to setting appointments with clients,
completing applications, communication with the corporate office,
confirming appointments, ordering supplies, typing letters, staff
management, and more.

Please feel free to forward your resume to me or call directly at the
number listed below.

Make it a great day!

Byron W. Ellis, CFP, CLU, ChFC
American Express Financial Advisors
Town Center One
1450 Lake Robbins Dr.
Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX  77380
Phone (281) 367-8658
Fax     (281) 364-9628


Greg is the COO of Enron Networks.  His e-mail is greg.piper@enron.com.

Thanks,
Joannie

Enzo Olfati <holfati@ispheres.com> on 03/19/2001 11:24:54 AM
To: "'Jeff.Skilling@enron.com'" <Jeff.Skilling@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: RE: advanced arbitrage enabling technology out of Caltech

Joannie,

Thanks for the quick reply. Would you have Greg's title and e-mail? Thanks,

Enzo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff.Skilling@enron.com [mailto:Jeff.Skilling@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 12:11 PM
To: Enzo Olfati
Subject: Re: advanced arbitrage enabling technology out of Caltech

Mr. Olfati,

You could contact Greg Piper to discuss.  You can reach Greg at
713-853-6161.

Thank you,
Joannie

Enzo Olfati <holfati@ispheres.com> on 03/19/2001 10:40:03 AM

To:   "Jeffrey K. Skilling (E-mail)" <jeff.skilling@enron.com>
cc:

Subject:  advanced arbitrage enabling technology out of Caltech

Jeff,

I'd like to introduce you to?our company?and set-up a?one-hourconference
call?and discussion with you?and/or?someone you?trustto evaluate?this
opportunity.

iSpheres Corporationisco-founded by the Chairman of  Computer Science
Department at California Institute of Technology.

iSpheres enables dynamic arbitrage opportunities in commodities  trading.
With iSpheres, trading firms wrap applications like steel  marketplaces,
energy marketplaces, demand planning systems, and production  planning
systems as components, and derive additional business value by  monitoring
these components for real time interdependent events and then  reacting to
those?composite events  based on business rules.

iSpheres provides a software framework for developing and deploying these
loosely-coupled Web Services or Meta-Applications. These applications are
assembled from multiple components, each of which was previously itself an
application and data source, to enable new business processes.

For example, a $22 billion investment bank uses the iSpheres Meta
Application Framework,?to  detect and react to interdependent market
events. This enables them to optimize  and automate the acquisition and
response to relevant dynamic?events in  their Market Intelligence
information environment.

The build out of the Internet and the rapid  deployment of eBusiness
applications over last several years has established the  need and created
the ability to build and deploy loosely-coupled Web Services or  Meta
Applications.

Please advise, otherwise I'll  follow up with you in 3-5 days.
Thanks,

H. Enzo Olfati
Account Manager
www.iSpheres.com
tel.978.461.4840 direct.510.302.6767

P.S.?I have also  e-mailed this to others at Enron?to determine the
appropriate contacts  to?have the discussion  with.


ID cgerman
Pword clg03mar

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Kimberly Brown                           03/28/2000 02:12 PM

To: Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jared Kaiser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandra F
Brawner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dick Jenkins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brad McKay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott
Hendrickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sarah Mulholland/HOU/ECT@ECT, Andrea
Ring/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan W Pereira/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Junek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris
Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robin Barbe/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kate
Fraser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tammi DePaolis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Maureen
Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Craig Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott
Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bhavna
Pandya/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Passwords For the move

Please forward me your passwords for the upcoming move.  I will be coming in
over the weekend to test your workstations.

Thank you


Rob/Kay,
As discussed in today's meeting, I have the turbine serial numbers for you:

1.  LM 6000 Serial numbers:

Regards,
Tracee
713-345-5688


Yannis,

Yes, very much. Please stop by this week or  during the week
of the 24th. I am in Australia next week.

Vince


<<2SX803!.DOC>>  <<2T2902!.DOC>>  <<2T2B02!.DOC>>  <<2SX8RED.DOC>>
<<2T29RED.DOC>>  <<2T2BRED.DOC>>

We have enclosed clean and blacklined copies (marked to reflect revisions
from the drafts circulated 01/04/2001) of the following documents:

1.  Amendment No. 1 to Letter Agreement for CA Energy Development I;
2.  Amendment No. 1 to Letter Agreement for CA Energy Development II -
Turbine; and
3.  Amendment No. 1 to Letter Agreement for CA Energy Development II -
Transformer.

The clean copies are ready for execution.  If the enclosed documents are
acceptable, please secure execution of four originals in order that we may
coordinate an exchange of fully executed counterparts.  In addition, we
should simultaneously exchange fully executed counterparts of the escrow
agreements and the fee schedule letter.  If you have any questions or
comments. please advise at your earliest convenience.  Thank you.

Carolyn M. Campbell
King & Spalding
713-276-7307 (phone)
713-751-3280 (fax)
ccampbell@kslaw.com <mailto:ccampbell@kslaw.com>

Enclosures: 130796v3
  130977v2
  130979v2
  130796vR3/2
  130977vR2/1
  130979vR2/1

                    Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
all copies of the message.

 - 2SX803!.DOC
 - 2T2902!.DOC
 - 2T2B02!.DOC
 - 2SX8RED.DOC
 - 2T29RED.DOC
 - 2T2BRED.DOC


I don't have my drivers license yet. I start driver's training next week.


Sorry, I lost track of the versions. Here are my two questions/comments:

What are we gaining or losing by putting a drop dead date of March 2004?

On 2.11, I think relinquishing them from "damage" is broader than it needs to
be, since the contract language is "risk of loss".  However, if the deal is
that they are off the hook for cosmetic deterioration during storage, I think
that can be addressed specifically in the change order.

Kay

From: Brian D Barto@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/22/2001 03:40 PM
To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Renee Alfaro/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6

Kay:
We are sill awaiting your approval to proceed with this revision of CO 2
(Storage of Unit 1) for Blue Dog.  Your last comment that I did not get GE to
agree to was the change to their responsibility for cosmetic deterioration
during storage.  They believe that any cosmetic deteriation in storage would
be viewed as their fault, therefore there was no real distinction of fault.
They want to be off the hook for normal deterioration that occurs during our
storage in their storage facility.

PS.  Storage has begun.
----- Forwarded by Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/22/2001 03:33 PM
-----

	Brian D Barto
	02/07/2001 05:14 PM

		 To: Renee Alfaro/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6

----- Forwarded by Brian D Barto/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 02/07/2001 05:13 PM
-----

	Brian D Barto
	02/07/2001 04:50 PM

		 To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: BlueDog Change Order #2, Rev 6

That was incredibly fast.


Did you get the magazines I sent you?

Karen Arnold <klarnold@flash.net> on 08/30/2000 09:16:53 PM
To: John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:

Don't look at Power until it goes up again.....today was not a good day.

I have a job interview tomorrow night!  Yes, ME!  I don't know if I will
take it if it is offered to me.  It's for only 4 days/week!!!!


Dan, Is Entex Gas Marketing correct?  Ducote said to refer to the GISBY
contracts for the proper name (which you may have done).
---------------------- Forwarded by Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT on 07/30/99 04:03
PM ---------------------------

Kyle R Lilly
07/30/99 10:26 AM
To: Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Entex Gas Marketing

Janet,

 Can you let me know what you find out regarding that $1 million dollar pmt
to Entex for extending the deal?  The Transaction Agreement #4 & 5, the
buy/sell, nets out to the $1million due Entex.  Since this payment is for
extending the deal,  shouldn't the Transaction Agreement  be between ECT &
Reliant Energy - Entex and not Entex Gas Marketing? I will be out this
afternoon, so could you just email me?

Thanks,
Kyle


Check these out:


----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/16/2001 01:30 PM -----

	Chip Schneider/ENRON@enronXgate
	03/16/2001 11:39 AM

		 To: Rick Buy/ENRON@enronXgate, David Gorte/ENRON@enronXgate, William S
Bradford/ENRON@enronXgate, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT, W David
Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Terry W Donovan/HOU/ECT@ECT, George
Schaefer/HPL/Enron@Enron, Greg Blair/Corp/Enron@Enron, James D
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: FW: Research - CA Utilities

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Power, Keith E.
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:44 AM
To: Schneider, Chip; Tribolet, Michael
Subject: Research - CA Utilities

Comments attached from Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch on events from
yesterday.

? Coram Energy, a small QF, will sign an involuntary bankruptcy petition
against Southern California Edison. A Coram spokesman stated that the
petition is being circulated to five other QFs (which were not named) and
that it could be filed as soon as next week.  If filed, the utilities would
have 20 days to respond, perhaps another 30 days to contest the filing.

? California PUC voted to block Edison and PG&E,s layoff plans.  The ruling
requires the companies to halt planned layoffs and to rescind those already
made.  Edison had cut 400 jobs, with plans to cut 1,450 more.  PGE had laid
off 325, with plans to cut a further 675.

? Proposed QF contract legislation (SB-47X) remains stalled in the State
Senate Energy Committee.  In a perverse and &vicious-circle8 type twist, lack
of QF payments to date have forced many off line, reducing supply and driving
up prices.

? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,s spring forecast.  The
NOAA reported that the Pacific Northwest has experienced one of the driest
winters on record, second only to 1976-77.  Reservoir levels continued to be
below normal for the end of February and mountain snowpacks in many river
basins are less than 70% of normal.


Rev. Coletta Eichenberger
314 High St.
Boonville, MO 65233
cbeichenberger@undata.com

To Mr. Ken Lay,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Rev. Coletta Eichenberger


Please forward to others who need this information.

As you know, Enron's been involved with a group of business customers, small customers, labor and enviros trying to hammer out a core/noncore proposal that would act as a key modification to Edison's MOU with the Governor.

Today, the Assembly leadership released a bill (AB 82XX) that modifies the MOU but does not follow the core/noncore proposal negotiated by the group.  The bill just came out, is about 80 pages long, and thorough analysis has not yet been completed.  The URL for the bill is attached.  Based on a meeting attended this morning in Sacramento,the key features of the bill( which is attached) are:

Direct Access suspended until 1.1.2003 (suspension presumably effective on the effective date of the bill)
Transmission sale at 2X book.
Approximately 90% (or greater) of Edison's undercollection absorbed by customers 20KW and above.
Create a Trust to address the money owed to the generators and offer the generators 70 cents on the dollar (but does not do away with the suits, investigations, etc.)
The bill is completely silent regarding who will pay for the DWR contracts and what the payment structure will look like.

Reaction and Timetable
Very chaotic, with considerable uncertainty about where (if anywhere) the bill will go, leaving many to believe that bankruptcy remains a strong possibility.
Business customers (and of course Enron) are strongly opposed
Republicans are strongly opposed
Labor has big problems with the Tx sale unless they get assurances that TX labor jobs are guaranteed, which is not yet included in the bill
We are working with business to remove the Direct Access suspension
We are also working on the Senate side to attempt to get the Senate to include Direct Access in their version of the modified MOU, but the Senate has been more hostile than the Assembly to Direct Access.
Senate Democrats still intend to run a bill that delinks payment of the bonds to repay General Fund for power already purchased from the DWR contracts. AB82XX does not address this issue.
Senate Democrats also intend to craft their own version of a "modified MOU."  Word is that the Senate will release their bond language and their "modified" MOU this weekend or early next week.
The Assembly will hold an "informational" hearing on the bill tomorrow (Saturday) to get members up to speed
The Assembly will have a committee hearing and vote on the bill on Monday, with the intent of sending the bill to the full Assembly for a vote on Tuesday.
The Legsilature is supposed to have a month-long recess beginning Friday, July 20th, which requires that both the budget and the energy issue get resolved by then, or suspend the recess and continue working

Will continue to provide updates as events unfold. If folks have additional comments on the bill, please direct them to Harry Kingerski and Leslie Lawner, who will ensure that they get into the hands of our lobbyists in Sacramento.

If there are any questions, my pager is 888.916.7184.

Best,
Jeff
 - abx2_82_bill_20010712_intro.pdf


Attached is a new draft of the letter to John Pope with all comments
received.  Dick Ingersoll will send this out to TVA tomorrow.  If you have
any other additions, please get them to me today.


Jeff --

You should be aware that yesterday at the Gas Accord II session our dear
friend Norm put a proposal on the table (1) to end the PG&E city-gate market
and (2) move to a postage-stamp, all-volumetric transmission rate that
combines both backbone and local transmission.  He's trying to get TURN's
support by agreeing to maintain the vintage rates for the core's share of
Line 400.  PG&E noted that Norm basically was proposing to return to the
pre-Accord structure (with all its problems), and I could not resist asking
him whether his proposal was contingent on CPUC approval of the post-Interim
Settlement for SoCalGas (he said his PG&E proposal stood alone).  Sound
familiar?  We need the CPUC to adopt the Comprehensive Settlement, in order
to keep Norm quiet in Gas Accord II.

I'm working with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in Gas
Accord II.  Their primary interest is moving to equalize the Redwood and
Baja path rates.  I also have done work recently for Southern proposing a
backbone-only rate for PG&E.  Keep me posted if and as your coalition
develops.

Tom Beach

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com>
To: <craigc@calpine.com>; <counihan@greenmountain.com>; <PhilDavies@aec.ca>;
<jfawcett@enron.com>; <rochmanm@spurr-remac.org>; <dcarroll@dbsr.com>;
<PaulAmirault@aec.ca>; <ALEXANMS@sce.com>; <Mark.C.Moench@wgp.twc.com>;
<tomb@crossborderenergy.com>; <burkee@cts.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:01 AM

> Greetings Folks:
>
> As you know, the Gas Accord is coming to an end and PG&E's trying to
figure
> out where to go from here.  I would argue that what happens with PG&E is
> equally, if not more, important as what happens with SoCal.
>
> As you also know, we're faced with a retrograde PUC that, by all accounts,
> longs for the "halcyon days" of command-and-control regulation.  As such,
I
> think it would be very useful, and cost-effective, to pull together the
> effective coalition we established in the SoCalGas settlement.
>
> In that coalition, some of us contributed dollars and some contributed
> experts.  I think we should employ that approach again.  I asked Mike Day,
> who I think most agree, did a pretty good job of representing us in the
> SoCal settlement, to make a proposal for representing us in the PG&E case.
> Mike's proposal is attached.  Finally, if there's anyone else you think we
> ought to include in our coalition, please let me know.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Hope all is well with you and yours.
>
> Best,
> Jeff
>
>
***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff:
>
>            Goodin, MacBride is willing and able to represent a coalition
of
> end-users, marketers, and other interested parties in the PG&E Gas Accord
> II
> proceeding in much the same fashion that it represented multiple parties
in
> the GRI proceeding in both PG&E and SoCalGas settlements.  We would
propose
> to split our monthly billings for legal fees and expenses equally between
> the parties who agree to join such a coalition.  In exchange for joining
> the
> coalition, parties would receive frequent updates on the status of
> settlement talks and other proceedings, participate in conference calls to
> reach decisions on coalition positions, and have the ability to call on
the
> GMSRD lawyers on the case in order to answer specific questions or provide
> any other useful information.
>
>            I envision using several attorneys for various portions of the
> proceeding, including using associates and paralegals for research, and
> other GMSRD partners with gas experience for preparation of pleadings,
etc.
> However, most of the face to face negotiating, including working with
> Commissioners and advisors as necessary, would be done by myself as lead
> partner on the case.  I have attached a fee schedule for the GMSRD
> attorneys
> who would likely have some involvement in the case.  Because the majority
> of
> this work will be done in 2001, these rates reflect our new 2001 hourly
> fees.  However, in an effort to encourage participation in the coalition,
> and because several potential members of the coalition are past or
existing
> clients, we propose to reduce our standard fees with a 15% discount for
all
> participants in the coalition.  With this discount, these would be the
> lowest fees available to any of our clients in the coming year.
>
>            I have not made any type of estimate of legal expenses for this
> proceeding, as it is exceedingly difficult to forecast how protracted the
> proceedings will be.  Once we begin participating in the proceeding and we
> collectively decide how best to proceed in terms of actual participation
in
> the case, we can provide frequent budget reports and make more useful
> budgetary estimates.  If you require some type of estimation sooner than
> that, please let me know.
>
>            Thank you for your interest in using our services.  Please
> contact
> me directly at (415) 765-8408 if you have any questions.
>
> Mike Day, partner
> Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day
>
>
>
> GMSRD Fee Schedule for Gas Accord II proceedings
>
> Michael Day                                   $300
>
> James McTarnaghan                              $260
>
> Jeanne Bennett                            $220
>
> Alexandra Ozols                                $130
>
> Heather Patrick, paralegal                     $ 85
>
>


Details of our latest award, highly personalised portal for Yellow Pages
combining many different data sources and demonstrating real benefits in
collaboration, knowledge, decision support and content management

regards

Mike Altendorf

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:  AlQasem, Iyas
> Sent: 24 November 2000 08:36
> To: Europe Staff; NY & CT Staff; Texas Staff
> Subject: HOT OFF THE PRESS - Information Management Awards
>
> At the 2000 Information Management Awards held last night in London,
> Conchango and Yellow Pages won "The Premier Project Award", one of the 2
> "Blue Riband" awards of the night. This was the most hotly contested
> award, forcing Andersen Consulting's project with Shell into the runner up
> position. It culminated a successful evening where our "Yell Insight"
> project came
>
> * Runner up in the Data Warehousing Project category and
> * Third in the Knowledge Management category.
>
> Congratulations are due to most of the Conchango IIS team who at one time
> or another worked on this project. However, special congratulations to
> Steve Lally, who has been project managing this and other Yellow Pages
> projects for 18 months, and aside from delivering quality and managing
> Conchango and Yellow Pages staff, has grown Yellow Pages into IIS's
> largest account. Thanks also to Jo Hudgell for her efforts in preparing
> the submission.
>
> Spread the news far and wide ...
>
> Iyas AlQasem
> Conchango
> 'Experienced in business. Experts at technology.'
>
> T 44 (0) 1784 470448
> F 44 (0)1784 470451
> M 44 (0) 7768 647 593
> E iyas.alqasem@conchango.com
> http://www.conchango.com
>
> The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
> for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying
> or alteration of this message is forbidden.
>


Sounds good to me. I'm out of office til Wed. Trip was good I presume? Rick
Rick Buy
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)


Credit Requested

Shipper : 		Tenaska Marketing Ventures
Contract # :		27792
Service Type :	Amended FT
MDQ:			21,000 Dth/d
Rate:			$0.10
Term:			January 8, 2002 through January 8, 2002

Thanks.................
Mike Bodnar


Entire story:  http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/1220/1299353.html

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee Titans quarterback Steve McNair missed
practice Thursday for the third straight day because of back spasms and is
questionable for Saturday's game against Oakland.

"There are concerns," coach Jeff Fisher said. "He hasn't responded like we'd
hoped. He's still pretty stiff."

McNair first experienced some stiffness in his lower back late last week. In
the first quarter of Sunday's game against Green Bay, he said the muscles
tightened up. However, he stayed in the game and led the Titans to a 26-20
victory.

Even McNair is unsure of his status for Saturday night.

"If it's like it is right now, there's no way I can do it," he said. "I'm
very surprised. Usually this comes and goes, but this time the spasms have
stayed longer than I anticipated."

McNair has been questionable numerous times this season with shoulder,
ankle, thumb and elbow injuries. However, he missed just one game, and is
now producing the best statistics of his career.

**********  Our View  **************

Jeff Fisher is probably the least forthcoming of any NFL coach outside of
Mike Shanahan.   Clearly, it doesn't sound good.   But McNair is a guy who
seems to always be a stretch to play and then he goes out and does well (at
least lately)   I honestly don't have any more info that what's reported
above.   It would be my suggestion that if you have a good alternative, you
look hard at him as it's awfully murky for McNair right now.

Joe

/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/**/

Bryant Analytics, Inc.   All Rights Reserved 1999-2001

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cheatsheets-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Set up by Shelley
Juice & Muffins
Those attending are:
Bob Burleson
Stephen Herber
Mike W. McGowan
Michael Stage
Steve Weller
Penny McCarran

John Goodpasture will be out of town


How much involvement has A & K had on Midway?  I have other counsel engaged
for the sale, but this falls into a different category.

Kay

From: Greg Krause/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/05/2001 11:35 PM
To: Ben Jacoby/ENRON@enronXgate, Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: RE: Midway Interconnect Agreement

Please see attachment below with Christi's comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacoby, Ben
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:22 PM
To: Mann, Kay
Cc: Krause, Greg; Nicolay, Christi
Subject: Midway Interconnect Agreement

Kay:

Greg has Christi's comments on the FPL Construction & Connection Agreement,
and he will be sending us those comments today in a marked document. Have we
engaged outside counsel to review this agreement? I'd like to have a
commercial / legal review fully completed, and then get accounting / finance
to comment. I this something you were planning to have Carlos to work on
given his recent work on ComEd and Ameren?

Please let me know. Thanks.

Attached is the original generic form of FPL Connection and Construction
Agreement for your reference.

Ben


I know this is long, but worth your time to read. I met with Brent to maker sure he was fully informed of our plans to recognize revenue connected with Jim Bouillion's Corporate Risk Management activities. Brent agrees with all of the below and I am proceeding with booking each deal for Q$ as described. It means a plus to gross margin in MPR of just under $2 million for Q4. This does not include the double trigger or any value from Doug Jone's muni deal if it comes off this quarter.  In addition, I'll be taking a negative charge (reduction) in expense for the quarter of just over $1 million, recooping all of our peaker expenses plus a little of our own direct time and expense.

Any questions please give me a call and I'd be happy to go into more detail.

Per

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sekse, Per
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:31 AM
To:	Price, Brent A.
Cc:	Williams, Karin; Bouillion, James L.; Davis, Jonathan; Sekse, Per
Subject:	Accounting of Portfolio Management Revenue for Insurance Risk Markets activities

Brent, I thought it would be helpful to supply some background for our meeting today at 1:30PM. My objective is to make sure you are fully up to speed on what we are doing, the accounting treatment we are using, and Corp's position on it all.

A little background. Since January, I have been working with Jim Bouillion's Corporate Risk Management team to create trading revenue through the proactive management of our corporate insurance needs --- what we are now calling Portfolio Management Revenue and booking to the MPR. Two examples of this which we pushed through in the 3Q follow below:

A.	1 transaction booked trading our political risk insurance book for total value of $716,000. Received risk sharing premium by modifying deductible, stop loss limits, 	coverage diversification and country diversification covered	under OPIC and with our commercial coverage and risk retention in our Vermont captive. P&L Reported:

	Reported MPR		$  716,000

B.	1 transaction booked for Hainan, China for total value of $ 406,000. Cancelled original stand alone insurance	policy with limited currency convertibility coverage and 	reissued coverage through Enron Re for lower premium, saving business unit $75,000, and better coverage. Reinsured Enron Re through commercial program and
	netted $406,000. P&L Reported:

	Reported MPR		$  406,000

For the 4Q we have a number of similar transactions going through. The fundamental business change I'm trying to implement is to have each Enron business unit pay market prices for their insurance cover, leaving IRM's Corporate Risk Management team the incentive to capture insurance risk trading revenues by dynamically managing the risk on an aggregated basis. Historically, any work Jim's team did was considered expense reduction and was simply refunded to Corp or directly to the business units. I consider this risk management activity to be no different than any commodity trading book at Enron where the risk manager (trader) keeps the value they create by trading efficiently in the market. Our market just happens to be insurance and our bid/offer spread is the difference between insurance and reinsurance premiums. These transactions are an effort to test the concept and push the system.

The transactions we expect to push through in Q4 are:

C.	1 transaction to be booked as the second instalment of "A" above. The OPIC risk sharing premium was split into two payments over 3Q and 4Q.

	To be reported to MPR	$700,000

D.	1 transaction to be booked in our property insurance book. It is connected with EES's acquisition of Limbach. The market price for their insurance coverage is $400,000 which is being charged to them.  By placing the property asset physical damage coverage in the property program, we get automatic coverage for new acquisitions (up to certain values). The insurance market only charges when significant values are added or if the asset acquired is of a different nature than the mix already in the portfolio, for example, the paper mill acquisitions have generated a charge.

	To be reported to MPR	$400,000

E.	1 transaction to be booked capturing the value of our property coverage with Aegis and Energy Insurance Mutual. The insurance coverage essentially has a dividend option built into it based on Aegis's or EIM's overall loss experience during the year. These dividends are like going long options on loss experience and were captured by Corporate Risk Management's selection of dividend generating markets to write the coverage. (AEGIS also writes one of the broadest policy forms in the market and is very competitive on price.)
	To be reported to MPR	$893,000

In addition. there is 1 transaction related to the sale of ENA assets (the Peakers) which normally would not have resulted in a property insurance refund. Jim's team negotiated with the underwriters and won a concession to recognize a reduction in premium midway through the year. The property program is an umbrella facility which gives us flexibility to move assets in and out of the program subject to the total value of the property and classification (hence the income recognized in "D"). We couldn't come up with a good defence for why this should be treated as revenue so we decided to take it in as a negative expense and avoid possible questions down the road. The total value we'll credit to expenses will be approx. $1.012 million. In addition, our group had over $600,000 of peaker transaction expenses that we were not reimbursed for when the insurance market transaction we were pursuing had to be cancelled after the sale of the assets.

Karen has had a number of conversations with the Enron Corp acctg group. They do not have issues with the portfolio mgmt revenue as it is still below their materiality scope, somewhere around $5 million.
Hope this helps set the stage for our discussion this afternoon.
Per


Charles + Steve + Ray + Dave + Andy --

There have been a number of e-mails related to my initial request for a transition plan for Dick Ingersoll.

By this e-mail, I am asking that Charles Yeung take the lead on ensuring a smooth transition and that all meetings are appropriately covered.  Please coordinate as a team to work out the details.  Charles please also consider that Jose Bestard will be returning at some point in the near future.

Thanks,

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Yeung, Charles
Sent:	Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:21 PM
To:	'Steffes, James D.'; Walton, Steve; Alvarez, Ray; Perrino, Dave; Rodriquez, Andy
Subject:	RE: Transition from Dick Ingersoll in NERC/WSCC

I am planning to go to the Security Subcommittee meeting in Sept since I will be there for other NERC meetings that week.  I may need Andy or Steve to cover the Flowbased meeting onA Aug 30, I am conflicted with a NERC meeting on RTO Scheduling practices on that day.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steffes, James D.
Sent:	Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:28 AM
To:	Walton, Steve; Alvarez, Ray; Yeung, Charles; Perrino, Dave; Rodriquez, Andy
Subject:	Transition from Dick Ingersoll in NERC/WSCC

As some of you may be aware, Dick's consulting arrangement with Enron ends later this fall.  In an effort to make the transition as easy as possible, I would recommend that the following people work with Dick to transition on critical committees and tasks (nothing is hardwired, so if we need to change people, let me know).

Dick will attend the upcoming WSCC EPITF meeting (not sure of date, but think in the next two weeks).  My recommendation is that Steve Walton attend with Dick and become the lead.  We may not get a voting seat after Dick leaves, but we should try and cover.

Ray Alvarez should attend the WSCC Board Meeting on Aug 27 with Dick to pick up these responsibilities.

Charles Yeung should pick up coverage for the FlowBased discussions.  Dick will not attend the next meeting in Chicago that takes place on Aug 30.

Andy Rodriguez should pick up the Security Coordinator Subcommitte discussions that take place Sept 25 - 27.  Dick will not attend.

I think that Charles, Ray, Dick and I should attend the NERC Stakeholders Mtg on Oct 15 - 16.

Finally, Dave Perrino should go with Dick to the next WSCC OCTPG meeting.

Let me know if this transition plan works.

Jim


My vote is for something around Canterra - Brewsters or Red Devil.  I've been
to Ceili's on Thursday nights and it is very busy and very noisy.  Someplace
a bit quieter where we could talk is my vote.

Matilda

	Enron North America Corp.

	From:  Nella Cappelletto                           03/15/2001 11:35 AM

To: Kate Joslyn/CAL/ECT@ECT, Laura E Scott/CAL/ECT@ECT, Kathy
Reeves/CAL/ECT@ECT, Matilda Machado/CAL/ECT@ECT, Diana Andel/CAL/ECT@ECT,
Cheryl Dawes/CAL/ECT@ECT, Nikole Vander Velde/CAL/ECT@ECT, Karen
Politsky/CAL/ECT@ECT, Cyntia DiStefano/CAL/ECT@ECT, Lori
Poffenroth/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc: Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Location for Drinks Tonight

Ladies, I tried to get us a reservation at Ceili's but they don't take
reservations on Thursday and Friday nights because their happy hour fall on
those nights (first come first served attitude).

So, here's the dilemma, do we risk it and just head over to Ceili's and take
our chances we will get in or would you like to try and go somewhere around
Canterra (such as Brewsters, Fionn MacCools, Red Devil, etc.).  Let me know
your preference.

Nella

PS: We should try and be at any of these places by 5:00 at the latest in the
hopes that we can get in.  (It's times like these when you wished you worked
until 4:00 or 4:30 like the rest of the world.)


Please prepare the letter to McLarty for my signature.  Please get me his phone number and get his fax number, so we can fax as well as mail the letter.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Butcher, Sharon
Sent:	Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:35 PM
To:	Kean, Steven J.
Subject:	Letters

Dear Steve:

As per your voicemail, I have reviewed the agreements between Enron Corp. and Kissinger Associates, Inc. and Enron Corp. and McLarty International, LLC.

I agree with your assessment that Enron can not legally terminate the agreement with Kissinger Associates, Inc. until May 20, 2002.

I also agree that we can terminate the relationship with McLarty International, LLC upon thirty days written notice.

Thus I have prepared two letters:

	1.  Letter from you to Mr. McLarty advising of Enron's termination of the Agreement effective November 21, 2001.  It needs to be sent tomorrow, November 21, 2001.

	2.  Letter from Mr. Lay to Ambassador Paul Bremer advising of Enron's termination of the Agreement effective May 20, 2002.

I have tried to soften our standard notice.  Please revise each letter as necessary.  As per your voicemail, I will be happy to "tickle" the  letter to Ambassador Bremer until April, 2002.  However, I did not find any language in the Agreement which would prevent us from providing notice of termination at this time.

Thank you.

Sharon


Elliot,

I need more info.   What zone? Is it strictly an SC trade?  What is the shape? Will it change daily? Who is the SC? What is the proposed schedule? Who is the counterparty in Enpower?

I would like the info Tuesday morning if possible.  I will be out  for the week starting Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. If this is not possible, Jeremy will need the info sometime later on Tuesday. Let's talk Tuesday morning.
Thx!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mainzer, Elliot
Sent:	Friday, May 25, 2001 3:53 PM
To:	Platter, Phillip; Richter, Jeff; Semperger, Cara
Subject:	Edison Air Force Base Deal

Hey guys,

Just wanted to check in with you regarding our Edwards Air Force Base Transaction. So. Cal Edison Scheduling was hoping that one of our team will call them to notify them of the Edwards deal and the proposed schedule. The deal is scheduled to start June 1. I do not have a name at Edison. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Thx!

Elliot

Elliot Mainzer
Renewable Power Desk
Enron North America
121 SW Salmon St.
3WTC-0306
Portland, OR  97201
(503) 464-3706
(503) 464-3740 (FX)
(503) 709-6959 (CL)


just a little propaganda.  some of this might be old, but it's still fun to
read.

---------------------- Forwarded by Craig J. Dean/Southwest/AUDIT/EYLLP/US on
08/24/2000 09:47 AM ---------------------------
From: Randy A. Hyzak on 08/17/2000 11:22 AM
AABS / Audit
Phone Number: (214) 969-8653
Cell Phone: (214) 289-5840       EYComm: 3274992

To: Craig J. Dean/Southwest/AUDIT/EYLLP/US@EY-NAmerica, Ryan
Shultz/Southwest/AUDIT/EYLLP/US@EY-NAmerica
cc:
Subject: FW: williams and BJ

Thought you boys may enjoy!
---------------------- Forwarded by Randy A. Hyzak/Southwest/AUDIT/EYLLP/US
on 08/17/2000 11:22 AM ---------------------------

dhyzak@quantaservices.com on 08/17/2000 10:38:51 AM

To: Randy A. Hyzak/Southwest/AUDIT/EYLLP/US@EY-NAmerica,
ghyzak@ashford.com@Internet
cc:
Subject: FW: williams and BJ

-----Original Message-----
From:  Martin, Shannon
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 10:31 AM
To: Andy Michel (E-mail); Barry Goss (E-mail); Chris Cole (E-mail);
Dwayne Hyzak; Fritz Boehm (E-mail); Jason Kroll (E-mail); Jeff Deatsman
(E-mail); Jess Morris (E-mail); Kendall Bowlin (E-mail); Kristi Fenton
(E-mail); Mik Hogan (E-mail); Ray Cole (E-mail)
Subject: FW: williams and BJ

 <<att1.unk>>  <<ATT05881.txt>>

Shannon Martin
wk. (713) 985-6424
c.    (713) 857-0392
Quanta Services, Inc. (NYSE: PWR)
1360 Post Oak Blvd., St. 2100
Houston, Tx. 77027

-----Original Message-----
From: Pradeep.Rao@chase.com [mailto:Pradeep.Rao@chase.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:38 AM
To: sachin.menon@us.cgeyc.com; anil.advani@ey.com;
westley.s.stockton@us.arthurandersen.com;
joel.w.hermes@us.arthurandersen.com; jdurham@minutemaid.com;
cerones@yahoo.com; smartin@quantaservices.com; dhyzak@quantaservices.com;
Don.Bleasdell@smedica.com; pobrien@quantaservices.com
Subject: FW: williams and BJ

Don't tell me this doesn't get you excited.....true or not........more
likely
than not........dammit, i hate waiting.....at least I get to see him
FRIDAY!!!!

---------------------- Forwarded by Pradeep Rao/CHASE on 08/16/2000 10:36 AM
---------------------------

c.sean.muller@us.arthurandersen.com on 08/16/2000 11:28:13 AM

 To: robert.a.hawkins@us.arthurandersen.com,
 jonathan.c.grahmann@us.arthurandersen.com, Pradeep
 Rao/CHASE@CHASE, b_mortee@hotmail.com,
 david.n.sanders@us.arthurandersen.com

 cc:

 Subject: FW: williams and BJ

from a friend in Austin....
The uncut version.

i went to both the am and the pm practices yesterday, and let me
re-re-re-iterate that we have a great group of receivers and that the stud
dog bad ass mofo of the group is roy williams.  he is physically way beyond
not only vasher and the walkon CBs trying to cover him, but the rest of the
college ranks.  ahmad brooks was standing by him in street clothes, and
there ain't a chance he could stop roy.  roy flies past people and gets way
the fuck up there and takes the ball out of the clouds.  he's a fucking
randy moss, but you know what?  he's bigger than randy moss and as fast as
randy moss and probably has as good a vertical as randy moss:

Moss
height: 6'4"
weight:  198 lbs.
40 speed: 4.3
vertical: ?

Roy
height: 6'5"
weight: 210 lbs.
40 speed: 4.3
100 speed: 10.38
high jump: 6'10"
long jump: 24'

we may just have the next superhuman WR on our team.  pray for no injuries.
i'm going to the pm practice today, too.  got a hard-on just thinking about
roy.  probably will see a few NFL GMs there.

and the other WRs are spectacular, too.  sloan is 6'2" and does well at
establishing and holding position vs. the cover man.  BJ is 6'1" and has
really soft hands.  i watched BJ, vasher and jeffrey field 12-15 punts each
at 60 yds with a cross wind in the pm session.  vasher and jeffrey had
technical problems and bobbled or dropped almost half.  BJ never bobbled or
dropped one.  as soon as it's close, he just sucks it in and takes off.  and
that's how he catches balls on the crossing routes.  vacuum hands.

it's going to be unfuckingreal a year or two down the road when these guys
have experience and simms gets to throw to them on the field three at a
time.  you can't doubleteam them all.

put simply, i think the days of our using white 5'7" WRs are over.

******************************************************************************
*
Note:          The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible
for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer.  Thank you.  Ernst & Young LLP
******************************************************************************
*
 - att1.unk
 - ATT05881.txt


Due to the risk of wholesale market participants becoming bankrupt and
therefore unable to flow refunds through to customers, the City of San Diego
has asked FERC to direct sellers of wholesale power in the "California"
markets to sequester any amounts collected from sales that are in excess of
costs and to maintain those amounts, with interest, adequate to pay potential
refund obligations.  It also asks FERC to clarify that these amounts are
being retained by the sellers in trust to fulfill refund obligations.

I think we should make the following arguments at FERC:

In the In re Columbia Gas Systems Inc. case relied on by San Diego, FERC had
ordered, and Columbia had received, refunds from upstream pipelines, but had
not specified that Columbia was to hold those refunds in trust for its
customers.  To my knowledge, none of the refunds FERC has recently required
would be paid to EPMI, nor has FERC required EPMI to make any refunds, it has
merely conditioned its rates "subject to refund."  Accordingly, it is
inappropriate for EPMI to be required to sequester any of its profits.
San Diego seeks to apply this requirement to every participant in the market,
although it has not proven that refunds would put EPMI on the verge of
insolvency.  It has simply said that "there is no assurance that the actual
wholesale sellers , , , are capable of paying the refunds that potentially
may be ordered."
San Diego also alleges that the potential refund obligation is immense.  This
allegation is based on San Diego's allegation that the refund liability
calculated by FERC's March 9 order (of $69 million) is vastly understated.
This is suppostion, on supposition, not to mention a collateral attack on the
Commission March 9 order.
The pleading is in essence a request for cost-of service based rates given
that market participants would be deprived of any benefit of participating in
the market for years - "pending a final nonappealable order in these
proceedings."  Therefore, it is a collateral attack on FERC's December 15
order finding that it would not order cost based rates.
This pleading also seeks refunds beyond what could be required pursuant to
FERC's December 15 order in that its would apply sequestering to sellers of
wholesale power "in the California markets" not just for sales in the ISO and
PX markets.


Randy:

As I indicated in my voicemail, Coral has requested that Intergen (or its
designated project affiliate - Sweetgum Energy L.P.) be the counterparty that
transacts with Enron.  Based on current information, the structure of the
transaction has not materially changed from the Coral deal structure
described in the 11/30/00 DASH.  Intergen is holding a Board meeting this
afternoon and the proposed transaction is on the agenda for approval.

With regard to the timing of the funding, it is my understanding that once
the Letter Agreement has been executed (target date: 12/21) and associated
documents accepted by Intergen, Enron will notify TurboPark of its intention
to assign the equipment to Intergen (target notice date: 12/22).  Once the
assignment documents are ready for execution, Intergen will fund the
transaction and Enron will execute the assignment documents immediately after
receiving written confirmation that Enron has received the transaction
proceeds.  There is a desire by East Origination to, if possible, book the
earnings from this transaction in fiscal year 2000.

Rebecca Walker (ENA development) is planning to run a D&B report on Sweetgum
Energy L.P.  tomorrow once she receives the State and Headquarters
information necessary.  I traded voicemails with Ben Glisan today on this
counterparty change.  He asked that I work with RAC deal personell on this
matter.

Based upon your voicemail it appears that we do not need to amend the DASH
based upon this change in counterparty.  Let me know if any of the above
information changes your opinion.

Call me if you wish to discuss this information.

Thanks,
Fred Mitro
x35406


Notes for this Week's Report:

* UK Gas's Average EOL and Non-EOL deals per day have decreased since their peak of 140 EOL and 96 Non-EOL transactions in March. They ended April with an average of 118 EOL deals per day and finished with 75 transactions in May. Non-EOL recorded 82 deals per day in May.

* UK Power's average deals per day finished April with 13 EOL deals and reported 13 daily transactions in May as well, down from March's 59 EOL deals.  Non-EOL's average transactions have increased dramatically, however, ending April with 180 deals per day and closing May with 255 deals.  While transactions are down, EOL and Non-EOL volume is up during this same period.

* US West Power's average transactions per day continued to increase to 182 EOL deals in May, up from 80 deals per day in January, a 128% increase. Non-EOL daily transactions has increase from 206 to 223 deals during the same period.

* Southwest Power's EOL transactions per day has continued to increase in 2001. On average, they ended January with 26 EOL trades and finished May with 65 daily transactions, a 150% increase. Non-EOL transactions have increased during this same period as well, up from 68 in January to 74 in May.

* WTI Physical's total monthly transactions closed at 117 EOL deals in May.  This monthly total in May is up from April's total of 60 EOL deals, a 95% increase.

* IPE Financial Gasoil's total monthly transactions via EOL shows 195 deals, up dramatically from it's 81 deals in March and 74 in April. During this same period, Non-EOL trading is also up from 234 total deals in March to 578 in May.

* US Weather's total monthly transactions has increased in May with 64 deals via EOL, up from 23  in April and 15 in March. Non-EOL deal totals are up slightly to 41 deals in May from 23 in April, but still report below average for 2001.

---------------
The following files contain a graphical view of the average deal count and volumes per month by Commodity for EOL and OTC transactions since the launch of EnronOnline. This information is for comparative analysis only.  Do not update links when opening these files.

AVERAGE DEAL COUNTS FOR COMMODITIES (excluding Global Products, which displays monthly totals)

NA GAS BREAKOUT BY REGION (Non-Averaged, including Volume and Notional Value)

If you have any questions regarding this breakout, please contact one of the following:

Torrey Moorer x3-6218
Adam Johnson x5-4877


Hi Vince,

Thank you for offering the opportunity in Houston to me last week.  I guess I
would interested to discuss it further with you -  one question I have is
about which commercial groups within the Houston office you were looking for
additional Research coverage on?  Please let me know when you might be free
to talk - the best times for me would be from between 12pm and 5pm Houston
time (I am usually home from 3pm Houston time).

Regards,

Anjam
x35383
Home: 0208 877 9741