The NYMEX will hold the following classes in Houston in June. Those of you so
inclined might want to reserve a seat now, as they go fast.  All the February
classes are already booked.  You can call the NYMEX at 713/658-9292 if you
would like to attend.

1.  Introduction to NYMEX Products-held June 7
2.  Intermediate Hedging-June 14 (Intro a prerequisite)
3.  Intermediate Options-June 17 (Intro a prerequisite)


Group

We have 10 MW of length from Sierra through the APX light load at $185.  Stan
purchased this NP15 length from the APX and it should be scheduled DA by
Jeremy.  There should be a ECTRT load zone in PGE3 with this length.  Use
whatever opportunities are out there (dynegy across COB or a straight export)
to maximize this position.  The deal numbers are: 581335-purchase from APX
and 581356-desk to desk deal.  Please make sure this gets taken care of.

Cheers
Jesse


-----Original Message-----
From: Onukogu, Ernest [mailto:Ernest.Onukogu@dowjones.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:59 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: POWER POINTS: Does Dynegy Know What It's Getting Into?

> POWER POINTS: Does Dynegy Know What It's Getting Into?
>    By Mark Golden
>    A Dow Jones Newswires Column
>
>   NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--If I were an executive with Dynegy Inc. (DYN), I
> would
> want to know who was buying up my stock Thursday and Friday, encouraging
> me that
> Enron is a steal at $9.50 a share.
>   After all, the market's initial reaction to the Dynegy/Enron Corp. (ENE)
> talks
> was negative. Dynegy's share price fell 9% to $33 on the Wednesday, the
> day that
> Dynegy was negotiating a possible acquisition of Enron were disclosed by
> CNBC.
> But Dynegy's stock rebounded sharply Thursday to recover that loss and
> then
> some, and it's up another $3 to near $40 Friday.
>   Is this a case of average investors approving Dynegy's "steal" of
> formerly
> formidable Enron? Or were Wall Street banks, holding a lot of Enron debt,
> trying
> to encourage Dynegy to do a deal? About 75% of the 12 million Dynegy
> shares
> bought Thursday were purchased in a few hundred large blocks.
>   Some usually talkative Wall Street bank sources refuse to say a word
> about
> Enron or Dynegy, even off the record. Wall Street may be biting its
> collective
> lip in the hopes that Dynegy signs the contracts to buy Enron and brings
> in a
> critical injection of cash. That cash would come from ChevronTexaco Corp.
> (CVX),
> which owns about a quarter of Dynegy. According to the Wall Street
> Journal, the
> terms of the deal call for ChevronTexaco to inject $1.5 billion
> immediately and
> another $1 billion into the combined companies if the deal goes through.
>   Wall Street holds billions in Enron debt, which Dynegy is fully aware
> of. But
> Dynegy might be getting more than it's bargaining for, particularly
> regarding
> Enron's numerous obligations to deliver its own shares in the future at
> minimum
> values.
>
>      SEC Probe Complicates Deals Based On Stock
>
>   Any company that acquires Enron may have to make good on those
> commitments to
> issue stock pegged to values much higher than $9.50 a share, or perhaps to
> make
> up the difference in cash.
>   In a publicly disclosed example, an Enron off-balance-sheet financial
> affiliate - Whitewing Associates - owns 250,000 shares of Enron
> convertible
> preferred stock, which are good upon conversion in January 2003 for 50
> million
> shares of Enron common stock at a guaranteed minimum value of $48.55 a
> share.
>   Enron's stock is currently trading below $9 a share. According to the
> terms of
> Whitewing's convertible preferred holding, Enron would have to deliver far
> more
> shares at current prices - 1,080 - for each of the 250,000 convertibles.
>   But Enron can't issue new stock now because it's under investigation by
> the
> U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, so it would be obliged to come up
> with
> the $40-per-share difference in cash. Since Enron owns 50% of Whitewing,
> it
> could tear up most of the convertibles, but not all of them. A rough
> estimate is
> that Enron - or Dynegy - would still owe the dozens of mutual funds that
> invested in Whitewing around $500 million cash.
>   Dynegy is surely familiar with that deal, but highly leveraged Enron has
> similar share-settled arrangements floating around that haven't been so
> fully
> disclosed. The lesser-known deals are similarly troublesome due to the
> combination of Enron's stock-price crash and its inability to issue lots
> of new
> stock to make up the difference.
>   Another Enron-related partnership, the Marlin Water Trust II, is part of
> Enron's disastrous venture into water companies through its Azurix
> affiliate and
> the later refinancing of huge losses related to the water investments.
> Enron has
> marked down the value of its direct holdings in Azurix, but not the assets
> of
> Marlin, even though Marlin's primary asset is supposed to be its half of
> Azurix.
>   Prominent Enron short-seller Richard Grubman of Highfields Capital
> Management
> has asked Enron why Marlin's assets are still valued at $1 billion, when
> 50% of
> Azurix would seem to be a worth a fraction of that amount. Enron has
> declined to
> answer Grubman's question fully.
>
>      Is Wall Street Short?
>
>   Fitch credit rating agency said this July that Marlin's debt is
> ultimately
> supported by "an equity commitment from Enron in the form of mandatorily
> convertible preferred stock." Neither the number of shares nor the
> guaranteed
> minimum value for those shares has been disclosed. If Enron can't deliver
> those
> shares, it is obliged to make up the difference in cash, Fitch said.
>   "In the event that the issuance of the preferred stock yields less than
> the
> amount required to redeem the senior notes, Enron is required to deliver
> additional shares," Fitch said. "If Enron cannot or does not deliver on
> this
> obligation, then the amount of the deficiency becomes a payment obligation
> of
> Enron, representing a general unsecured claim."
>   In another partnership, disclosed in Enron's 2000 annual report but not
> named,
> Enron invested "the right to receive up to 18 million shares of
> outstanding
> Enron common stock in March 2003 (subject to certain conditions)."
>   Do those conditions include a share value much higher than $9.50? Did
> Enron
> prudently purchase puts on its own stock from Wall Street to cover some of
> its
> positions? As part of that same deal, Enron paid $123 million to purchase
> unspecified options on 21.7 million shares of its common stock.
>   Because these deals are done through private placements of debt, Enron
> doesn't
> have to answer questions, and it has declined to do so. Dynegy also
> refused to
> answer questions on the issue.
>   One Wall Street equity derivatives trading manager indicated that all
> the
> banks have found themselves "unexpectedly short in-the-money puts" on
> Enron.
> Unexpectedly, perhaps, not just because Enron stock has fallen so far, but
> because the SEC investigation prevents Enron from issuing additional
> shares.
>   Wall Street has been sweating for weeks, and millions don't make Wall
> Street
> sweat. Billions do, and the concern has to do with liabilities beyond
> Enron's
> fully disclosed traditional debt. The banks have told Enron they don't
> expect to
> get clobbered on a technicality that wouldn't have arisen without the SEC
> investigation Enron brought on itself, a person at a bank involved in the
> talks
> said. Enron agreed in principle, but the negotiations to make Wall Street
> whole
> were put on hold for the Dynegy talks.
>   If Dynegy buys Enron, it may be stepping into the middle of those
> arrangements, letting Wall Street off the hook.
>   Dynegy competitor El Paso Corp. (EPG) and ChevronTexaco rival Royal
> Dutch/Shell (RD) reportedly took a look at acquiring Enron last week and
> passed.
> Is Dynegy smarter than El Paso? Is Chevron smarter than Shell?
>   True Dynegy believers better hope so.
>   -By Mark Golden, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4604;
> mark.golden@dowjones.com
>
>   (END) Dow Jones Newswires 09-11-01
>   1948GMT(AP-DJ-11-09-01 1948GMT)
>


On 6/2/00, Enron participated in EPSA's comments on FERC's Notice of Interim
Procedures to Support Industry Reliability Efforts for the summer
(attached).  On 5/17/00, FERC issued streamlined market based rates filings
for industrials with on-site generation to sell into the grid, decreased
approval requirements for utility deals with customers to interrupt load,
more FERC hotline staff, and better updates of ATC.  In addition to FERC's
proposals and requests for additional ideas, EPSA commented:
Need robust competitive market to incentivize new generation
Overall big requests--eliminate CBM, require independent ATC calculations,
require independent Security Coordinators, and native load under same tariff
Specific suggested fixes for this summer:
 (1) Require transmission providers to give written notice to FERC and post
within 24 hours of using CBM the specific details of the "emergency"
 (2) Require random FERC OASIS audits of TLRs and ATC
 (3) Require retention of data confirming system conditions existing at the
time of a TLR

FERC has not acted on these comments yet.
---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 06/05/2000
04:49 PM ---------------------------

"Julie Simon" <JSIMON@epsa.org> on 06/05/2000 01:36:56 PM
To: <Christi.L.Nicolay@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: Re:

sure.  They're attached.

Julie Simon
Director of Policy
Electric Power Supply Association
202-789-7200
jsimon@epsa.org

 - short-term reliabilty comments.doc


Gary Rosenblum suggested I forward our standard draft with respect to the
ISDA Agreement to be negotiated between our respective institutions. Please
note the draft is subject to revision by our corporate credit department. If
I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

 <<mli_Enron_North_America_Corp.doc>>

Best Regards

Kasar Akhtar
Telephone: 212 449 7482
Facsimile:  212 449 2615
e-mail:    kakhtar@exchange.ml.com

 - mli_Enron_North_America_Corp.doc


Kate:

Can you do the comparison we discussed?

C
---------------------- Forwarded by Chris H Foster/HOU/ECT on 01/11/2001
10:41 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.

	From:  "Onukogu, Ernest" <Ernest.Onukogu@dowjones.com>
   01/11/2001 09:33 AM

To: "'chris.h.foster@enron.com'" <chris.h.foster@enron.com>
cc:
Subject: FW: DJ NP 15/SP 15 Electricity Price Index

> -----Original Message-----
> From: djenergy
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:44 PM
> Cc: Onukogu, Ernest
> Subject: DJ NP 15/SP 15 Electricity Price Index
>
>  <<NP 15 pages.xls>>  <<SP 15 pages.xls>>

 - NP 15 pages.xls
 - SP 15 pages.xls


Gentlemen,

I have made changes to the consolidation agreement, which I hope all will
find acceptable:

(It does need a date or two.)

As for the termination agreement, here's what I suggest:

Do we want to address the purchaser's parent guaranty in both of the
contracts, or just the consolidation agreement?  I would suggest that we make
the guaranty a deliverable 30 days after execution of the contracts, which
gives us time to get the Mitsui assignment done, as we expect to assign the
contracts immediately.  That way, Mitsui can provide the guaranty, if
necessary.  If ENA does provide the guaranty, we would want to have the
ability to have it replaced with a suitable substitute guaranty from Mitsui.

Sorry I missed your call.  It was a day of meetings.  I will be on the road
tomorrow, but will check my voice mail.

Kay


I would like your insights.   Meredith, I'd like yours as well (particularly
in light of the messageyou received from Lawson and Jefferson).

Laura Schwartz@ENRON
08/02/2000 08:22 AM

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES
cc:
Subject: Re: Downtown Arena- HHCC asked to give public comments to
Construction Committee this week

Steve,

Please let me know if there is anything you would like me to do regarding
this matter.

Thanks,
Laura
---------------------- Forwarded by Laura Schwartz/Corp/Enron on 08/02/2000
09:11 AM ---------------------------

	Enron Investment Partners

	From:  Mark Lay @ ECT                           08/01/2000 04:47 PM

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Laura Schwartz/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject: Re: Downtown Arena- HHCC asked to give public comments to
Construction Committee this week

Steve,

I don't want to get caught in a crossfire here, so I thought your group could
give me some guidance.

I think the referendum is very important for the city and will help us
continue to show Houston as a significant metropolitan area.  I am not
convinced that the ultimate form of the deal for minority participation in
Enron Field was, in fact, what was intended.  In that agreement, Aramark owns
all of the concessions, but has a 30% profit share with minorities.  My
understanding is that there are no minority owned businesses in that deal.

I would like to communicate this sentiment, but I would also, certainly like
to reinforce Enron's position.

Thanks,
Mark

"Richard R. Torres" <rtorres@argolink.net> on 08/01/2000 03:44:25 PM
To: <ralvarado@betterbags.com>, <hcardenas@montylawfirm.com>,
<jcl1005@aol.com>, <ecolon@llgm.com>, <leo@boonedeleon.com>,
<irma@etchouston.com>, <Manuel.J.Espinoza@us.pwcglobal.com>,
<evelio.fernandez@goya.com>, <peccorp1@msn.com>, <Lupef@tejasoffice.com>,
<divagarza@aol.com>, <cgarza@admin4.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
<tgrijalva@gacompanies.com>, <John.Hernandez@chase.com>,
<shunsaker@lockeliddell.com>, <Rick.C.Jaramillo@bankofamerica.com>,
<Mark.Lay@enron.com>, <manuel_d_leal@txs.uscourts.gov>,
<yolanda.f.londono@chase.com>, <lmcmai@coair.com>, <pmendoza@staffmark.com>,
<highmark@neosoft.com>, <gmir@mfrgroup.com>, <cesarnav@aol.com>,
<alex@lopeznegrete.com>, <ramos_s@hccs.cc.tx.us>, <ricreyes@flash.net>,
<gsaenz@ogs-law.com>, <vanessa@friersoncpa.com>, <rtorres85@argolink.net>,
<drtrevino@trevinogroup.com>, <jatrevino@univision.net>,
<gougeks@texaco.com>, <randyvelarde@theplazagrp.com>, <massey@ptg.com>,
<mweitzman@aeromexico.com>, <rz2743@sbc.com>
cc:
Subject: Downtown Arena- HHCC asked to give public comments to Construction
Committee this week

Dear Board Member-

As you may already know, we have been working with the Harris County-Houston
Sports Authority to have included in their agreement with the Houston
Rockets a 30% minority participation goal in the design, construction and
operation of a downtown basketball arena.  This is the same commitment that
we received from the Rockets in 1999.  We received a commitment from the
sports authority and the mayor's office that the minority participation goal
of 30% will be included in the contract.  We have met with Celena Garza and
communicated with Al Luna our interests and they have expressed their
support for our position.  We have also asked Sen. Mario Gallegos for his
support and received it.

We are in the process of confirming that our language calling for such goal
has been included in the final document and that Al Luna and Celena Garza
are sufficiently satisfied with the language, which will be voted on later
this week.

Once confirmed, Sonny Flores, Chairman of the Economic Development Committee
has recommended to Massey that the Chamber be prepared to offer some sort of
public statement in support or not supporting a referendum to build the
arena.  (We have been asked to address the Construction Committee of the
sports authority by Billy Burge and Wayne Smith)  Sonny has indicated that
once we have a confirmation from Al and Celena, our interests should be
sufficiently covered and that supporting the referendum would be good for
Hispanic businesses.

Massey has asked that I poll the board for its input and get a majority
commitment from the board so as to move forward in offering support or no
support for the referendum.  Ordinarily, this would be discussed and
considered at a meeting of the Board of Directors, however, since the sports
authority posted its meeting notice (72 hours prior to meeting) and is ready
to proceed with its approval of the Letter Agreement with the Houston
Rockets we are seeking input in this manner.

I am attaching a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Chamber
and the Sports Authority for you review.  There have been no revisions to
the last copy that was circulated at the past Executive Committee meeting at
Tony Grijalva's office.

Massey has asked that you respond with your input, suggestions and position
for or not for the chamber offering its support for the arena via e-mail
within 24 hours of this notice.  The chamber's position will be determined
by the majority of those respondents to this e-mail by no later than 4:00
p.m. CDT on Wednesday, August 2, 2000.

 - Sports Authority MOU, July 20, 2000.doc


FYI.

>
>  <<ShaneRobison1.doc>>  <<Shaneletterfinal.doc>>
>
>
>

 - ShaneRobison1.doc
 - Shaneletterfinal.doc


i agree, how soon

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rybarski, Amanda
Sent:	Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:32 PM
To:	Maggi, Mike
Subject:	RE:

we're just going to have to do something about that soon!

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Maggi, Mike
Sent:	Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:20 AM
To:	Rybarski, Amanda
Subject:	RE:

yep

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rybarski, Amanda
Sent:	Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:00 AM
To:	Maggi, Mike
Subject:	RE:

not a whole lot!  miss me?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Maggi, Mike
Sent:	Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:57 AM
To:	Rybarski, Amanda
Subject:

whats up baby


Annemieke,

I have assumed the responsibility for publishing the Gas Reports.  Please
update the Executive Viewer Report Publisher accordingly.

My extension is 5-7478.

If you have any question, please give me a call.

Thank you,
Robin


Start Date: 10/12/01; HourAhead hour: 8;  No ancillary schedules awarded.  Variances detected.
Variances detected in Energy Import/Export schedule.

    LOG MESSAGES:

PARSING FILE -->> O:\Portland\WestDesk\California Scheduling\ISO Final Schedules\2001101208.txt

Error retrieving HourAhead price data - process continuing...
---- Energy Import/Export Schedule ----
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: SYLMAR_2_NOB
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_RED
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: MEAD_2_WALC
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_ORANGE
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: MALIN_5_RNDMTN
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_YELLOW
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_BLUE
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: PVERDE_5_DEVERS
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_GREEN
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL
$$$ Variance found in table tblINTCHG_IMPEXP.
     Details: (Hour: 8 / Preferred:   0.00 / Final:   0.01)
  TRANS_TYPE: FINAL
  SC_ID: ECTRT
  MKT_TYPE: 2
  TRANS_DATE: 10/12/01
  TIE_POINT: FCORNR_5_PSUEDO
  INTERCHG_ID: EPMI_CISO_GOLD
  ENGY_TYPE: WHEEL


Attached please find a brief description of my accomplishment during 7/1/00
to 11/14/00, which might be useful for the PEP system.

-Chonawee


---------------------- Forwarded by Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 07:21 AM ---------------------------
From:	Richard Ingersoll on 04/10/2001 08:18 AM CDT
To:	Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	2001 Summer Assessment Report

----- Forwarded by Richard Ingersoll/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 07:16 AM -----

	evelyn@wscc.com Sent by: Maiser@wscc.com 04/09/2001 05:01 PM 	   To: "Multiple Committees" <multi2@wscc.com>  cc:   Subject: 2001 Summer Assessment Report

COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
PLANNING COORDINATION COMMITTEE
WESTERN MARKET INTERFACE COMMITTEE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE

The attached WSCC 2001 Summer Assessment Report has been
sent to NERC and posted on the WSCC web site under
"Documents and Publications."  This report reflects a change to
some of the numbers in the draft report e-mailed to you for review
on April 4, 2001.

cc:  CMOPS
	Security Coordinators
	Security Coordination Subcommittee
	Joint Guidance Committee

Evelyn Emerson
Senior Administrative Coordinator
PH (801) 582-0353
FX (801) 582-3918
EM  evelyn@wscc.com

The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
     File:  wisrrpte.pdf
     Date:  6 Apr 2001, 16:59
     Size:  71069 bytes.
     Type:  Unknown

 - wisrrpte.pdf


<<PGE v. CA PX.PDF>>

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com

 - PGE v. CA PX.PDF


Due to a conflict, the Regulatory Roundtable Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
November 14 from 3:30 - 4:30 pm has been rescheduled for Tuesday, November 28
from 3:30 - 4:30 pm in 49C2.

Thanks


---------------------- Forwarded by Don Miller/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000 06:27 PM
---------------------------

"Mukherjee, Gautam" <GautamMukherjee@ICFConsulting.com> on 08/25/2000
05:00:19 PM
To: "Don Miller (E-mail)" <Don.Miller@enron.com>
cc: "Fusco, Maria" <MariaFusco@ICFConsulting.com>, "Leitz, Thomas"
<ThomasLeitz@ICFConsulting.com>
Subject: Power Market Overview

Hi Don,
 Attached is the updated version of the Power Market
Overview. Please don't hesitate to call us if you have any
questions.

 <<Power Market Overview.doc>>

Thanks,

Gautam Mukherjee
Senior Associate
ICF Consulting
gmukherjee@icfconsulting.com
Voice (703) 934 - 3547
Fax (703) 934 - 3968

 - Power Market Overview.doc


Chaz & Steve,

I was able to review our recently completed conference call w/BMC with
Jennifer Medcalf.

During the call, Bernie Goicoechea and Ann(e?) Munson expressed that during
their last few months of interaction with Enron Net Works, they have
attempted to understand the exact issues and concerns which Net Works has
with regard to selection/use of BMC's products.  Bernie voiced that he hasn't
been able to get more detail on the problems or nature of concerns that Net
Works has, beyond what you and I know.  The BMC account team feels that
without specifics, they cannot address the issues accurately or in a timely
fashion.

The Enron Net Works team has expressed concern that various BMC products are
not Windows 2000 certified (at least, not the ones they are focused on, and
not in writing).  Net Works also have some other concerns relative to the
(Net Works) team's feelings that the BMC products (in some areas) "...haven't
kept up with the industry", and that they (Net Works) have some residual
issues with the BMC account support in general.  Bottom Line, expressed by
Net Works, is that there is a low probability of their purchasing enough BMC
software product this year to enable EBS to clinch its deal with BMC.

You related Jim Crowder's suggestion related to the use of indemnification
and liquidated damages clauses being implemented.  Jennifer and I discussed
this situation, and our meetings with your team, in context.  We have a
possible alternative for you to consider:  perhaps EBS might provide a hedge
for Net Works in the form of "advance purchase" of BMC product.

For example, EBS is poised to buy about $1 million worth of BMC software, but
needs to show BMC a firm purchase commitment for about $3 million in total
Enron purchases from BMC.  A way in which you could reach the $3 million mark
with BMC; while also allowing the relationships between Net Works and BMC
time to "click" might be this:  EBS buys all $3 million worth of BMC
software, but $1 million is used to actually take product now, and the other
$2 million is used as a "future purchases" fund, in which EBS buys, but does
not take immediate delivery of, the (remaining $2 million worth of) current
software...

THEN, future Enron Net Works (and any other ENE business unit) purchases of
BMC software would be executed such that EBS is paid, and the software is
delivered from/by BMC.  That way, EBS gets its $2 million back, the other
business units aren't spending any of today's dollars for product which they
seem to have some concerns about (but they can get current/certified product
when they need it in the future).  In addition, you secure the business with
BMC right now.  I'm sure you could also figure out how to account for the
time value of money in this, so that there is further leverage advantage to
you.

If all else fails, you may wish to consider something like this...In the
meantime, we will continue along the current path and keep you posted on
progress.

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeff Youngflesh
Director, Business Development
Global Strategic Sourcing
Enron Corp.
333 Clay Street, 11th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
t:  713-345-5968
f:  713-646-2450
c:  713-410-6716


Barry,

Stinson forwarded your message to me. I am meeting Ted Murphy today and I
shall bring it up with him.
We have unit at Research (Tanya Tamarchenko, reporting to Grant Mason) who is
responsible for
 V@R support.

Vince

---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 06/29/2000
10:28 AM ---------------------------

Stinson Gibner
06/29/2000 09:55 AM
To: Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: EBS VaR Transaction Policy

FYI

---------------------- Forwarded by Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT on 06/29/2000
09:54 AM ---------------------------

	Barry Pearce @ ENRON COMMUNICATIONS
	06/29/2000 09:09 AM

To: Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dale Surbey/LON/ECT@ECT, Ted
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Lou Casari/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, John Echols/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Jim Fallon/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
Subject: EBS VaR Transaction Policy

Hey you guys,

We are trying to implement a 'VaR transaction' policy - and would like your
opinion.

This is going to be tough - because I'm not sure we have implemented a
similiar policy across any of our other 'books' - that is - we looking to
bring in all the accrual/operational assets as well as the MTM stuff
(lambdas). To have a real-live 'configuration' of the system.

If assets/routes/servers etc...are added - what is the impact on the 'value'
of the system and what it's worth.

John has attached a draft below - for your review and thoughts.

I can see how this works in a trading environment - when you actually know
the VaR of your whole trading portfolio. However - I've not seen this done
with a mixture of MTM & accrual assets. Add the spice of a 'operational
system' valuation  - and this will be tough to quantify and model.

Step 1 - configure system and value it
Step 2 - calculate a VaR on this. We will need to do some work here!
Step 3 - calculate the incremental VaR of new deals/amendements/reconfigs etc
- tough....

See what you think?

B.

	John Echols
	06/28/00 05:41 PM

		 To: Jim Fallon/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Barry Pearce/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Lou Casari/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications
		 cc:
		 Subject: Policies

Here is a first rough draft of a "value @ risk" transaction policy.

I would like you to start looking at where we are going on the policy and get
some early thinking going on limits for the V@R.  For example, should we
effectively shut down all server relocations without approval,  or allow some
level of MB of storage to be moved around or reconfigured?

I need some commercial and industry realism for this.  We may need Rick
Paiste or your industry helpers (Marquardt, etc. to help us).

Barry,  Lou,  I need your input.


aep goes out and celebrates every night.

-----Original Message-----
From: White, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:23 PM
To: Woulfe, Greg; Arnold, John
Subject: FW: I think the industry is having fun with it!

The industry loves us!.....

-----Original Message-----
From: Bogucki, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:20 PM
To: White, Bill
Subject: FW: I think the industry is having fun with it!


----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 02/06/2001 03:30 PM -----

	David Parquet@ECT
	02/06/2001 02:40 PM

		 To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Christopher F Calger/PDX/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: La times

Long article...Mentions Calpine offering 1000 MW at slightly higher than 5.5
cents/kwh.

----- Forwarded by David Parquet/SF/ECT on 02/06/2001 12:37 PM -----

	"Cole Frates" <cfrates@azurix.com>
	02/06/2001 12:24 PM
	Please respond to cfrates

		 To: <dparque@enron.com>
		 cc:
		 Subject: La times

Tuesday, February 6, 2001 |  </cgi-bin/print.cgi> Print this story
</cgi-bin/print.cgi>

Davis Vows Plan for Edison, PG&E

 The governor says that by the end of the week he will have a strategy to
help the utilities avoid bankruptcy.

By DAN MORAIN and NANCY RIVERA BROOKS, Times Staff Writers

SACRAMENTO--Gov. Gray Davis said Monday he and legislative leaders would
have a plan by week's end to avert the bankruptcy of the state's two
biggest
utilities by trading ratepayer-backed bond money for utility assets.
"The drop-dead date is clearly Feb. 12," Davis said. That is when a federal
judge is set to hear a lawsuit by Southern California Edison, joined by
Pacific Gas & Electric, that could lead to sharp rate hikes for consumers
unless a rescue plan is in place.
Momentum has been building for a plan in which the state would get control
of the utility transmission lines in return for issuing bonds to give the
utilities a cash infusion.
But Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), who argues that
California should take control of the transmission grid, said he did not
share Davis' urgency to cut a deal this week.
The wrangling comes as the state faces the end early Wednesday of what
likely is the last federal emergency order requiring that independent power
generators sell electricity in California. The Bush administration insists
it will not extend the order.
"We're not even asking," Davis spokesman Steven Maviglio said.
Several such orders issued in the past two months have forced power
generators to keep electricity flowing to California, even though Edison
and
PG&E were unable to pay the skyrocketing wholesale costs of electricity.
But the federal emergency orders are less vital now that California has
relieved the utilities of having to buy power--at a cost to taxpayers of
roughly $45 million a day.
Davis, meanwhile, plans to announce today that California has entered into
its first long-term contracts to buy power from independent generators,
thereby beginning its shift away from the reliance on spot markets.
At least one firm, Calpine Corp., was on the verge late Monday of signing a
deal to provide the state with up to 1,000 megawatts for roughly 10 years.
One megawatt is enough to serve roughly 1,000 homes. The cost could not be
determined, but it is believed to be slightly above the 5.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour that Davis had hoped for.
"Clearly, we are no longer waiting for someone else to solve our problem or
do something to bail us out," Davis said at a Capitol news conference
Monday.
"We are doing everything within our power as a state to right this ship.
We're not waiting for someone to throw us a long pass. We're going to solve
it ourselves."
Davis said he will confer with Democratic and Republican legislative
leaders
this week to resolve the complex and controversial issue of providing "a
cash infusion to the utilities so they can be viable," in exchange for
utility assets.
The Democratic governor said he is not sure how the state will help the
financially hobbled companies. It may sell bonds, or guarantee bonds that
the utilities might sell.
Either way, the bonds would give the utilities cash to help them pay down
their debt, estimated at between $6 billion and $12 billion.
"It cannot be done without assistance from the state," Davis said.
Though Burton favors taking over the transmission grid, Davis supports
taking equity stakes in the companies themselves in the form of warrants,
similar to stock options. The warrants could be cashed in after the
utilities regain their stability and used to lower the cost of electricity
for consumers, or to soften future rate hikes.
"That state assistance, no matter what form it comes in, has a value,"
Davis
said. "It is my goal to make sure that whatever the state receives in
return
has comparable value."
Davis signed legislation last week allowing the state to sell an estimated
$10 billion worth of bonds to buy power in the future. The bonds would be
purchased by investors, who would be repaid over time by the ratepayers.
By selling bonds, the state in essence will be subsidizing consumers for
the
high prices of electricity in the first year or two. But consumers will pay
higher prices in later years when the cost of electricity is likely to drop
as more power plants are built.
In addition to selling bonds to pay for power in the future, Davis said,
the
state likely will sell bonds to help the utilities defray the past cost of
power.
State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who will oversee the bond process, said in
an interview that the state had little choice but to sell bonds for future
power purchases. But he said resolving the "past debts of the utilities" is
a tougher problem.
"There is no magic money here. Bonds require a repayment source," Angelides
said. "It needs to be a buyout versus a bailout."
The Democratic treasurer said that only after coming up with their own
reorganization plan should the utilities seek state assistance.
"At the end of the day, if there are some assets of value that we are
interested in as a buyer . . . that should be on the table."
Edison and PG&E have run up billions in debt in recent months as they paid
record high prices for wholesale power, yet were unable to pass on the full
cost of it to consumers.
On Monday, a federal judge in Los Angeles is scheduled to rule on Edison's
suit alleging that the California Public Utilities Commission must allow
the
utilities to pass on the multibillion-dollar cost of buying power.
Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek), among the lawmakers most
involved
in the Legislature's response to the energy crisis, said that if utilities
win the suit and are allowed to pass on the full cost of their power
purchases, consumers could be hit with an 86% rate increase.
"I don't think we can roll the dice and let that happen," said Keeley, who
along with Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) has been pushing
for an early settlement of the Edison lawsuit.
However, Burton, the Legislature's most influential member, shrugged off
the
Monday deadline.
"Trial courts rule. Appellate courts rule. Supreme Courts rule, and it's
three or four years down the road," Burton said.
In other developments Monday:
* Davis again used his emergency authority to claim $150 million worth of
contracts held by PG&E, shortly before they would have been taken by one of
the utility's creditors.
PG&E had defaulted on payments to the California Power Exchange, and the
entity, a sort of commodities market for electricity, wanted to auction off
the contracts. Davis took similar action with Edison contracts Friday.
The PG&E contracts will supply between 100 and 500 megawatts of electricity
for the remainder of 2001. The price of the power will be determined in
proceedings before the state Board of Control. But the state may find
itself
paying significantly more than the relative low prices specified in the
contracts.
* Edison revealed that one of its bank accounts was seized last month by a
creditor, General ReFinancial Products Corp., which contends it is owed
$8.8
million for early termination of a financial arrangement during the
utility's debt crisis.
Edison said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that it has asked the federal court that gave the creditor permission to
attach the account to reverse course and stop the action. The account, with
a New York bank, contains $1.5 million, Edison said.
Edison noted in the same filing that it had $1.36 billion in cash on
Monday,
but has defaulted on several million dollars' worth of debt payments and
has
"deferred" payments totaling $743 million through Monday to electricity
suppliers.
If the Rosemead utility had made all of its debt and electricity payments
as
they came due, it would have run out of cash last Friday, Edison said. In
contrast, its parent company, Edison International is paying all of its
bills.
* Shares of Edison International rose 22 cents to close at $13.23 per share
Monday and PG&E Corp. fell 14 cents to close at $13.60 per share. Both
trade
on the New York Stock Exchange.
Standard & Poor's, a large credit rating agency, reaffirmed that
California's strong rating remains on its "Credit Watch Negative" list
following Thursday's passage by the Legislature of a bill giving the state
Department of Water Resources $500 million more to buy electricity for the
state.
California's general obligation bonds carry a rating of double-A.
* S&P also downgraded to "D"--or junk-bond level--the "issuer credit
rating"
of the California Independent System Operator, reflecting the fact that the
utilities are no longer paying their electricity bills.
The downgrade does not affect any operating funds of Cal-ISO, which are
generated by transmission fees, and does not include debt issued by the
state for Cal-ISO, which retains "insured triple-A" and "A-1 plus" ratings.

(See attached file: Picture)
(See attached file: Picture)
(See attached file: Picture)
(See attached file: Picture)
(See attached file: Picture)
 - Picture
 - Picture
 - Picture
 - Picture
 - Picture


OK.  Mine is updated...FYI, I had to still use the U versus N drive!

Dan Bunch
11/27/2000 01:27 PM
To: Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sean Bolks/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Theresa
Branney/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bob
Burleson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Reyna Cabrera/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lee
Ferrell/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Morgan Gottsponer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Stephen
Herber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Martha Janousek/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dana
Jones/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bill Mangels/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Mason/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Penny McCarran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Vernon
Mercaldo/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sue Neville/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Don
Powell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Pilar Ramirez/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michael G
Stage/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rockey Storie/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kay
Threet/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mike Ullom/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kimberly
Watson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Wehring/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Weller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jim Wiltfong/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy
Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine
Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Audrey Robertson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Christine
Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jean McFarland/Corp/Enron, Bob
Martinez/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: Dashboard and Internet Explorer 5.01 upgrade. Houston

CORRECTION
In the document I sent out this morning, "Instructions to install Internet
explorer 5" The Instructions said to type: "U:\COMMOM\ie5\i386\setup.exe" in
the
run dialog box. It should have read "N:\common\ie5\i386\setup.exe" .
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any
problems with or questions about the install please call the help desk at
78-7454

Thank you

Dan Bunch
11/27/2000 10:20 AM
To: Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sean Bolks/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Theresa
Branney/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bob
Burleson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Reyna Cabrera/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lee
Ferrell/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Morgan Gottsponer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Stephen
Herber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Martha Janousek/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dana
Jones/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bill Mangels/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Mason/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Penny McCarran/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Vernon
Mercaldo/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sue Neville/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Don
Powell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Pilar Ramirez/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michael G
Stage/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rockey Storie/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kay
Threet/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mike Ullom/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kimberly
Watson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Linda Wehring/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Weller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jim Wiltfong/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy
Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine
Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Audrey Robertson/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Christine
Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jean McFarland/Corp/Enron, Bob Martinez/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Dashboard and Internet Explorer 5.01 upgrade. Houston

On Monday, December 4th, a new version of the Marketing Dashboard will be
rolled out. In order for this new version of The Dashboard to work you will
need to have Internet Explorer 5.01(IE5.01) loaded on your system. If you
already have IE5.01, PLEASE RESPOND, to this message  with a confirmation
that you have IE5.01 or higher loaded. (No other action on your part is
necessary)

If you DO NOT have IE5.01 please follow the instructions below to install it
. then respond to this email that IE5 has been loaded.

If you are uncomfortable doing the upgrade alone or are unsure what version
of IE you have please call the helpdesk 87-7454 and someone will assist you.

Again please respond to this message ASAP - we are looking to have everyone
in Houston upgraded by Dec 1st. The total process takes less that 15
minutes.  If you have any question, comments or concerns please contact the
helpdesk at 87-7454,

Thank you


Tom,

FYI. I hope to meet Nick Bambos this weekend.

Vince
---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 02/23/2000
08:28 AM ---------------------------

Nick Bambos <bambos@stanford.edu> on 02/22/2000 12:54:15 PM
To: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com
cc: Ravi.Thuraisingham.Enron_Communications@enron.com, gappy@stanford.edu
Subject: Stanford Meeting

Dear Vince,

Giuseppe tells me that you will be visiting Stanford soon
and you you would like to meet with me. I would definitely
be glad to meet you and talk further.

Would you please let me know about the time of your visit
and your availability to meet. I look forward to seeing you.

Best Regards,

Nick

PS: Giuseppe and Amy came back very impressed by you are doing at Enron!
Thanks for hosting them.


We have received your request and have updated our system to reflect your
preferences.

If you ever wish to change your delivery options again, just follow these
steps.  Logon to your E*TRADE account, click the Account Services tab, and
then the Set Delivery Options link on the left navigation bar.

Thank you for investing with E*TRADE.


I got a call from Tino earlier today (right after our meeting on Pueblo) but
could only talk to him for a few minutes before I had to jump off.  I did let
him know that Kevin or Lorraine would be calling to talk about info that we
need to complete our analysis of the economics.  He also let me know that
they are looking at another power plant project in the SW Power Pool and want
to discuss with us.  Thanks.


Boys,

Can I get a copy of an ERCOT bill that has come through.  If one has come through for an EES account, that would be great. If it is some other account, that will be fine.  If there are disclosure issues, just black out the name of the counterparty on the bill if that is possible.  I need to start looking at this stuff to see if we are pricing stuff right down here.  Thanks.

-Joe


The Cristobal Prep Meeting (preceding Enron's hosting of the Alliance members
on Friday, February 4, 2000) to review Enron's plans for participation in the
Alliance RTO is scheduled for Tuesday, February 1 from 9:00a-11:00a in EB
49C3.  The agenda will be as follows:

Review JV analysis based on new inputs (Alliance wires and pipes) provided by
Alliance members (Lehman Brothers)
Address JV structural issues (see discussion below)
Review synergy presentation planned to be presented to the Alliance members
on the 4th (see discussion below)
Confirm steps and outcomes for the meeting on the 4th

Please call me if you have any questions or comments.  Thank you, Ron.

JV Structural Issues --

Description:  ENE to outline/summarize details re: all structural issues and
send to Alliance Partners prior to the 2/4 meeting in Houston.

Responsible Parties:  Mike Moran, Steve Van Hooser, and LeBouef (Steve will
be extending an invitation to LeBouef for the 1st)

Issues are as Follows )

o Structure (refers to Joint Venture Diagram)
? Does our structure address the criticisms outlined in FERC,s Order
? What is the appropriate corporate entity form ) Limited Partnership or
Limited Liability Corporation
? Structure Keys are a balance of --
_ Independence
_ Value
_ Control
? Is stock contribution advantageous and does it present issues for both GPG
and Alliance entities
o Approval Rights (Reference both the Alliance Order and the summary prepared
by LeBouef)
? FERC,s conditional order took exception to the Rights outlined in the
Alliance Proposal (it should be noted that some of these rights are different
then those proposed by Enron ) see LeBouef table outlining the two proposals
on p. 25.)
? Provide cites from approved structures
o By-Laws
o Directors/Managing Partners
? Focus on election of Directors with goal of maintaining independence
o Officers (a business issue)
o Stakeholder Groups
o Native Load
o Market Power

Value Proposition/Synergies --

Purpose: Identify synergies (value) in both cost savings, revenue enhancement
and financial engineering at NewCo/TransCo.

Timing and Responsible Parties:
           Synergy Categories
Value Definitions	Pipes to Pipes	Pipes to Wires	Wires to Wires
Cost Savings	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ALLIANCE/AA (1/28)
Revenue Enhancements
o Product/Tariff Offerings
o Expansion	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ALLIANCE/AA (1/28)
Financial Engineering (i.e., re-capitalization)	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ENRON/PWC (2/4)	ALLIANCE/AA (1/28)


-----Original Message-----
From: 	Alvarez, Ray
Sent:	Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:32 PM
To:	Sanders, Richard B.; Williams, Robert C.; gfergus@brobeck.com
Cc:	Steffes, James D.; Comnes, Alan; Robertson, Linda; Shapiro, Richard; dwatkiss@bracepatt.com
Subject:	California Refund Proceeding Privileged and Confidential Attorney Work Product Attorney-Client Communication

In our litigation meeting last Tuesday, we learned that netting of spot purchases and sales is of paramount importance in limiting our exposure to refunds, under the FERC's July 26 Order, in both the California and Pacific Northwest proceedings.  However, in the California proceeding we are also afforded the opportunity in the Order to offset our receivables against any refund that would otherwise have to be paid by us.  Also, to the extent that our receivables exceed the refund amount, the Order provides for payment of interest to us in accordance with CFR Section 35.19a.

At present, I am aware of the existence of three receivables.  As you will recall, I mentioned at Tuesday's meeting that we should be able to treat as a receivable for purposes of offset, the revenues due us from the application of the CAISO underscheduling penalty.  I communicated the possibility of offsetting this receivable against any potential refund at this mornings Western Wholesale conference call, and subsequent research conducted by Alan Comnes indicates that the CAISO owes us $30MM, as per the CAISO's own numbers.

The CAISO also owes us approximately $40MM due to nonpayment for one to two months of business.  These two figures alone, totalling approximately $70MM, exceed the estimate of our potential exposure in the California proceeding.

Finally, the negative CTC issue is another receivable due us by IOU's that, under the plain language of the Order, could potentially be used to offset any refund amount.  I am not aware of the magnitude of this receivable but do understand that there are some sensitivities regarding this issue, including concerns about revealing the amount of the credit due us.  It is likely that the amount would become public if it is presented in the California proceeding.

Please give us your thoughts as to the use of the CTC receivable to offset potential refunds in the California proceeding.


Rohm & Haas has been added and the sale for Union Carbide for April has been
added.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/weekend100900_101300/quotes_101
000.html


Louise,
I thought you would want to see this since you were there during all of those
times.
m
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT on 04/09/2001
10:26 AM ---------------------------

Mary Nell Browning
04/04/2001 01:59 PM
To: James Derrick/Enron@EnronXGate, Michael R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT, John
Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Evans/Legal/LON/ECT@ECT, Fernley
Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Paul Chivers/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Frevert/Enron@EnronXGate,
Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jackie
Gentle/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Claire Wright/LON/ECT@ECT,
Raj N Patel - Tax/LON/ECT@ECT, Rex Rogers/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Richard Harper/LON/ECT@ECT, Paul Turner/LON/ECT@ECT, Peter
Crilly/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: CATS litigation

Disappointingly, the House of Lords ruled 5 - 0 against Enron in the CATS
litigation today.  This will mean that we will repay to the CATS parties
approximately $150 million plus interest and court costs, putting the final
figure at an estimated $155-160 million.  We expect to be invoiced for the
principal amount in the next week or so; sorting costs and interest may take
as long as 60 days.  The written opinion reflects a determination on the part
of the Lords to rule against us regardless of what the contract says.  The
opinion seeks to conclude "what rational businessmen could have intended"
rather than applying the provisions of the contract.

For example, Lord Hoffman (author of the primary opinion) makes it clear that
the  "retrospective consequences" of discovering a latent defect after
payments have been made (and would therefore need to be refunded) are
unacceptable.  His view seems to be that because we were not ready to flow
J-Block gas during the period of the T-6 leak, we are not damaged and
therefore not entitled to relief under the contract.  Furthermore, he says
that the Commencement Date notice sent by the CATS parties was in the nature
of a declaration and as long as it is sent in good faith it is effective.

As far as the price reduction formula in Clause 7.5, Lord Hoffman opines that
the clause is not operative until TGTL had tied in the J-Block field.  The
contract makes no reference to this requirement.  Hoffman's view is that it
is only upon tie-in that the CATS parties' obligation to provide the
Transportation Service is triggered and therefore there can be no price
reduction for not providing the service unless tie-in is complete. This
statement is in stark contrast with Hoffman's earlier statement in the
opinion that upon the giving of the Commencement Date notice the CATS parties
have an absolute obligation to provide the Transportation Service.

Equally disappointing and surprising is the fact that the Lords rejected our
submission for reimbursement of our costs incurred in connection with the
restitution issue.  As you may recall, restitution was the primary issue upon
which the CATS parties obtained leave to appeal, and they conceded the point
at the commencement of the hearing.  Reimbursement of these costs should have
been a given.

Although I have not yet been able to speak to our most senior barrister, our
other counsel have assessed the opinion as "appalling" and "pathetic," and
describe the situation as one where Enron has been "stitched up".
Unfortunately, given that this is the court of last resort in this country
(except of course the Court of Human Rights), there is not an avenue for
recourse.

In conclusion may I say that although we did not get the result we wanted or
expected from the House of Lords, I very much appreciate all the support from
each of you for these past six years.  The case has been a roller coaster
ride;  I hope our earlier victory in the Court of Appeal will evidence in
fact that some tribunals in this country recognize that we did get it right.

Please call me if you wish to discuss the case in any further detail, or if
you wish to have a copy of the opinion.  My telephone number is 011 44 207
783 6582.  Many thanks.


Vince, Anita and Kevin:

I went to the dentist yesterday afternoon, and unfortunately, I am going to
have to have some oral surgery.

It is scheduled for 9:30 AM on Thursday the 21st of September, so I will
probably
be out the rest of the day.  Hopefully, I will return on Friday, the 22nd if
all goes
well.

Just wanted to let you know.

Thanks!

Shirley

******************************************************************************
******
Anita and Kevin:

I will also be on vacation next Wednesday, the 13th for one day.

Thanks!

Shirley


Here is the breakdown of 1999 PCB decontamination costs for TW:

Topock mods   $4,675,000
PG&E sample taps  $     90,000
PG&E filter separator  $   600,000
Remove PG&E filter separator $     10,000

If you need the costs broken down in more detail, or need more information,
please give me a call at x30596.


The Help Desk has indentified the reason (equipment failure) that the
swapland printer is not working.  They are fixing it now.  They said it
should be available shortly.

Susan D. Flynn
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB3806
Houston, Texas  77002
Phone:  713-853-0975
Fax:  713-646-3490


I received the navidad.exe virus through four e-mails from Gwen Soong this
morning.  My firewall rejected the attachments and so advised me.

Bob Gloistein.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cinderella [mailto:christa@crossborderenergy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 10:46 AM
To: skatz@sempratrading.com; kmccrea@sablaw.com; thompson@wrightlaw.com;
John Jimison; sscott3@enron.com; trdill@westernhubs.com;
ghinners@reliantenergy.com; tdickers@westerngas.com;
mark.c.moench@wgp.twc.com; andy.bettwy@swgas.com; johnwalley@swgas.com;
napedersen@jonesday.com; rpetti@ladwp.com; eklinkner@ci.pasadena.ca.us;
slins@ci.glendale.ca.us; bjeider@ci.burbank.ca.us;
roger.pelote@williams.com; porterdk@sce.com; inggm@sce.com; burkee@cts.com;
jleslie@luce.com; gsullivan@sempra.com; jsteffen@iid.com;
haorndorff@aeraenergy.com; kbhensman@aeraenergy.com;
mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; marcel@turn.org; edf@cpuc.ca.gov;
mcn@cpuc.ca.gov; plg@cpuc.ca.gov; joseh@lif.org; chrisw@greenlining.org;
ewo@jmbm.com; evk1@pge.com; epoole@adplaw.com; bcragg@gmssr.com;
chj@aelaw.com; chilen@llgm.com; eke@aelaw.com; jmct@gmssr.com;
jkarp@whitecase.com; lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com;
rick.counihan@greenmountain.com; mday@gmssr.com;
grant_kolling@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us;
raveen_maan@cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us; rochmanm@cubjpa.org;
jcattermole@pcenergy.com; igsinc@ix.netcom.com; craigc@calpine.com;
gtbl@dynegy.com; joe.paul@dynegy.com; kfyip@seiworldwide.com;
davef@abag.ca.gov; garyb@abag.ca.gov; ceyap@earthlink.net;
askaff@energy-law-group.com; pjpowerlaw@aol.com; tomb@crossborderenergy.com;
jweil@aglet.org; dcarroll@dbsr.com; ed@clfp.com; iep@iepa.com;
lmh@eslawfirm.com; jtachera@energy.state.ca.us; kmills@cfbf.com;
ron_oechsler@rmiinc.com; alan_reid@pcp.ca; rfoss@coral-energy.com;
tom.roth@et.pge.com; ronknecht@aol.com; furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil;
aod@newsdata.com; rgloistein@orrick.com; salleyoo@dwt.com; rbw@mrwassoc.com;
chris.king@utility.com; rczahar@aol.com; stomashe@energy.state.ca.us;
karen@klindh.com; mer@cpuc.ca.gov; jwr@cpuc.ca.gov; eyq@cpuc.ca.gov;
jsw@cpuc.ca.gov; ltt@cpuc.ca.gov; ram@cpuc.ca.gov; rmp@cpuc.ca.gov;
raw@cpuc.ca.gov; sbs@cpuc.ca.gov; tah@cpuc.ca.gov; vjb@cpuc.ca.gov;
mjaske@energy.state.ca.us; bwood@energy.state.ca.us
Subject: Tom Beach may have sent you a virus

Tom Beach received the navidad virus in e-mail yesterday, and it replicated
itself and went out to many (maybe all) of the people who had sent him
e-mail that he had not yet opened (i.e., unopened mail in his Outlook
Express in-box).

Because the OII and peaking rate filings were yesterday, you probably sent
Tom e-mail that he didn't have a chance to look at.  If you have a firewall
system that rejects any e-mail with executable files attached, you're safe.
If you don't, here is the URL with the virus cure:

http://www.fsecure.com/v-descs/navidad.htm
<http://www.fsecure.com/v-descs/navidad.htm>

In Tom's system, I was able to ignore the error message about the machine
not being able to find "winsvrc.exe," open his Internet browser, and
download the virus repair file from this Web site.  It's a relatively easy
fix once that's done.

I'm terribly sorry about this.  Let me know if I can be of further
assistance.

Christa Goldblatt
Office Manager
Crossborder Energy
christag@crossborderenergy.com <mailto:christag@crossborderenergy.com>
510-649-9790
Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new
bureaucracy. -- Franz Kafka

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF YOU
RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION,
OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM
YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.


As far as I know, this is the policy for all online trading.  Did I miss
something?

Debbie R Brackett
10/15/99 10:34 AM
To: Justin Boyd/LON/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacy E
Dickson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Hansen/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Lee Munden/LON/ECT@ECT, David Weekes/LON/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT,
David Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT, William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Molly
Mathes/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: EOL - Master versus Online GTCs

I understand this is our stance here in the US for financial trades......but
why the difference in physical? English law?

David Hardy
10/15/99 09:16 AM
To: Lee Munden/LON/ECT@ECT, David Weekes/LON/ECT@ECT, Debbie R
Brackett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Moran/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: EOL - Master versus Online GTCs

fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by David Hardy/LON/ECT on 15/10/99 14:17
---------------------------

Justin Boyd
15/10/99 09:16
To: Amita Gosalia/LON/ECT@ECT, Meagan Brinkworth/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey T Hodge/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Hardy/LON/ECT@ECT
Subject: EOL - Master versus Online GTCs

The underlying contractual structure for trades effected on-line between the
relevant Enron entity and a Counterparty is as follows:

if there is an existing Master for the particular product between the
contracting parties, that Master will govern on-line trades.
if there is no Master between the parties, then the applicable on-line GTCs
will apply.

If the terms of a Master are unacceptable to us for whatever reason (e.g. due
to insufficient credit provisions), then it may be appropriate to terminate
that Master.
If however, we wish to keep a Master in place but do not wish to use it for
on-line trades, then the counterparty needs to be notified of this and give
its consent.  Such notice could state that until the Master had been suitably
amended (i.e. by the negotiation of new credit provisions), then the on-line
GTCs will apply.

Justin