Pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated November 22, 1999, among
Columbia Energy Services Corporation ("Columbia"), certain affiliates of
Columbia and ENA, Columbia has sold and assigned to ENA certain assets,
including but not limited to:   (i) certain Master Agreements (financial
trading) and the transactions thereunder; and (ii) certain Columbia financial
transactions that are not covered by a Columbia Master Agreement (financial
trading).    We are in the process of transferring the Columbia transactions
to ENA Master Agreements and terminating the Columbia Master Agreements, when
possible.

 Received Today
 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. ("Duke"), dated effective as of
January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement
between Columbia and Duke, dated as of January 8, 1998, and transfers the
Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and Duke,
dated as of October 17, 1997.

 Previously Received

 We have received the executed Assignment Agreement between ENA and Bank of
Montreal ("BOM"), dated effective as of January 18, 2000.   This agreement
terminates the ISDA Master Agreement between Columbia and BOM, dated as of
October 24, 1997, and transfers the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA
Master Agreement between ENA and BOM, dated as of November 15, 1996.

 The ISDA Master Agreement between Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
("CIBC") and Columbia Energy Services Corporation, dated as of July 15, 1998,
will remain in place but will be inactive.   No trades can be done under this
Master Agreement.   All trades between ENA and CIBC should be done under the
ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and CIBC, dated as of October 1, 1994.

We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Dynegy Marketing and Trade, f/k/a Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("Dynegy"),
dated effective as of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA
Master Agreement between Columbia and Dynegy, dated as of December 1, 1998,
and transfers the Transactions thereunder to the Master Agreement between ENA
and Dynegy, dated as of January 27, 1992.
 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Entergy Power Marketing Corp. ("Entergy"), dated effective as of January
1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement between
Columbia and Entergy, dated as of December 4, 1997, and transfers the
Transactions thereunder to the Master Agreement between ENA and Entergy,
dated as of December 9, 1996.
 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Merchant Enery Group of the Americas, Inc. ("MEGA"), dated effective as
of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement
between Columbia and MEGA, dated as of July 6, 1998, and transfers the
Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and MEGA,
dated as of May 14, 1998.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Paribas, dated effective as of January 1, 2000.   This agreement
terminates the ISDA Master Agreement between Columbia and Paribas, dated as
of July 1, 1997, and transfers the Transactions thereunder to the Amended and
Restated ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and Paribas, dated as of June 28,
1995.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Reliant Energy Services, Inc.("Reliant"), f/k/a NorAm Energy Services,
Inc., dated effective as of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the
ISDA Master Agreement between Columbia and Reliant, dated as of April 27,
1998, and transfers the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement
between ENA and Reliant, dated as of October 15, 1993.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Southern Company Energy Marketing, L.P. ("Southern"), dated effective as
of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement
between Columbia and Southern, dated as of December 1, 1998, and transfers
the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and
Southern, dated as of June 1, 1994.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Tenaska Marketing Ventures ("Tenaska"), dated effective as of January 1,
2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement between Columbia
and Tenaska, dated as of January 26, 1998, and transfers the Transactions
thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and Tenaska, dated as of
January 19, 1995.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. ("Tractebel"), dated effective as of
January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement
between Columbia and Tractebel, dated as of January 26, 1998, and transfers
the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between ENA and
Tractebel, dated as of December 9, 1997.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and TXU Energy Trading Company ("TXU"), f/k/a Enserch Energy Services, Inc.,
dated effective as of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA
Master Agreement between Columbia and TXU, dated as of January 26, 1998, and
transfers the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master Agreement between
ENA and TXU, dated as of October 19, 1995.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Western Gas Resources, Inc. ("Western Gas"), dated effective as of
January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates the ISDA Master Agreement
between Columbia and Western Gas, dated as of March 20, 1998, and transfers
the Transactions thereunder to the Master Agreement between ENA and Western
Gas, dated as of March 1, 1994.

 We have received the executed Transfer and Termination Agreement between ENA
and Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company ("Williams"), f/k/a Williams
Energy Services Company, f/k/a Williams Energy Derivatives and Trading
Company, dated effective as of January 1, 2000.   This agreement terminates
the ISDA Master Agreement between Columbia and Williams, dated as of February
8, 1998, and transfers the Transactions thereunder to the ISDA Master
Agreement between ENA and Williams, dated as of June 18, 1993.


Start Date: 4/11/01; HourAhead hour: 6;  No ancillary schedules awarded.
Variances detected.
Variances detected in Generation schedule.
Variances detected in Energy Import/Export schedule.
Variances detected in Load schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final
Schedules\2001041106.txt

---- Generation Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblGEN_SCHEDULE.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:  36.25 / Final:  20.00)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: TOSCO
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  UNIT_ID: UNCHEM_1_UNIT

---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:  47.00 / Final:  46.99)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTstSW
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  TIE_POINT: MEAD_2_WALC
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_8000
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
+++ Hour 6 - bad data from ISO.
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_BUNNY
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
+++ Hour 6 - bad data from ISO.
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  TIE_POINT: SLVRPK_7_SPP
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_BUNNY
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL

---- Load Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:   0.45 / Final:   0.30)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:   4.89 / Final:   3.33)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE2
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred:  44.68 / Final:  30.17)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: PGE3
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI
$$$ Variance found in table tblLoads.
     Details: (Hour: 6 / Preferred: 100.17 / Final: 100.16)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  LOAD_ID: SDG1
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 4/11/01
  SC_ID: EPMI


Has Louise mentioned anything about this to you?  What are we supposed to do
with it?
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT on
06/11/99 01:13 PM ---------------------------

Louise Kitchen
06/09/99 06:53 AM
To: Mark - ECT Legal Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: FYI

http://www.otp.org/


Charles --

Very well put.  This is another example why it is so important for you and Andy R. to be out with the RTO teams helping us to be more precise.  We need to blend our NERC and FERC advocacy.

Of course, you realize that ELCON will never support a PJM model central marketplace for balancing energy.  At the last EPSA meeting, ELCON really blasted centralized pools.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Yeung, Charles
Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 2:47 PM
To:	'"John P. Hughes" <jhughes@elcon.org>@ENRON'
Cc:	janderson@elcon.org; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Novosel, Sarah; Maurer, Luiz; Nicolay, Christi L.
Subject:	RE: SE RTO INTERREGIONAL COORDINATION

John

You are correct in your observations concerning market dynamics and the need for flexibility by the marketplace.  "Control area consolidation risks rebundling the industry and this would stifle innovation and market
dynamics."  Enron agrees with this observation and does not endorse an RTO structure that perpetuates the advantages control areas enjoy today in the marketplace.

We fully support your statement: "Our efforts should be directed at ensuring adequate independence of balancing, security and interchange authorities."

Enron's desire for consolidation of control areas can be misconstrued to advocate the old bundled control area structures.  I want to clarify this is absolutely NOT the case and Enron DOES support the CACTF model.  Specifically, the Interchange Authority functions called for in the CACTF model must NOT be rolled up into a single entity.  The Security Authority(SA), the Transmission Service Provider(TSP), and the Balancing  Authority(BA) all need to be separated from today's transmission owner/generation owner/load serving/control area operator entities.  Independence of these functions from market interest are critical to ensure fair and competitive markets.

The Interchange Authority (IA) functions do not require centralization or independence from market participants - but rather the scheduling advantages that the IA functions provide for must be available to every market participant.  Today, the entities that operate a "control area" are advantaged by the capabilities NERC rules provide under the Interchange Authority.  Under a contract path transmission model, control areas do not have to keep day-ahead balanced schedules and can "play" in the energy market with unbalanced portfolios up until the schedule ramping times.  Non-control areas can only get transactions approved for scheduling under specific source and sink requirements that forces them to submit balanced interchange schedules.  This is a major reason why competitive generators have sought to become NERC certified control areas.  The CACTF model allows for the scheduling functions required of an IA to be disaggregated from the other "control area" functions without detriment to reliability - thus levelizing the playing field for all competitive PSEs.

To levelize the playing field, Enron supports 2 issues.
1) Consolidation of control areas - to provide independence to eliminate the market advantages.
2) Elimination of day ahead balanced schedules requirements - to effectively provide the benefits of the IA function for all market players.  If there are no day-ahead balanced scheduling requirements, most of the competitive advantages of control areas will be eliminated.  In the same stroke, all market participants will compete on the same data and timing requriements allowing for the trading of energy up until the ramping times as control areas enjoy today.  This is the scheduling flexibility Enron seeks to create a dynamic energy trading environment.

Charles Yeung
Enron Corp, Director Gov't Affairs (NERC)
713-853-0348

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"John P. Hughes" <jhughes@elcon.org>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22John+20P+2E+20Hughes+22+20+3Cjhughes+40elcon+2Eorg+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 12:59 AM
To:	Maurer, Luiz; Yeung, Charles
Cc:	Linxwilerj@safferassoc.com; Jregnery@calpine.com; Mado@dynegy.com; ron_lanclos@oxy.com; hobday@hhlaw.com; sowens@entergy.com; BOBg@sepa.doe.gov; jphill8@entergy.com; Paul.savage@nrgenergy.com; cpmccart@llgm.com; Jane.mudgett@williams.com; Nicolay, Christi L.; ndaggs@mwe.com; Pauline.foley@pseg.com; bmacguineas@dykema.com; leer@sepa.doe.com; janderson@elcon.org; SSchotland@cgsh.com
Subject:	SE RTO INTERREGIONAL COORDINATION

Luiz:
I have reviewed the documents you distributed on Friday regarding Enron's
position on interregional coordination.  In general, we agree with Enron's
position with the following exceptions.  We do believe that the
consolidation of "control areas" is a useful objective in the context of
creating a greater SE RTO, and, in fact, is inconsistent with Enron's
support of the CACTF's reliability model.  The RTO should also not be a
central dispatcher.  Its control of generation should be limited to
redispatch for congestion management and the maintenance of short-term
reliability.  The basic premise behind the CACTF model is that control
areas are becoming obsolete and unbundled.  Control area consolidation
risks rebundling the industry and this would stifle innovation and market
dynamics.  Our efforts should be directed at ensuring adequate independence
of balancing, security and interchange authorities.  This should be done by
FERC because NERC has no authority (or inclination) to do so.
John Hughes
Industrial Consumers