---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/08/2001
10:05 PM ---------------------------

Peter Styles@ECT
06/01/2001 04:58 AM
To: Brendan Devlin/EU/Enron@Enron
cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron

Subject: EFET draft security of supply paper

Take a look at attachment below for guidance in any discussion with Ristori
next Wednesday re Bush energy policy statement and comparative aspects of EC
green paper on sec. of supply. To remind you of what Loyola said on CNN
yesterday:
 - Agrees with need to re-evaluate role of nuclear plus future investment in
it .
 - Disagrees with weight given to supply side and indigenous sources,
compared with demand side and fuel diversity (also from external sources?)
 - Disagrees with exclusion of climate change considerations.

---------------------- Forwarded by Peter Styles/LON/ECT on 06/01/2001 10:25
AM ---------------------------

brian.samuel@txu-europe.com@txu-europe.com on 04/23/2001 02:31:45 PM
To: "EFET Secretariat" <secretariat@efet.org>
cc: peter.styles@enron.com

Subject: EWG - security of supply paper

Jan, please find a revised draft of the SoS paper following discussions with
Peter. I would be grateful if you could circulate it to the members of the
electricity working group for comment by 30th April. Likewise could you also
forward it to Ian Wood.
(See attached file: efetsos.doc)

Thanks Brian

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    DISCLAIMER    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This E-mail is private and confidential and may be covered by
legal professional privilege. It is therefore only intended for
the addressee(s). If you are not one of those persons you must
not read, copy, store, disclose, use or distribute its contents.
Please also contact the sender immediately and delete the original.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 - efetsos.doc

---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/08/2001
10:05 PM ---------------------------
From: Bruno Gaillard/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 06/01/2001 07:07 PM GDT
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:  Background Information France Electricity

Background

The Continental European electricity market is developing from an integrated
monopoly business to a competitive market. A segment of electricity users now
have the right to choose their supplier from a range of marketers. The
emergence of new marketers and generators has created the demand for price
risk management solutions and has encouraged the development of a traded
wholesale market. Following the adoption of the EU Electricity Directive in
December 1996, member states were obliged to transpose the directive into
national legislation opening electricity markets to competition by February
1999.

The directive sets out a three-tiered approach to the liberalisation of
electricity supply markets. Stage one entered into effect on 19 February
1997, and calls for the opening of 22% of national markets, based on the
average community share of electricity consumed by end customers using more
than 40 GWh per year. The degree of opening will increase over six years by
lowering the community consumption threshold to 20 GWh in 2000 (27% market
opening) and to 9 GWh in 2003 (32-33% market opening). Distributor access is
a matter for each member state. The implementation of a new directive,
expected in 2002, will improve the conditions for a liberalized market.

At present, the level of compliance with the directive varies between member
states. The EU countries farthest along the process of liberalisation are
Germany, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands. Switzerland, although it is not
an EU member state, is integral to market developments. France, although
having chosen to comply with the minimum requirements of the directive, has
proven to open up their market more than expected.

Current Market

EDF is the dominant electricity producer in France, the largest power
producer in the world with 475TWh generated in 2000,  and the largest
exporter in Europe (net exports reached 71 TWh in 2000).  Power generation in
France is mainly nuclear (70%), but also hydro (20%), while conventional
thermal generation represents 10%. EDF is a vertically integrated company
with services and products in generation (92%), supply (?%), transmission and
distribution (95%). Finally, this historical supplier is a State Entity; the
French State owns EDF,s capital.  A few Independent Power Producers (IPP) are
also active in the market, such as Snet (6.4TWh, coal-fired), and CNR (16TWh,
hydro). Other smaller IPPs are commercially active but most must sell their
production to EDF under a regulated tariff.

More than 100 distribution companies are active through a concession regime
in their local distribution area. Few, however, are of a significant size
(less than a dozen have sales of over 400 GWhs), or have eligible customers
in their concession areas.

The French System Operator (RTE) was created on 1 July 2000 and is a
sub-division of EDF, although it is unbundled in terms of management and
accounting. A postage stamp tariff has been implemented under the
transitional regime, which varies according to the voltage used and is based
on a matrix (Summer/Winter, Peak/Off-Peak). Users have to contract for their
maximum transmission capacity. Imbalances are settled under a published
tariff, which introduces high charges for imbalances beyond a 10% tolerance
level and 5MW.

A three-year framework contract (e.g., by way of a Master Agreement with a
minimum term of three years) is required for eligible customers, but
eligibles are free to deal for shorter maturity transactions within such a
three-year contractual framework.

Although the criteria for eligibility is per site, and eligible customers
have to contract transmission for each site, RTE has created balancing
responsibility contracts (contrats de Responsable d'Equilibre) which compels
the aggregation of imbalance charges for different eligible sites within an
equilibrium perimeter defined with RTE. Imbalances are settled under a
published tariff which charges a heavy penalty for any imbalance beyond a 10%
tolerance level or 5MW.

Even though we are currently under a transitional regime in France, the
ability to trade power already exists. Optimisation can be found through
real-time arbitrage offered by the flexibility of the industrial process, the
availability of market prices and optional structures. The establishment of
balancing responsibility contracts has created the basic conditions for an
effective power trading market in France, and this through the exchange of
blocks from one perimeter to another. Blocs are only exchangeable on
day-ahead bases but intra-day procedures are expected to be implemented. All
transactions are currently based on bilateral physical contracts.

The establishment of this framework has contributed to an increasing number
of players for trading, imports, exports and transit; we are confident that
the French power market will develop rapidly.     Enron Capital & Trade
Resources Limited ("ECTRL") is a balancing responsible actor in France and
closed the first physical power transaction in France early 2000, and was the
very first new entrant to trade power (buy/sell) in France late 2000.

Future Developments

France's size and geographical position will make it a natural hub for
trading on the Continent. It is Europe's second largest electricity market,
with net consumption (including industrial on-site consumption) totalling
over 400 TWh in 1999. The increase of physical trading, envisaged capacity
release by EDF, and creation of future market mechanism will contribute to
the further development of the market.

Both a balancing market and a spot exchange market are expected to be
implemented by end 2001. Players in the balancing market will propose put and
call options, exercised by RTE according to its own portfolio of contacts
(producer, consumer) and providing it with physical balancing capacity. The
balancing market will also show referenced market prices for balancing
services.

Some of the spot market volume is expected to be operated by ParisBourse.
However, due to the dominant position of EDF, the limited number of active
IPPs, existing restrictions for trading for authorised producers in France,
and the lack of transparency with regard to current rules for allocation of
cross-border capacity and attribution of congestion costs, we believe that
the conditions for the creation of an effective spot power market in France
are not yet fully met.

Recently, the European Commission has asked EDF to auction 6,000MW of virtual
capacity through VPP auctions starting in September 2001, representing about
30% of the market for French eligible industrials This will further
contribute to increase liquidity.

Regulatory Environment

The goal of Directive 96/92/EC concerning the internal market in electricity
is to obtain a cheaper but secure electricity supply by introducing and
gradually expanding competition while maintaining industry competitiveness in
the face of price decreases. France has transposed the directive, however
certain imperfection with regards to non-discriminatory access and the level
of liberalisation still exist.

The French Electricity law was passed on 10 February 2000, a year later  than
required by the EU, establishing a transitional regime for third party access
(TPA). Several application decrees still have to be passed, including
transportation tariffs on the electric grid to eligible customers. The
current threshold for eligibility is 16GWh (net of auto-consumption) per year
and per site, and represents about 600 eligible clients and 1,200 sites.
Eligibility for distribution companies is currently limited to the eligible
consumption of customers located in their concession areas. The French power
market is effectively open to some competition, and about 60 eligible
industrials have so far switched totally or partly from the historical
supplier. The eligibility threshold will be reduced to 9GWh per site by
direct application of the EU Directive by Feb. 2003, as the French government
declined a quicker opening of the power market.

The two main authorities, which oversee the industry, are the CRE (Commission
de Regulation de l'Electricit,) is the official regulatory body and the
ministry of industry. The CRE is responsible to insure that RTE provides for
non-discriminatory access on to the grid and will be issuing transportation
tariffs.  The Ministry is responsible for providing generation licenses for
IPPs and for determining eligibility issues.

RTE is implementing new capacity allocation procedures on the UK, Italy and
Spain interconnectors. On the remaining borders, capacity is currently
allocated on a first-come-first served basis rule, and congestion fees are
levied at the margin, which favours long-term contracts and historical
players. In addition, there is currently some lack of transparency with
regards to RTE real-time data on the capacity available/used for exports and
imports. However an intra-day market is now effective for transits, imports
and exports.  The first come first serve allocation rule on border capacity
is likely to be changed by end 2001. In addition, the CRE is likely to
request RTE to release additional data in the months to come.

New IPPs have to be authorised through auctions or through direct decision of
the Ministry of Industry, the main route for authorisation. Authorised IPPs
in France are limited by Decree to buying for resale to eligible customers a
maximum of buy for resale to eligible customers a volume equivalent to 20% of
the installed capacity, including long term contracts. Although the
interpretation of this law is unclear, a recent statement by M. Tuot,
Director General of the CRE, implies that these restrictions only apply to
French authorised producers and thus not to foreign-based energy companies or
other non-producing entities. Thus, these restrictions do not apply to ECTRL,
as we are not registered in France.  In addition, French IPPs are free to
sell and export their production.

Eligible customers, who are physically connected to the Grid, have to
contract for transmission vis-.-vis RTE (Contrat Made). Traders, such as
ECTRL, are not required to have such a transmission contract, as they do not
consume the power they purchase. Only a balancing responsibility contract
coupled with grid access contracts (import, export, and/or transit) are
required by RTE.

A new Decree is expected to be passed by Summer 2001, setting up new
conditions for transmission, transits and exports under a permanent regime.
Imports, which are allocated on a pro-rata basis, are free of transmission
charges.

A network code is currently under discussion between market players and
RTE.

Market Conventions

A range of wholesale electricity products are currently traded in France.
Peak and baseload day-ahead, week-ahead, monthly, quaterly, and yearly
products are traded.  Peak products follow the German convention (12 hour
peaks on weekdays, 08h00-20h00).  Contract sizes are typically 25MW or 50MW.

Gate closure for scheduling imports, exports and transits is 14h00 Paris
time.  Gate closure for scheduling "echanges de blocs" is 16h00 Paris time.

Other: The Gas Market

A transitional regime was implemented on 10 August 2000 by direct application
of the EU Directive, thus establishing regulated TPA for sites whose
consumption is over 25 million cubic meters p.a. The eligibility threshold
will be reduced to 15million cubic meters in 2003, and 5 million cubic meters
in 2008. No gas law has been passed yet (forecasted for mid 2002), and it is
expected that the transitional regime for gas in France will last until end
2002. A zonal/distance-related tariff was published on 13 July 2000 by
GdF-Transportation. A permanent entry/exit tariff structure is likely to be
developed for 2003. Charges for imbalances are expensive and access to
storage is restricted. GdF-Trading, however, has published conditions for
balancing services.
There is only one trading Hub for France located at the French/Belgian border
(Blaregnies/TaisniSres). Due to the distance-related nature of the
transportation tariff, competitive TPA is limited to eligible sites which are
located not too far (less than about 250Km) from the French/Belgian border.
The main imports into France are for high cal gas, and GdF has published the
conditions for high cal/low cal gas swaps.
As there is not yet a gas law in France (a +Projet de Loi, was approved on
17th May 2000) transposing the EU gas directive into domestic legislation,
the Regulatory Commission has not been appointed to date, and the official
regulatory body remains the Ministry of Industry.
Although current conditions do not facilitate full requirement supply to
customers from new entrants, it is already possible to optimise gas supply
through import of blocs for part or full supply. ECTRL was the first new
entrant to supply gas at the French border, and more recently into France.
ECTRL's cumulative volume of gas trades so far totals 550 million cubic
meters.

The above represents only Enron's and its affiliates views' and, accordingly,
neither Enron nor any of its affiliates is providing any advice to you in the
above information.  You are not entitled to rely on any of the above
information and you are advised to take such other independent advice, as you
may deem necessary in respect of the matters referred to above.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Brod, Simon
Sent: 25 May 2001 17:31
To: Gaillard, Bruno
Cc: de Gaulle, Pierre; Brun, Raphael; Davies, Philip; Duvauchelle, Antoine;
Sankey, Ross
Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

My suggested paragraph on market conventions:

A range of wholesale electricity products are currently traded in France.
Peak and baseload day-ahead, week-ahead, monthly, quaterly, and yearly
products are traded.  Peak products follow the German convention (12 hour
peaks on weekdays, 08h00-20h00).  Contract sizes are typically 25MW or 50MW.

Gate closure for scheduling imports, exports and transits is 14h00 Paris
time.  Gate closure for scheduling "echanges de blocs" is 16h00 Paris time.

Simon

From: Bruno Gaillard/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 25/05/2001 15:36
To: Pierre de Gaulle/LON/ECT@ECT, Raphael Brun/LON/ECT@ECT, Simon
Brod/LON/ECT@ECT, Philip Davies/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Antoine
Duvauchelle/Enron@EUEnronXGate
cc: Ross Sankey/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

Below please find a revised version of the document. One element that is
still missing and that should be completed by the traders is the
"conventions" by possibly adding gate closure information, peak vs. off-peak,
and other relevant information.

Bruno

Updated May 2001.

Background

The Continental European electricity market is developing from an integrated
monopoly business to a competitive market. A segment of electricity users now
have the right to choose their supplier from a range of marketers. The
emergence of new marketers and generators has created the demand for price
risk management solutions and has encouraged the development of a traded
wholesale market. Following the adoption of the EU Electricity Directive in
December 1996, member states were obliged to transpose the directive into
national legislation opening electricity markets to competition by February
1999.

The directive sets out a three-tiered approach to the liberalisation of
electricity supply markets. Stage one entered into effect on 19 February
1997, and calls for the opening of 22% of national markets, based on the
average community share of electricity consumed by end customers using more
than 40 GWh per year. The degree of opening will increase over six years by
lowering the community consumption threshold to 20 GWh in 2000 (27% market
opening) and to 9 GWh in 2003 (32-33% market opening). Distributor access is
a matter for each member state. The implementation of a new directive,
expected in 2002, will improve the conditions for a liberalized market.

At present, the level of compliance with the directive varies between member
states. The EU countries farthest along the process of liberalisation are
Germany, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands. Switzerland, although it is not
an EU member state, is integral to market developments. France, although
having chosen to comply with the minimum requirements of the directive, has
proven to open up their market more than expected.

Current Market

EDF is the dominant electricity producer in France, the largest power
producer in the world with 475TWh generated in 2000,  and the largest
exporter in Europe (net exports reached 71 TWh in 2000).  Power generation in
France is mainly nuclear (70%), but also hydro (20%), while conventional
thermal generation represents 10%. EDF is a vertically integrated company
with services and products in generation (92%), supply (?%), transmission and
distribution (95%). Finally, this historical supplier is a State Entity; the
French State owns EDF,s capital.  A few Independent Power Producers (IPP) are
also active in the market, such as Snet (6.4TWh, coal-fired), and CNR (16TWh,
hydro). Other smaller IPPs are commercially active but most must sell their
production to EDF under a regulated tariff.

More than 100 distribution companies are active through a concession regime
in their local distribution area. Few, however, are of a significant size
(less than a dozen have sales of over 400 GWhs), or have eligible customers
in their concession areas.

The French System Operator (RTE) was created on 1 July 2000 and is a
sub-division of EDF, although it is unbundled in terms of management and
accounting. A postage stamp tariff has been implemented under the
transitional regime, which varies according to the voltage used and is based
on a matrix (Summer/Winter, Peak/Off-Peak). Users have to contract for their
maximum transmission capacity. Imbalances are settled under a published
tariff, which introduces high charges for imbalances beyond a 10% tolerance
level and 5MW.

A three-year framework contract (e.g., by way of a Master Agreement with a
minimum term of three years) is required for eligible customers, but
eligibles are free to deal for shorter maturity transactions within such a
three-year contractual framework.

Although the criteria for eligibility is per site, and eligible customers
have to contract transmission for each site, RTE has created balancing
responsibility contracts (contrats de Responsable d'Equilibre) which compels
the aggregation of imbalance charges for different eligible sites within an
equilibrium perimeter defined with RTE. Imbalances are settled under a
published tariff which charges a heavy penalty for any imbalance beyond a 10%
tolerance level or 5MW.

Even though we are currently under a transitional regime in France, the
ability to trade power already exists. Optimisation can be found through
real-time arbitrage offered by the flexibility of the industrial process, the
availability of market prices and optional structures. The establishment of
balancing responsibility contracts has created the basic conditions for an
effective power trading market in France, and this through the exchange of
blocks from one perimeter to another. Blocs are only exchangeable on
day-ahead bases but intra-day procedures are expected to be implemented. All
transactions are currently based on bilateral physical contracts.

The establishment of this framework has contributed to an increasing number
of players for trading, imports, exports and transit; we are confident that
the French power market will develop rapidly.     Enron Capital & Trade
Resources Limited ("ECTRL") is a balancing responsible actor in France and
closed the first physical power transaction in France early 2000, and was the
very first new entrant to trade power (buy/sell) in France late 2000.

Future Developments
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>
France's size and geographical position will make it a natural hub for
trading on the Continent. It is Europe's second largest electricity market,
with net consumption (including industrial on-site consumption) totalling
over 400 TWh in 1999. The increase of physical trading, envisaged capacity
release by EDF, and creation of future market mechanism will contribute to
the further development of the market.

Both a balancing market and a spot exchange market are expected to be
implemented by end 2001. Players in the balancing market will propose put and
call options, exercised by RTE according to its own portfolio of contacts
(producer, consumer) and providing it with physical balancing capacity. The
balancing market will also show referenced market prices for balancing
services.

Some of the spot market volume is expected to be operated by ParisBourse.
However, due to the dominant position of EDF, the limited number of active
IPPs, existing restrictions for trading for authorised producers in France,
and the lack of transparency with regard to current rules for allocation of
cross-border capacity and attribution of congestion costs, we believe that
the conditions for the creation of an effective spot power market in France
are not yet fully met.

Recently, the European Commission has asked EDF to auction 6,000MW of virtual
capacity through VPP auctions starting in September 2001, representing about
30% of the market for French eligible industrials This will further
contribute to increase liquidity.

Regulatory Environment
 << OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>
The goal of Directive 96/92/EC concerning the internal market in electricity
is to obtain a cheaper but secure electricity supply by introducing and
gradually expanding competition while maintaining industry competitiveness in
the face of price decreases. France has transposed the directive, however
certain imperfection with regards to non-discriminatory access and the level
of liberalisation still exist.

The French Electricity law was passed on 10 February 2000, a year later  than
required by the EU, establishing a transitional regime for third party access
(TPA). Several application decrees still have to be passed, including
transportation tariffs on the electric grid to eligible customers. The
current threshold for eligibility is 16GWh (net of auto-consumption) per year
and per site, and represents about 600 eligible clients and 1,200 sites.
Eligibility for distribution companies is currently limited to the eligible
consumption of customers located in their concession areas. The French power
market is effectively open to some competition, and about 60 eligible
industrials have so far switched totally or partly from the historical
supplier. The eligibility threshold will be reduced to 9GWh per site by
direct application of the EU Directive by Feb. 2003, as the French government
declined a quicker opening of the power market.

The two main authorities, which oversee the industry, are the CRE (Commission
de Regulation de l'Electricit,) is the official regulatory body and the
ministry of industry. The CRE is responsible to insure that RTE provides for
non-discriminatory access on to the grid and will be issuing transportation
tariffs.  The Ministry is responsible for providing generation licenses for
IPPs and for determining eligibility issues.

RTE is implementing new capacity allocation procedures on the UK, Italy and
Spain interconnectors. On the remaining borders, capacity is currently
allocated on a first-come-first served basis rule, and congestion fees are
levied at the margin, which favours long-term contracts and historical
players. In addition, there is currently some lack of transparency with
regards to RTE real-time data on the capacity available/used for exports and
imports. However an intra-day market is now effective for transits, imports
and exports.  The first come first serve allocation rule on border capacity
is likely to be changed by end 2001. In addition, the CRE is likely to
request RTE to release additional data in the months to come.

New IPPs have to be authorised through auctions or through direct decision of
the Ministry of Industry, the main route for authorisation. Authorised IPPs
in France are limited by Decree to buying for resale to eligible customers a
maximum of buy for resale to eligible customers a volume equivalent to 20% of
the installed capacity, including long term contracts. Although the
interpretation of this law is unclear, a recent statement by M. Tuot,
Director General of the CRE, implies that these restrictions only apply to
French authorised producers and thus not to foreign-based energy companies or
other non-producing entities. Thus, these restrictions do not apply to ECTRL,
as we are not registered in France.  In addition, French IPPs are free to
sell and export their production.

Eligible customers, who are physically connected to the Grid, have to
contract for transmission vis-.-vis RTE (Contrat Made). Traders, such as
ECTRL, are not required to have such a transmission contract, as they do not
consume the power they purchase. Only a balancing responsibility contract
coupled with grid access contracts (import, export, and/or transit) are
required by RTE.

A new Decree is expected to be passed by Summer 2001, setting up new
conditions for transmission, transits and exports under a permanent regime.
Imports, which are allocated on a pro-rata basis, are free of transmission
charges.

A network code is currently under discussion between market players and
RTE.

Market Conventions

Traders: Need to Add: gate closer information and on-peak off peak hours plus
whatever relevant conventions.

Other: The Gas Market

A transitional regime was implemented on 10 August 2000 by direct application
of the EU Directive, thus establishing regulated TPA for sites whose
consumption is over 25 million cubic meters p.a. The eligibility threshold
will be reduced to 15million cubic meters in 2003, and 5 million cubic meters
in 2008. No gas law has been passed yet (forecasted for mid 2002), and it is
expected that the transitional regime for gas in France will last until end
2002. A zonal/distance-related tariff was published on 13 July 2000 by
GdF-Transportation. A permanent entry/exit tariff structure is likely to be
developed for 2003. Charges for imbalances are expensive and access to
storage is restricted. GdF-Trading, however, has published conditions for
balancing services.
There is only one trading Hub for France located at the French/Belgian border
(Blaregnies/TaisniSres). Due to the distance-related nature of the
transportation tariff, competitive TPA is limited to eligible sites which are
located not too far (less than about 250Km) from the French/Belgian border.
The main imports into France are for high cal gas, and GdF has published the
conditions for high cal/low cal gas swaps.
As there is not yet a gas law in France (a +Projet de Loi, was approved on
17th May 2000) transposing the EU gas directive into domestic legislation,
the Regulatory Commission has not been appointed to date, and the official
regulatory body remains the Ministry of Industry.
Although current conditions do not facilitate full requirement supply to
customers from new entrants, it is already possible to optimise gas supply
through import of blocs for part or full supply. ECTRL was the first new
entrant to supply gas at the French border, and more recently into France.
ECTRL's cumulative volume of gas trades so far totals 550 million cubic
meters.

The above represents only Enron's and its affiliates views' and, accordingly,
neither Enron nor any of its affiliates is providing any advice to you in the
above information.  You are not entitled to rely on any of the above
information and you are advised to take such other independent advice, as you
may deem necessary in respect of the matters referred to above.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  de Gaulle, Pierre
Sent: 25 May 2001 12:22
To: Brun, Raphael; Brod, Simon; Gaillard, Bruno; Davies, Philip
Cc: Sankey, Ross
Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

This is the final draft as approved by EOL legal and Mark Elliott.

Any ultimate comments?

Pierre
---------------------- Forwarded by Pierre De Gaulle/LON/ECT on 25/05/2001
12:24 ---------------------------
From: Justin Boyd/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 25/05/2001 12:16
To: Mark Elliott/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Pierre de Gaulle/LON/ECT@ECT, Ian
Brungs/Enron@EUEnronXGate
cc:

Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

i have no further comments from an EOL perspective

justin
 -----Original Message-----
From:  Elliott, Mark
Sent: 25 May 2001 12:05
To: de Gaulle, Pierre; Boyd, Justin; Brungs, Ian
Subject: FW: Background Information France/Final Draft

Pierre,

Re the main text - see my comments in blue below.  I have passed this on to
Justin as you will see as Justin is charge of Legal for EOL and will also
have to approve it.  With regards to the slides, could you give me a hard
copy - I can't seem to open them on my system.

Kind regards

Mark

 -----Original Message-----
From:  de Gaulle, Pierre
Sent: 22 May 2001 12:26
To: Mark Elliott/LON/ECT@ENRON; Oliver, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

Mark,

Please find herewith the background info for EOL France. It seems that you
would have to approve it (Any other approval needed?). Please note that this
draft has been seen and amended by Raphael, Simon, Philip and Bruno.

Thanks

Pierre

---------------------- Forwarded by Pierre De Gaulle/LON/ECT on 22/05/2001
12:22 ---------------------------
From: Jennifer Oliver/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 22/05/2001 11:10
To: Pierre de Gaulle/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: RE: Background Information France/Final Draft

Pierre,

Has French Power Legal approved the final draft below? If not, please could
they review before I submit this to the EnronOnline approval process. Also,
please let me know any other approvals you have receieved so far. This will
help determine who still needs to review.

Thanks,
Jennifer

 -----Original Message-----
From:  de Gaulle, Pierre
Sent: 21 May 2001 18:04
To: Oliver, Jennifer; Goddard, Paul
Subject: Re: Background Information France/Final Draft

Please find the final draft of EOL Backgoung information for France. Please
also find two slides about France, which can be included in the Continental
Gas Trading presentation.

I would like to appear in the background as the main commercial contact
point, as follows:

Pierre de Gaulle
Director France
Tel: + 44 207 783 7742
Fax: + 44 207 783 8255
Mobile: + 44 777 19 01 565
Email: Pierre.de.Gaulle@enron.com

 Thanks

Pierre

 << File: SlidesFrance.ppt >>

---------------------- Forwarded by Pierre De Gaulle/LON/ECT on 21/05/2001
18:00 ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Bruno Gaillard@ENRON
21/05/2001 17:51
To: Pierre de Gaulle/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Raphael Brun/LON/ECT@ECT, Simon Brod/LON/ECT@ECT, Philip
Davies/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: Background Information France/EOL/Draft 2   << OLE Object:
StdOleLink >>

See red and strikethrough comments below

---------------------- Forwarded by Pierre De Gaulle/LON/ECT on 20/05/2001
16:09 ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
Pierre de Gaulle
14/05/2001 19:56
Sent by: Pierre De Gaulle
To: Jennifer Oliver/EU/Enron@Enron, Paul Goddard/EU/Enron@Enron
cc: Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ECT, Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron@Enron, Raphael
Brun/LON/ECT@ECT, Simon Brod/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: Background Information France

Please find a draft of the marketing background information about the French
power (and gas) markets for EOL.

Your comments are appreciated.

Thanks

Pierre

Updated May 2001.

1)Background

France is the second largest country in Europe with 58 million inhabitants.
EdF, who was the monopolistic producer, is the largest power producer in the
world with 475TWh generated in 2000, thanks to nuclear production. The
historical supplier, who is at the same time the largest exporter of power in
Europe (net exports reached 71TWh in 2000), is a direct emanation from the
French State, who owns EdF capital. Power generation in France is mainly
nuclear (70%), but also hydro (20%), while conventional thermal generation
represents 10%. EdF owns 92% of power generation, and 95% of distribution.

A few Independent Power Producers (IPP) are also active in the market, such
as Snet (6.4TWh, coal-fired), and CNR (16TWh, hydro). Other small IPPs sell
their production to EdF under a regulated tariff. There has been significant
development of cogeneration projects since 1997. There is now 3,500MW of
installed capacity, thanks to the legal obligation for EdF to purchase power
generated from cogeneration units at a preferable (is "preferable" the
correct word??)   tariff. In the view of the transposition of  the EU
Electricity Directive into French law, this purchase obligation ceased to
apply for new large projects (over 12MW) from 1st Jan. 1999.
More than 100 distribution companies are active through a concession regime
in their local distribution area. Few, however, are of a significant size
(less than a dozen have sales of over 400 GWhs), or have eligible customers
in their concession area.

2) Regulatory Environment

The French Electricity law was passed on 10 February 2000, implementing
regulated third party access (TPA) in France under a transitional regime. The
law was approved one year late, failing to meet the required EU deadline.
Dozens  ["Dozens"  - I would replace this with "Several")  of application
decrees still have to be passed, including tariffs to eligible industrials.
The French power market is open to competition, however. About 60 eligible
industrials have so far switched totally or partly from the historical
supplier. Current threshold for eligibility is 16GWh (net of
auto-consumption) per year and per site, representing about 600 eligible
clients and 1,200 sites. The eligibility threshold will be reduced to 9GWh
per site by direct application of the EU Directive in Feb. 2003, as the
French government declined a quicker opening of the power market.

Eligibility of distribution companies is limited to the eligible consumption
of customers located in their concession area.
A three-year framework contract ( e.g., by way of a Master Agreement with a
minimum term of three years) is required for eligible customers, but
eligibles are free to deal for shorter maturity transactions within such a
three year contractual framework.

New IPPs have to be authorised through auctions or through direct decision
from the Ministry of Industry, which is the main route for authorisation.
Authorised IPPs in France are limited by Decree to trading buy for resale to
eligible customers a volume equivalent to 20% of the installed capacity,
including long term contracts. Trading is currently defined as the conditions
of power purchase for resale to eligible customers. These Trading
restrictions, however, do not apply to ECTRL, as we are not registered in
France. IPPs are free to sell and export power.

The French System Operator (RTE) was created on 1 July 2000 and is a
sub-division of EdF, although it is unbundled in terms of management and
accounting. A postage stamp tariff was implemented under the transitional
regime, which varies according to the voltage used,and which is based on a
matrix (Summer/Winter, Peak/OffPeak). Users have to contract transmission up
to the maximum capacity that they will use. RTE purchases excess capacity
available through transmission contracts at fixed prices, which represents
about half of the market price. Imbalances are settled under a published
tariff, which introduces high charges for imbalances beyond a 10% tolerance
level and 5MW. Although the criteria for eligibility is per site, and
eligible customers have to contract transmission for each site, RTE has
created programme responsible contracts (contrats de Responsable
d'Equilibre), which allow the aggregation of imbalance charges for different
eligible sites within an equilibrium perimeter defined with RTE.

Eligible customers, who are physically connected to the Grid, have to
contract for transmission vis-.-vis RTE (Contrat Made). Traders, such as
ECTRL, are not required to have such a transmission contract, as they do not
consume the power they purchase. Only a programme responsible contract
coupled with grid access contracts (import, export, and/or transit) are
required by RTE.

A new Decree is expected to be passed by Summer 2001, setting up new
conditions for transmission, transits and exports under a permanent regime.
It is likely that this new tariff will implement a 1/3 injection-2/3 delivery
calculation factor. Imports, which are allocated on a pro-rata basis, are
free of transmission charges.

Programme responsible contracts have established the basis of trading in
France through the exchange of blocs from one perimeter to another.  Enron
Capital & Trade Resources Limited ("ECTRL")  is programme responsible in
France. Cross border capacity is currently allocated on a first-come-first
served basis rule by RTE, and congestion fees are levied at the margin, which
favours long term contracts and does not give equal treatment to all players.
In addition, there is currently some lack of transparency with regards to RTE
real-time data on the capacity available/used for exports and imports. This
allocation rule is likely to change by end 2001. In addition, the CRE is
likely to request RTE to release additional data in the months to come.

The CRE (Commission de Regulation de l'Electricite) is the offical regulatory
body, which mainly covers TPA and tariff issues, while IPP licenses and
eligibility issues are covered by the Ministry of Industry.

3) Business Opportunity

Although we are currently under a transitional regime in France, the ability
to trade power already exists. Optimisation can be found through real-time
arbitrage between the flexibility of the industrial process, market prices
and optional structures. The establishment of programme responsible contracts
has created the basic conditions for an effective power trading market in
France. ECTRL closed the first physical power transaction in France early
2000, and was the very first new entrant to trade power (buy/sell) in France
late 2000.

An intraday market is now effective for transits, imports and exports, and is
expected to soon be extended to exchange of blocs in France.
Liquidity has been dramatically increasing (although the market remains
dominated by the historical player) thanks to RTE capacity auctions for
(auction has not been implemented on Spanish side yet) [QUERY: do we need
this bit in brackets??  What does it add??  Can't we just delete it??  Or is
it a note and someone has to write some better text here??  It just does not
read correctly in English owing to its place in the sentence at present] UK,
Italy and Spain interconnectors, RTE tenders for HV Grid losses, industrials
switching, and new players coming into the market. In addition, the European
Commission has determined that EdF will auction 6,000MW of virtual capacity
through VPP and PPA auctions in September 2001, representing about 30% of the
market for French eligible industrials This will further contribute to
increase liquidity.
A network code is currently under discussion between market players and
RTE.

4) Future Development

It is forecasted that both balancing market and spot exchange market will be
implemented by end 2001. Players in the balancing market will propose put and
call options, which will be exercised by RTE according to its own portfolio
of contacts (producer,consumer), thus providing RTE with physical balancing
capacity. The balancing market will also show referenced market prices for
balancing services.

The Some of the spot market volume is expected to be run by ParisBourse.
However, due to the dominant position of EdF, the limited number of active
IPPs, existing restrictions for trading for authorised producers in France,
and the lack of transparency with regard to current rules for allocation of
cross-border capacity and attribution of congestion costs, we believe that
the conditions for the creation of an effective spot power market in France
are not yet fully met. ECTRL has actively been lobbying in order to have fair
and transparent rules implemented for every player in the market and has
actively contributed for a spot market to take place.

However, thanks to an increasing number of players in France for trading,
imports, exports and transit, we are confident that the French power market
will develop rapidly.

5) The Gas Market Situation

A transitional regime was implemented on 10 August 2000 by direct application
of the EU Directive, thus establishing regulated TPA for sites whose
consumption is over 25 million cubic meters p.a. The eligibility threshold
will be reduced to 15million cubic meters in 2003, and 5 million cubic meters
in 2008. No gas law has been passed yet (forecasted mid 2002), and its is
expected that the transitional regime for gas in France will last until end
2002. A zonal/distance-related tariff was disclosed published on 13 July 2000
by GdF-Transportation. A permanent entry/exit tariff structure is likely to
be developed for 2003.  Charges  for imbalances are expensive, and access to
storage is restricted. GdF-Trading, however, has published conditions for
balancing services.
There is only one trading Hub for France located at the French/Belgian border
(Blaregnies/TaisniSres). Due to the distance-related nature of the
transportation tariff, competitive TPA is limited to eligible sites which are
located not too far (less than about 250Km) from the French/Belgian border.
The main imports into France are for high cal gas, and GdF has published the
conditions for high cal/low cal gas swaps.
As there is not yet a  [new??] gas law in France ( a Projet de Loi was
approved on 17th May 2000) transposing the EU Gas Directive into domestic
legislation, the Regulatory Commission has not been appointed to-date , and
the official regulatory body remains the Ministry of Industry.
Although current conditions do not facilitate full requirement supply to
customers from new entrants, it is already possible to optimise gas supply
through import of blocs for part or full supply. ECTRL was the first new
entrant to supply gas at the French border, and more recently into France.
ECTRL's cumulative volume of gas trades so far totals 550 million cubic
meters.

The above represents only Enron's and its affiliates views' and, accordingly,
neither Enron nor any of its affiliates is providing any advice to you in the
above information.  You are not entitled to rely on any of the above
information and you are advised to take such other independent advice as you
may deem necessary in respect of the matters referred to above.

---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/08/2001
10:05 PM ---------------------------
From: Bruno Gaillard on 06/01/2001 07:04 PM GDT
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: Gas situation in France

----- Forwarded by Bruno Gaillard/EU/Enron on 01/06/2001 19:03 -----

	Bruno Gaillard
	24/05/2001 18:12

		 To: Philip Davies/Enron@EUEnronXGate
		 cc: Didier Magne/Enron@EUEnronXGate
		 Subject: Gas situation in France
Philip

Attached the relevant sections of a paper produced by EFET (largely by us) on
TPA in the French gas market and Enron comments to the EU on TPA issues. Note
that these papers were produced in December of 2000 and mid-Feb 2001
respectively. Notable changes since then include.

A relatively competitively priced conversion service (H-Cal to L-Cal gas) at
TaiseniSres has been but in place
The balancing regime has been improved and penalties are now indexed to
Zeebrugge (x 1.5 or x -0.5)
Access conditions to LNG have been published
Flexibility services are offered by GdF- Supply. The terms and conditions up
to now had been onerous. Recent talks between Didier and a customer suggest
that they have been wildly improved but this still needs to analysed by us.
Transit tariffs have been published but is also restricted to a  year-long.
The regulator is seriously considering changing the tariff structure from a
distance related structure to a entry/exit type structure.
The first hearing on the law (directive transposition) at the parliament has
been delayed from spring 2001 to summer 2002. Regulated tariffs will not
likely be put in place until 2003.

Let me know if you need more information.

Bruno

---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 06/08/2001
10:06 PM ---------------------------
From: Bruno Gaillard/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 06/01/2001 07:14 PM GDT
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject: EdF capacity auctions

Information on capacity release program (VPP) in France

Letter below to the consultants of EDF

Decision on Merger imposing capacity release

Trustee mandate that we proposed to the EU

Initial VPP proposal by EDF

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Sankey, Ross
Sent: 01 June 2001 09:51
To: de Gaulle, Pierre
Cc: Gaillard, Bruno; Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ENRON; Brun, Raphael; Brod, Simon;
Styles, Peter; Dindarova, Nailia; Shaw, Eric; Elliott, Mark
Subject: RE: EdF capacity auctions

All,

I would suggest we need to do the following :-

? Register for the auction and receipt of the IM asap.  Bruno could you
please discuss with Mark and put together our registration document.  I
assume that ECTRL meets the criteria of a trader "registered" in an EU member
state?  Does not appear to be any need to deal with credit support or other
regulatory "qualifiers" such as balancing agreements as yet.  Mark - agree?
Bruno - could you please take care of sending this registration letter (agree
with Pierre who should act as principal contact).
? Establish once and for all the role of Trustee and CRE in the process of
approving capacity release phasing, auction process for each phase and
product specifications AND understand how the "consultation" process will
work once we have the IM.  Hence need to discuss with MTF, then Trustee and
CRE asap ie in June if possible.  Preferably before we meet again with
PWC/Roth....

In addition to Pierre's comments, the PIM also states that strike prices at
least are subject to Trustee review but a number of areas need to be
questioned.

? Capacity Release Phasing.  PIM confirms the 5 year period of the remdey but
also says a review can be requested after 3 years.  Bruno - you need to
review the remedy doc, but I do not see how a 2 year phasing of capacity
release complies with the remedy (at least in spirit).  We would suggest
there is no impediment to offering the FULL remedy in a single phase.  If
theere is insufficient demand they can always have a fall back position to
release unsold capacity on a 6 monthly or annual basis through the 5 year
period.  The current proposal is no more than EdF trying to minimise capacity
release and/or extract max value (can't blame them for trying but it is not
what we want or what remedy requires).  EdF's only real argument is that
phasing will allow more new suppliers to enter at a later date as eligiblity
threshold drops in France.  However, since eligible demand already exceeds
total capacity release this would limit development of competition to
existing eligibles.  As a minimum the release programme for all capacity
should be clearly defined up front; not at the whim of EdF.  Peter - thoughts
on this and how, in context of remedy, we can argue for accelerated single
phase auction (with possible reauctioning of unsold capacity over 5 years)?
? Auction Process : qualifying criteria likely to be more defined in IM; but
no obvious problems here.  I am less sure about nature of auction process.
We obviously need to think it through more, but why not just have a simple
process based on single sealed bids (or an electronic bid process).  The use
of price "clock" controlled by the auctioneer may allow a reserve price to be
set which is clearly not the intent of the remedy - this should be set at
zero for all product groups not subjectively "to ensure excess demand" but
only for certain groups!
? Product Specs : need to understand what if anything can be changed here.
Strikes seem to be subject to Trustee approval, but we need to understand
what else can be influenced eg within day flex.  Since we have already
covered this in previous submissions to MTF, EdF etc this should be easy to
identify as we go forward.

Any comments?

Ross

 -----Original Message-----
From:  de Gaulle, Pierre
Sent: 01 June 2001 09:00
To: Sankey, Ross
Cc: Gaillard, Bruno; Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ENRON; Brun, Raphael; Brod, Simon;
Styles, Peter; Dindarova, Nailia
Subject: RE: EdF capacity auctions & other EU news

Point 1.5: This info is of a preliminary nature and is subject to change. In
addition, it is mentioned in point 6 that registered companies for the
auction will have the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues during
conferences, which will be then considered by EdF.

Specifications of the auction will be finalised by end August. This seems to
leave some room for a complete feedback from registered companies. Let's
discuss the content of the PIM.

I suggest to arrange anothe meeting with PWC/Rothschild in the next few weeks
(week 11-16 June).

What about a potential meeting with the Trustee about the PIM?

Pierre

From: Ross Sankey/Enron@EUEnronXGate on 31/05/2001 19:31
To: Bruno Gaillard/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ENRON, Pierre de
Gaulle/LON/ECT@ECT, Raphael Brun/LON/ECT@ECT, Simon Brod/LON/ECT@ECT
cc: Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT, Nailia Dindarova/LON/ECT@ECT

Subject: RE: EdF capacity auctions & other EU news

Bruno,

Quel surprise.  Should make your follow up with the MTF interesting as to the
role of the Trustee.

One point to note for both MTF and Albers at COMP - the lack of within day
flexibility is hardly in keeping with the intention of supporting development
of retail supply to end users with fluctuating demand.  Suppliers will thus
be at the mercy of EdF in the balancing market.

In addition, how on earth can they be allowed to take 2 years to complete the
process?  How does that fit with merger remedy?

Somewhat ironic that they have the document in English!

Lets discuss what if anyhting we can do after you have spoken with MTF.

Regards,

Ross

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Gaillard, Bruno
Sent: 31 May 2001 19:03
To: Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ENRON; Sankey, Ross; de Gaulle, Pierre; Brun,
Raphael; Brod, Simon
Cc: Styles, Peter; Dindarova, Nailia
Subject: RE: EdF capacity auctions & other EU news

Obviously a done deal - interestingly the Trustee is not mentioned. EDF has
the capacity offering on its web page
http://www.edf.fr/htm/en/enchere/enchere and has a detailed document in
English but not in French yet. They also has EFET under industry links as
well as the CRE, DIGEC.

Attached is EDF's presentation of the product. After a quick look, it seems
that flexibility is not a option (nomination at noon, and price has not
changed)

 << File: VPP MIP.pdf >>
Bruno

31/05/01 UK: EDF ISSUES DETAILS OF ITS FIRST CAPACITY AUCTION.
LONDON, May 31 (Reuters) - French utility Electricite de France (EdF)
announced on Thursday details of its first auction to sell electricity
production capacity to competitors. EdF was required by the EU Commission in
February to give access to some of its generation capacity as a condition for
EU approval of its purchase of a 25 percent stake in German utility EnBW.
In the next two years, EdF will auction a total of 6,000 megawatts which
include 1,000 MW of peak capacity sold at a price of 26 euros per megawatt
hour (MWh) and 4,000 MW of baseload at a price of eight euros/MWh.
In addition, 1,000 MW of cogeneration production capacity will be made
available. Production from cogeneration plants is bought by EdF from smaller
producers under long-term contracts.
"With such contracts, electricity suppliers and traders will be able to have
electricity without the technical and operational risks of running a power
plant," said EdF in a statement.
The price for cogeneration capacity will be made public a few weeks before
the auction as it depends on gas price movements, EdF said.
The auction will take place in several tranches, the first one starting in
September, when 200 MW of peak capacity will be auctioned, 800 MW of baseload
and 190 MW of cogeneration.
The whole 6,000 MW should be sold by October 2003.
EdF, which has a 94 percent share of the French generation market, has a
total installed capacity of 103,500 MW.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Dindarova, Nailia
Sent: 31 May 2001 17:20
To: Gaillard, Bruno; Philip Davies/LON/ECT@ENRON
Subject: EdF capacity auctions & other EU news

FYI see attached
---------------------- Forwarded by Nailia Dindarova/LON/ECT on 31/05/2001
17:07 ---------------------------

 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
"Sandra James" <Sandra_James@electricity.org.uk> on 31/05/2001 17:11:51
To: <david.love@british-energy.com>, <rob.plaskitt@british-energy.com>,
<shercock@compuserve.com>, <jgreen3@edisonmission.com>, "Gwyn Dolben"
<Gwyn_Dolben@electricity.org.uk>, <KHanks@enron.com>,
<Nailia.Dindarova@enron.com>, <Peter.Styles@enron.com>,
<mwedg90@entergy.com>, <alison.cole@innogy.com>, <DAVID.TOLLEY@innogy.com>,
<peter.heffer@magnox.co.uk>, <ALAN.CLARK@natpower.com>,
<David.Burnett@nie.co.uk>, <Gordon.Dunlop@nie.co.uk>, <Chris.Price@pgen.com>,
<david.densley@scottish-southern.co.uk>, <shamblyn@seeboard.com>,
<Brian.Samuel@txu-europe.com>, <Phil.Hardy@txu-europe.com>,
<andy.papageorgi@uk.ngrid.com>, <christine.brown@uk.ngrid.com>,
<judith.ward@uk.ngrid.com>, <louise.petchell@uk.ngrid.com>,
<michael.metcalfe@uk.ngrid.com>, <James.Sheward@uuplc.co.uk>,
<Arthur.Probert@yeg.co.uk>, <gail.antrobus@yeg.co.uk>,
<Gail.Silcock@yeg.co.uk>, <joanne.bridge@yeg.co.uk>
cc:

Subject: EdF capacity auctions & other EU news

Dear All

Please see attached news items from this afternoon, including details of
EdF's sale of capacity.

Regards

Sandra

*****************************************************************
This e-mail is confidential. It is intended only for the person named.
Unless you are that person, or authorised to receive this e-mail, you
must not copy or use it or disclose it to anyone else.  If you have
received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender.  Thank you
for your cooperation.
Electricity Association Services Limited, 30 Millbank, London  SW1P 4RD
(Reg. in England No: 2366837).
*****************************************************************
 - eunews 31may pm.doc << File: eunews 31may pm.doc >>


Thanks.  DF

ET & S Business Intelligence Department
From: Lorna Brennan on 09/20/2000 03:44 PM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:
Subject: Article in WSJ: "Movies-on-Demand May Finally Turn Blockbuster's
Stock into a Hit"

Drew,

This was in today's WSJ, but I don't see anything prior to that that isn't a
month old or more on the Blockbuster deal.  There was an announcement on the
wires on September 6 dealing with the n-Cube technology that will be used in
the Blockbuster deal.  Let me know if this is it!

Lorna
-----------------------------------------------------
09/20/2000
The Wall Street Journal

Texas Journal
T2
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Blockbuster hasn't enjoyed a great market reception.

In fact, it has fared so poorly since going public 13 months ago that today
you can pick up a share of the Dallas video-rental giant for the price of a
video rental and a couple of late fees.

But analysts who have promoted the stock from its initial public offering in
August 1999 say now is a better time than ever to bet on Blockbuster. They
say the company is poised to capitalize both on its ubiquitous stores and the
emerging market for delivering movies over the Internet.
"There are a lot of factors that make it incredibly attractive," says Patrick
J. O'Hare, an analyst in Chicago with briefing.com, an online market-analysis
firm.

For starters, Blockbuster, with 5,000 blue-and-yellow stores in the U.S.
alone, is the leading video retailer and one of the country's best-known
brand names. Its stock, which closed yesterday at $9.188, looks inexpensive.
Blockbuster is also moving beyond its storefronts. In July, Blockbuster
signed a 20-year agreement to sell movies over the growing broadband network
being built by Houston-based Enron.

There's more. Mr. O'Hare notes that the company's earnings are expected to
grow at a 20% annual clip over the next five years, while the stock trades at
a relatively inexpensive 14 times earnings. In 2001, the company's earnings
are projected to grow by 28%. So by one measure, Blockbuster trades for about
half that rate. The stock also trades for less than one third of its book
value.

Of course, the stock price has been depressed for a long time, ever since
majority owner Viacom sold 18% of Blockbuster in an IPO. (New York-based
Viacom plans to distribute the rest to its shareholders, but is waiting for
the price to rise.) Blockbuster ended its first day of trading at $15, its
offering price. It went down from there and bottomed out at $8.88 on June 27.

Not even a better-than-expected second-quarter financial report on Aug. 2
helped much. The company lost 16 cents a share, compared with a 28-cent net
loss a year earlier. Excluding losses from new-media initiatives, such as
development of its Blockbuster.com Web site, it posted cash earnings of $24.1
million, or 14 cents a share, which beat analysts' expectations.

Analysts say the news will improve, with a consensus estimate that
Blockbuster will earn 64 cents a share before charges this year. The company
also expects its market share to reach at least 35% this year, four times
that of its nearest competitor, Hollywood Entertainment's Hollywood Video.

It adds up to rosy projections. Briefing.com's Mr. O'Hare says the stock
could double in the next 12 to 18 months. Salomon Smith Barney analyst David
Riedel in New York has a $26 target price, also in 12 to 18 months. (Mr.
Riedel's firm was an underwriter for Blockbuster's IPO.)

So why has the stock languished? One culprit is the new-media initiatives,
which are obscuring the company's profits elsewhere. And, as Blockbuster
Chief Executive John Antioco noted recently when warning that third-quarter
revenue would be slow, there have been few recent big hits among the new
video releases.

Mr. Antioco also acknowledges there may be confusion over how well
Blockbuster is mixing its traditional retail business with the advent of
movies-on-demand and other new-media ventures. Indeed, for all Blockbuster's
talk about new media, it doesn't yet deliver movies electronically and
customers still can't do things like reserve movies by using Blockbuster.com.
Thus far, customers can do little more than buy videos and digital videodisks
on the Web site.

"Perhaps the story may be more complicated than some people have time for,"
Mr. Antioco says. "People who buy retail stocks don't fully understand our
story, and people who buy media stocks may not totally understand the
transition." In the end, the company will be a mix of new media and
traditional retailing. But until that picture becomes clearer, the result,
Mr. Antioco says, "is the stock malaise."

But Mr. Antioco says Blockbuster is now in an ideal position. The company has
delivered solid earnings from its core video-store business and has struck
potentially big deals to bring movies to consumers in their homes.
"Blockbuster, as a pure retail play, has done what it said it's going to do,"
Mr. Antioco says. "Now we have several [new-media] plays beyond that."

Indeed, just this year Blockbuster has entered into five deals to supplement
its in-store rentals through showings of movies on outlets such as DirecTV, a
unit of Hughes Electronics, El Segundo, Calif.

The agreement with the most potential, analysts say, is the Enron deal, in
which Blockbuster will distribute movies over the energy giant's broadband
network to set-top boxes in consumers' homes. Mr. Antioco says Blockbuster
will be delivering movies in a couple of markets served by Enron's network by
the end of the year and predicts that will be just a prelude to a wider
rollout in 2001.

Certainly, there are potential stumbling blocks. To make the deal work, Enron
and Blockbuster need digital-subscriber-line providers to step up enrollment
and solve the spotty service and technical glitches that have plagued large
numbers of users.

"The issue for Blockbuster is going to be availability," says Mike Goodman, a
senior analyst with Yankee Group, a market-research firm in Boston. Yankee
projects there will be 1.45 million DSL users by the end of this year,
increasing to about 8.4 million in 2004.

That's a substantial number of subscribers, but it's also just a potential
customer base for Blockbuster. Mr. Antioco says the digital future is a ways
off -- it may be 10 years before revenue from electronic delivery of movies
catches up with video-store revenue.

Even the beginning of the DSL-dependent rollout will take up to a couple of
years, according to Forrester Research of Cambridge, Mass. It says movies
won't be delivered to more than a few markets until sometime in 2002 -- not
2001, as Blockbuster predicts. But Mr. Antioco says agreements with the
regional phone companies that provide DSL will bear fruit sooner and that the
company will soon announce other partners such as a maker of the set-top
boxes needed to order movies.

Briefing.com's Mr. O'Hare argues that now is the time to buy because
Blockbuster's stock could move fast once investors grasp the possibilities of
the company's plan for multimedia distribution.

Both Mr. O'Hare and Salomon Smith Barney's Mr. Riedel classify Blockbuster as
particularly risky but say the company's outside-the-store initiatives should
serve as a catalyst for the stock over the next 18 or so months.

Mr. O'Hare says that time frame may not be compatible with investors' "notion
of instant gratification." But, he says, "it's worth it
in this case."


----- Forwarded by Miyung Buster/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 09/29/2000 04:44 PM
-----

	djcustomclips@djinteractive.com
	09/27/2000 02:17 AM
	Please respond to nobody

		 To: 86464@WCTOPICS.djnr.com
		 cc:
		 Subject: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation: As Power Prices Rise, Businesses
In Ore. Seek to Delay ...

The Wall Street Journal
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / NORTHWEST
As Power Prices Rise, Businesses In Ore. Seek to Delay Deregulation
By Rob Eure
?
09/27/2000
The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones&Company, Inc.)

A year ago, Oregon's big businesses encouraged the state Legislature to
deregulate the electricity market. Now the corporate lobby is working with
state regulators to effectively put the law on hold.

When the businesses asked for deregulation, they thought it would save them
money: If the market was opened to competition, they reasoned, they could use
their high demand as a bargaining chip and get better rates on power. But
electricity prices skyrocketed this summer, and now businesses face the
prospect of buying power that's much pricier than historical norms.

So, some big commercial consumers have asked the state Public Utilities
Commission for help. The PUC, which is writing the rules implementing the
law, says it is considering modifying the rules to allow companies to keep
buying power at essentially the old, regulated rates until market prices come
down.

"We still favor deregulation, but we need a smooth transition," says Ken
Cannon, executive director of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, a
Portland-based trade group.

Indeed, executives with major companies predict doom if the law -- ordering
the biggest users of electricity to shop on the open market for power, giving
up their access to regulated rates -- is put into action.

"If deregulation is instituted next October, it will devastate commerce and
industry in Oregon," says Dan Williamson, an energy consultant for
Portland-based Pope&Talbot Inc., a pulp and lumber company that is a member
of the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, a Portland-based trade
group of 40 large industrial-power users that lobbied heavily for the
deregulation.

The PUC's rule proposal wouldn't change the date of deregulation; it would
still go into service on Oct. 1, 2001, and mandate that major power consumers
-- essentially, the bulk of Oregon's businesses -- buy on the open market.
Small companies and residential customers will be able to continue to buy
power from their current, regulated suppliers.

Instead, the proposal would work this way: The big power users affected by
the law would enter into contracts of varying length -- six months, a quarter
or a year -- with their current, regulated providers. The users would pay
higher rates tied to free-market prices, but then -- through a complicated
accounting process -- the providers would give them credits that would,
effectively, bring the rates down to the current regulated rates. When the
contracts were up, the users could either jump into the free market or renew
their contracts with regulated providers, if market rates were still too high.

In theory, that "should leave our rates at about the same level, if we do it
right," says Julie Brandis, a lobbyist with the Salem-based Associated Oregon
Industries, the state's largest business lobby with 18,000 members.

Ms. Brandis says she expects that most businesses in the state will back the
stopgap plan and remain with their incumbent utilities next October. She says
AOI still believes "deregulation is the right way to go, but the higher
prices are a concern. We think we need a bridge of some sort for the short
term."

Randy Dahlgren, director of pricing for Portland General Electric, a unit of
Houston-based Enron Corp. and Oregon's largest utility with 730,000
customers, says the utility understands the need for the stopgap measure.
"We're working on a [pricing plan] now that should be similar to the
regulated rate," he says. Regulators have asked the state's private utilities
to submit their proposals by next month, and Mr. Dahlgren says that's just in
time. "We need to start planning for our power purchases as soon as
possible," he says.

Deregulation seemed a fine idea to many until earlier this year, when
wholesale prices spiked to $200 a megawatt in June from $25 a megawatt in
April. Now, commercial customers say that, as they talk to suppliers about
buying electricity starting in October 2001, they're being told prices will
be in the neighborhood of $60 a megawatt -- 140% more than they're paying now
under the fixed-rate, regulated contracts they have with providers overseen
by the Oregon PUC.

"That's more than most businesses can afford to pay," says Mr. Williamson of
Pope&Talbot.

Deregulation proponents in the Legislature say they recognize power users are
in a tough spot, but aren't sure deferring the inevitable is the right
course, as any delay in creating a fully open power market in Oregon, where
marketers vie to sell electricity, will delay the kind of competition that
could ultimately bring prices down.

"The idea was that by sending the large users into the market, they would
create demand and that would cultivate the market," says Senate Majority
Leader Gene Derfler, a Salem Republican and the major architect of the
deregulation law. "The sooner we get to that point, the sooner I think we
have the economic incentives in place to develop more power generation" to
reduce the rates.

Still, Sen. Derfler says he would prefer delay of a few months over
legislation that would change the law's effective date. "I certainly hope
that we can leave the deregulation bill alone in the coming session," he says.

More than just the law's timing is coming under pressure. The Building Owners
and Management Association of Portland, whose members own or operate 500,000
square feet of commercial property in the city, recently asked the PUC to
exempt some smaller users of electricity who fear they aren't big enough to
wield sufficient buying power in the open market.

Under the law, any commercial consumer that uses more than 30 kilowatts in
any given hour must quit buying from its regulated provider and go shopping;
the association wants the cutoff to be 500 kilowatts.

Ann Fisher, a Portland lawyer for the association, says that the summer price
spikes proved "there is a big risk to deregulation. If the people who want to
jump in to deregulation are wrong, we are going to be in a world of hurt."

PUC Commissioner Roger Hamilton says raising the threshold might leave so few
industries shopping for power that it would thwart the creation of a
competitive market. But he adds that the commission will consider the request.

Mr. Cannon of the industry group thinks the delay is a reasonable step, but
he doesn't think it really delays the state's deregulation. "It's worth
remembering that if the market for electricity goes up and stays there,
sooner or later, we will all be paying a higher price, with or without
deregulation," he says.

Folder Name: Utilities, Electric: Deregulation
Relevance Score on Scale of 100: 99

______________________________________________________________________
To review or revise your folder, visit Dow Jones CustomClipsor contact Dow
Jones Customer  Service by e-mail at custom.news@bis.dowjones.comor by phone
at 800-369-7466. (Outside the U.S. and  Canada, call 609-452-1511 or contact
your local sales representative.)
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved


FYI - what do you all think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT on 12/20/99 08:19
AM ---------------------------
From: Dave Nommensen on 12/17/99 05:29 PM
To: Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: George Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine L
Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: purge of old Contract_Event_Status

Just to clarify, its not the relative age of the production date, but the age
of the event itself.

d.n.

To: George Smith, Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine L Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brenda F
Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Nommensen/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: purge of old Contract_Event_Status

Do any of you see a problem with limiting this to the current month or
current month +1
Need to know soon

Scotty

	From:  Dave Nommensen                           12/17/99 03:25 PM

To: Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Trisha Luong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Benedicta Tung/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diane E
Niestrath/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave McMullan/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: purge of old Contract_Event_Status

Scotty/Richard,

Our DBAs would like to see what we can do to reduce the qty of rows in
Contract_Event_Status.  We have over 1 Gig of data in that table.  I would
like to suggest we have a nightly or weekly or monthly process to delete any
row with a Last_Mod_Date over a month (or two) old.  So if someone balances
February 1999 this month, we will keep it around for a month (or two).

Does any one else have a desire to keep this data for a shorter/longer period
of time?

This is not an audit table.  This is just a "log" every nom/track/balance/EDI
send/Fax send/sched qty/quick response since the beginning of time.

d.n.


Attached is the weekly report regarding the status of ECT Litigation.


Vince:

Can you tell me where to get this info?

---------------------- Forwarded by Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT on 04/25/2001 03:53 PM ---------------------------
From:	Becky Pham/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/25/2001 10:58 AM
To:	Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Diane Fellers/ENRON@enronXgate
Subject:	FW: Research Allocations to EGM

Back in November of last year, you have indicated that 40% of the 17.5% (40% of 17.5 is 7%) that we are allocating to EGM should be billed to Gary Hickson's group.  Gary is asking for further broken down of this 40% to his world.  Can you check with Vince to see what portion of the 7% should be charged to Equity Trading, Rate & Currency Trading, Agricultural Trading & Origination and Convertible trading?  And can I get this information back by the end of this week because we are going to start closing on Friday.  If you have any questions, call me.  Thanx.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Khoja, Sayed
Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:17 AM
To:	Pham, Becky
Subject:	Research Allocations to EGM

Becky,

I have attached your original emails below.  Can you provide further break out of the 40% allocation to Gary Hickerson.  Gary is responsible for Financial Trading which includes:
?	Equity Trading
?	Rate & Currency Trading
?	Agricultural Trading & Origination
?	Convertible Trading

Thanks for your help.

Sayed
To:	Sayed Khoja/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:	Re: Research allocation

---------------------- Forwarded by Becky Pham/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000 03:00 PM ---------------------------
To:	Becky Pham/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:	Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:	Re: Research allocation

Becky,

I gave the %% for EGM to Shirley. I assume she communicated this info to you already.
I assume EGM includes F/X - I/R (Gary Hickerson), weather, insurance (Jere Overdyke),
oil trading and coal.

For CALME I don't have any info. Let's split the cost evenly.

Vince

To:	Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Research allocation

Shirley,

GRM is now with EGM group.  EGM wants to verify that the 17.5% we are going to allocate to GRM is for the Insurance, Jere Overdyke group.  EGM seems to think that their Weather, Mark Tawney group, is receiving support from Research.  Also, can we break out the support for CALME?  CALME is going to split into 3 BUs and I am trying to determine who I need to bill for Research supports.  If you have any questions, call me.  Thanx.

To:	Sayed Khoja/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:

Subject:	Re: Research allocation

---------------------- Forwarded by Becky Pham/HOU/ECT on 11/02/2000 02:47 PM ---------------------------
To:	Becky Pham/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Re: Research allocation

Becky:

Vince said to allocate it as follows:

Gary Hickerson 	40%

Jeff Shankman
	Weather	20%
	Insurance	30%
	Oil		5%
	Coal		5%

Hope this helps!

Shirley

To:	Shirley Crenshaw/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:	Research allocation

Shirley,

GRM is now with EGM group.  EGM wants to verify that the 17.5% we are going to allocate to GRM is for the Insurance, Jere Overdyke group.  EGM seems to think that their Weather, Mark Tawney group, is receiving support from Research.  Also, can we break out the support for CALME?  CALME is going to split into 3 BUs and I am trying to determine who I need to bill for Research supports.  If you have any questions, call me.  Thanx.


Lisa Fawcett has invited you to "A Premier Designs Jewelry Show".

Click below to visit Evite for more information about the event and also to RSVP.
http://evite.citysearch.com/r?iid=ZRMYGMFPVSOGFHXGLKWR

This invitation was sent to you by Lisa Fawcett using Evite. To remove yourself
from this guest list please contact us at support@evite.citysearch.com

This Evite Invite is covered by Evite's privacy policy*.
To view this privacy policy, click here:
http://evite.citysearch.com/privacy

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

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

HAVING TROUBLE?
Perhaps your email program doesn't recognize the Web address as an active
link. To view your invitation, copy the entire URL and paste it into your browser.

If you would like further assistance, please send
email to support@evite.citysearch.com

* Updated 03/15/01.


Gentlemen -

A few brief updates:

The hearing before the Bombay High Court regarding MERC jurisdiction is still on for Monday.  We are still not sure whether or not there will be anything substantive discussed at the hearing.  Gail Brownfeld and Christopher Walker are flying to Bombay just in case.  I just spoke with Jim McCartney and he is planning to try to attend as well.

There was no unified "message" from the lenders at the conclusion of the Singapore lenders meetings.  Our Finance guys are pretty confident that the offshore lenders will not cure the construction contract defaults this month.  The Indian banks may or may not cure.  If no one cures, the construction contracts will terminate in mid-June.

We received a copy of a very interesting letter from the Chairman of MSEB to the India Central Electricity Authority and copied to GOM dated January 11, 2001 (less than three weeks before we were first accused of misdeclaring).  The Chairman states:

"The high price of Dabhol power today was perhaps not accurately anticipated. . . .DPC Phase II trial runs are to commence shortly. . . .It is a fact that we have not been able to fully absorb even DPC phase I power at 90% PLF. . . .[O]nly on MSEB projections and certification DPC have invested a huge sum in Phase II.  Can we ask them to stop now?  Poor off-takes of DPC power are not just because of low demand, but also on account of the high price and the poor financial condition of MSEB.  We would be grateful for Government advice in the matter."

It appears to me that the "advice" was to charge that DPC was misdeclaring its availability and to demand huge offsets as a result.

Bruce


I wasn't worried about you making it.  I was worrried about you making it
back in time to give me my presents.  I work with a guy in our Chicago
office.  He said it was pretty bad there.  I told him you were headed up
there and he said he hoped you didn't mind delays.  Glad you made it safely.

You know you can buy disposable cameras at most stores.

Try to stay warm.
Robin

Paul Rodrigue <paulrodrigue@yahoo.com> on 12/13/2000 12:49:01 PM
Please respond to paul_rodrigue@bigfoot.com
To: Robin.Rodrigue@enron.com
cc:
Subject: Re:

I hate to disappoint you, but I made it alive. With no
delays actually. I'm now staring out of a window
watching it snow (that's the cold white stuff that you
see on TV). They're expecting 6" today ontop of what
is already here. Everything is white...it looks like a
postcard. Wish I had thought to bring a camera. The
temperature when I landed was ZERO degrees. Today will
reach a balmy 22 degrees.

--- Robin.Rodrigue@enron.com wrote:
>
> Just hoping I guess.   B/c mom already told me I
> wasn't getting anything
> from them, and I haven't picked out anything from
> the Grandmas, so even if
> I do get something it just means I'm going to have
> to find some corner of
> the closet to hide it in!!  How was that for a run
> on sentence!  I'm not
> sure I believe we're going to have sleet here
> tomorrow.  It's still hot and
> muggy outside now.
>
> Talk to ya later,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> Paul Rodrigue <paulrodrigue@yahoo.com> on 12/11/2000
> 10:25:07 AM
>
> Please respond to paul_rodrigue@bigfoot.com
>
> To:   Robin.Rodrigue@enron.com
> cc:
> Subject:  Re:
>
>
> What makes you think I got you any presents?
>
>
> --- Robin.Rodrigue@enron.com wrote:
> >
> > Before you go mail me your house keys and tell me
> > where you've hidden my
> > Christmas presents.  Sorry we won't get to see you
> > for Christmas.  Hope you
> > like Chicago.  Maybe you'll make it back by
> Easter.
> >
> > Ruston was good.  The game was awesome!!  It was
> so
> > loud in there my ears
> > were ringing when I left.  We lost but it was a
> much
> > closer game than I
> > expected.  My favorite part was when Pat Summitt
> was
> > whining and the crowd
> > starting chanting "Sit down, Pat!"
> >
> > Keith and Susan was crazy as usual.  I had a blast
> > over there.
> >
> > Talk to ya later.  Good luck with your trip.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Rodrigue <paulrodrigue@yahoo.com> on
> 12/11/2000
> > 09:33:18 AM
> >
> > Please respond to paul_rodrigue@bigfoot.com
> >
> > To:   Robin.Rodrigue@enron.com
> > cc:
> > Subject:
> >
> >
> > So how is Ruston? Anything exciting going on?
> >
> > I'm heading to Chicogo this week. (St. Charles
> > actually) I'm hoping that I will even make it. The
> > weather is so bad up there that they are
> cancelling
> > flights now. And what am I supposed to do once I'm
> > there? Do you think that this poor little Texas
> boy
> > has ice and snow clothes? What use would I have
> for
> > a
> > wool coat down here. I'm going to freeze my tushy
> > off.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of
> > Products.
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of
> Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


Please review assignment language Par 12 (C),(G) for accuracy.
---------------------- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 03/20/2000
07:12 PM ---------------------------

Susan Flynn
03/20/2000 05:36 PM
To: regallaw@coxsmith.com, cgilbert@jw.com
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Statex Petroleum I, L.P.

 On behalf of Sara Shackleton, attached is draft of Industrial Master
Agreement and a credit provision insert for an executed Master Agreement
Confirmation.   Please call Sara at (713) 853-5620 with your questions or
comments.


I bid $2 of Miami's D and $1 on Detroit's D


Attached is PG&E's Reply Brief in  I.99-07-003 filed July 31, 2000.
?
I e-mailed this Reply Brief yesterday to a  different list, so I apologize if
you are getting this twice.
?
Stephanie Louie (415-973-7956)
Secretary to EDWARD KURZ
?
?
 - reply-f.doc


I don't need to talk shit about the game.  I will let the Longhorns do the
talking for me on Saturday.

By the way,  you can probably see your reflection in that surfboard by now.

To: Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chad Landry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew
Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryan Hull/HOU/ECT@ECT, val.generes@ac.com
cc:
Subject: CWS

Excerpt from Baseball America on 2000 CWS.

Bass, give it up.  You are done.

The Tigers wear the mantle of favorite well. They have won
                    nine straight games in postseason play, including the
Southeastern
                    Conference tournament. They are relatively healthy. They
have power
                    hitters, they have patient hitters, and they can field
better than recent
                    versions of the club. Best of all, they have a lot of
arms, and they have
                    Bertman around to use them.


---------------------- Forwarded by Vince J Kaminski/HOU/ECT on 05/23/2000
06:38 PM ---------------------------

"patricia dalecka" <pdalecka@hotmail.com> on 05/23/2000 12:04:52 AM
To: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com, vkaminski@aol.com
cc:
Subject: Recommedations

Hello Vince,

How are you?

Not much around except that I am seriously studying for Gmat. I am going to
take this test between June 12 to 15 and during the week following it I hope
to be ready to take TOEFL.
So far I am most concerned about writing and reading parts that require of
knowledge and using good vocabulary and for me is a time consuming because I
feel lost for words very often.
Ok, I be positive ...

I am writing to ask you for your support - recommendations.
I thought it might be more respected when I show recommendations "from here"
than from some people from different country.

Would you like to do it?

I am not quite sure what type of rec would you be able to provide me with.
I think it could be somehow based on our Aiesec relationship?
Do you have any other ideas?

I would like to bring this letter to the university next week along with my
request of application transfer from MBA dep to MS.
As for today I have enough recommendations - in numbers - but may be some
more recent one would add more value into it.
Do you need more details on: to whom it may concern or any others?

Please let me know if you can help?

Best regards

Patrycja

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


Chris,

These are the metrics for the reviewed California contracts

  Actual Baseline (stating MWHs) with Band Min/Max   2 of  124

  Baseline with "KWH used at all facilities during the first contract year"
language with band  22 of 24

  Baseline with "Other" language  74 of 124
*	Historical mo. Avg's(if available) & next 24 mo's from agreement
date;
*	KWH's for 12 months preceding the service date;
*	KWH used at all facilities during the first contract year OR if
needed for first year, the 12 months preeceding the effective date) with
Band
*	8,000(MWH)for first year,  and for each year there after, the actual
usage for the 12 month period following the effective date

  Bandwidth with NO Baseline 10 0f 124

  Baseline with NO Bandwidth 9 of 124

  NO Baseline and NO Bandwidth 8 of 124

In summary,
Contracts with both Baseline and Band information is 92 of 124  (This is the
total of those with ANY baseline language and band in the contract)

This may have changed from what we gave you yesterday since data was being
entered as we spoke. This is current as of last evening.

*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
*****************************************************************************


Please see below from Greene.

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

----- Forwarded by Debra Perlingiere/HOU/ECT on 05/11/2001 03:20 PM -----

	"Shirley" <sbutts@bcck.com>
	05/11/2001 03:14 PM

		 To: <Debra.Perlingiere@enron.com>
		 cc: "Gloria"@cyclops.nwol.net, "Greg"@cyclops.nwol.net,
"Wyndie"@cyclops.nwol.net
		 Subject: Gas Purchase Agreement - Greene Energy LLC

Ms. Perlingiere:

Gloria Salazar and Greg Hall asked that I let you know that we received the
Gas Purchase Agreement for our PA facility today.  Before it is executed,
Gloria has asked our legal group to review it.  They are doing that now;
however, it will be Monday before she will have their comments.  The plant
in PA will not be ready to sell gas until Tuesday, possibly Wednesday, and
we anticipate that the agreement will be in place by then.  Although Greg
will be out of town next week, Gloria will be able to talk with you.  If you
have questions, please contact her on Monday.

Shirley Butts - BCCK Engineering
915-685-6095
05-11-01; 3:12 p.m.


As discussed.  Gary give me a call before you call Gavin.
---------------------- Forwarded by John J Lavorato/Corp/Enron on 06/09/2000
10:27 AM ---------------------------

"gavin kosviner" <gkosviner@hotmail.com> on 06/06/2000 09:26:42 PM
To: john.j.lavorato@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Gavin's resume

John,
Hope you are well.
Following our conversation yesterday, I have sent my resume attached as a
word file.
Regards,
Gavin

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

 - gk_resume0400.doc


I think that's fine.

"Thompson, Peter J." <pthompson@akllp.com> on 05/16/2001 09:55:02 AM
To: <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:

Subject: RE: GE- Standard Domestic Contract- Need your help

I will be available at 1:30 pm CST today.  With regard to turning the
document, I will be traveling on Thursday.  Therefore, I believe the
earliest I could have a draft of the agreement (w/o exhibits, w/o
override letter) is Friday evening.  If we could wait until Monday
delivery, I could have drafts of both the agreement and exhibits.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:59 AM
To: Thompson, Peter J.
Subject: Re: GE- Standard Domestic Contract- Need your help

fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/16/2001
08:58
AM ---------------------------

From: Sheila Tweed@ECT on 05/16/2001 08:49 AM

To:   Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   John G Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John
      Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kay
      Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

Subject:  Re: GE- Standard Domestic Contract- Need your help  (Document
      link: Kay Mann)

Yes. Let's do 1:30 for an internal call.  I'll get Suzanne to send out
the
dial-in instructions.  Let's make sure that the GE guys know NOT to call
in.  Thanks!.  I know that John Schwartzenburg will be late since he is
TurboParking until 2 pm but let's proceed at 1:30.

                    Scott

                    Dieball@ENRON_D       To:     Sheila
Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT
                    EVELOPMENT            cc:     John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kay
                                          Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron@ECT,
John
                    05/16/2001
Schwartzenburg/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
                    07:15 AM              Subject:     Re: GE- Standard
Domestic Contract- Need your
                                          help(Document link: Sheila
Tweed)

Read your notes re scheduling a call w/ or w/o GE.  From John's and my
perspective, it seems that we should first have an internal call re the
consolidation of our assignments from weeks past  into Peter's draft
contract and then send to GE for their review and follow up call either
later this week or next.  Steve Swift is OK with this approach.

At the moment we seem to be knee deep w/GE and Owner on Arcos and
suspect
that 9:30 CST (3:30 London time) will be difficult for us to call in.
Instead, 1:30 CST would work better for us.

If this works for the Houston gang could you let us know soonest and we
will let Mike and Steve know as well.

                    Sheila

                    Tweed@ECT            To:     John G
Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
                                         cc:     Scott
Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt, Kay
                    05/15/2001           Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron

                    04:18 PM             Subject:     Re: GE- Standard
Domestic Contract- Need your
                                         help(Document link: Scott
Dieball)

Would you all be in a posiotion to get together tomorrow morning at 9:30
am
Houston time to review the issues list and  talk about how we get to the
end of this process with GE.  We immediately need to start the drafting
of
the Longview turbine contract and I'd like to see if we are close enough
to
get that started.  Scott, today the extension to the Agreement in
Principle
expires and we need to extend.  Can you tee this up with Steve Swift?
Our
meeting tomorrow will be in lieu of the regularly scheduled GE call.
I'll
let them know we will call them later this week or we'll talk next
Wednesday, but I would like to get through whatever we need to in order
to
get the Longview Turbine Contract going.
I've talked to John Schwartzenburg about this and he is available
tomorrow
morning.