This is the content of an email: RBowers@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: The NYISO is delaying issuance of the November & December 1999 - 2nd Settlement Adjustments, scheduled for September 7th, by a week. The delay is necessary to make corrections to the re-engineered invoicing process under which these settlements will be made. Settlements for November 1999 through March 2000 were "trued-up" once under a process that only adjusted settlements at the hourly interval level. Upon realizing that the now superseded process was deficient in its ability to "true-up" settlements at the SCD interval level, the process was completely re-engineered and put into operation in February 2001. In order to perform the 2nd settlement adjustments [a.k.a. true-ups] for November through March under the new process, the 1st true-ups of these months must be reversed to create the billing determinant measurement set that was used in the 1st true-up. The newly acquired billing determinants for the 2nd settlement adjustments will then be netted against the set from the 1st true-ups. That delta will then become the amount invoiced for the 2nd settlement adjustment. This delay is to fix mapping problems observed between the old measurement set invoicing format and the new measurement set formats. Invoices will be issued once the mapping problems have been corrected and we am satisfied that the settlements can be readily reconciled by our Market Participants. The NYISO apologizes for this delay and any resultant problems. Regards,

Subject: November & December 1999 Settlement Adjustments

This is the content of an email: The following limited liability companies are being considered for dissolution this week. Please let me know by 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 if there is any reason not to dissolve these limited liability companies. If I receive no responses, we will proceed with the cancellations. Please distribute this memo to all interested parties within your group. Chiricahua I LLC (Company #1382-CHRI) Chiricahua II LLC (Company #1383-CHR2) Chiricahua III LLC (Company #1384-CHR3) Chiricahua IV LLC (Company #1385-CHR4) Chiricahua V LLC (Company #1386-CHR5) Chiricahua VI LLC (Company #1387-CHR6) Chiricahua VII LLC (Company #1388-CHR7) Chiricahua VIII LLC (Company #1389-CHR8) Chiricahua IX LLC (Company #1390-CHR9) Chiricahua X LLC (Company #1391-CHR10) Chiricahua XI LLC (Company #1392-CHR11) Chiricahua XII LLC (Company #1393-CHR12) Chiricahua XIII LLC (Company #1394-CHR13) Chiricahua XIV LLC (Company #1395-CHR14)

Subject: Proposed Cancellation of 14 LLC's - Expedited Response Request needed

This is the content of an email: Thanks for the information on the GB 58. This boat far exceeds what I want. After the show I concluded that either a 42 or 46 foot classic is most appropriate for my needs. Would like to also consider the 36 foot model. Thanks for the info though and keep me in mind. I enjoyed talking to you at

Subject: GB 58

This is the content of an email: You had asked for my input on a response to a letter you received from Tom Donahue regarding increasing Enron's contribution to the US Chamber to $100,000. I have been giving the Chamber a bit of a hard time lately and wanted you to know why. I have been in touch with both Tom and his staff over the last year. Donahue has done a very good job raising money and getting his membership rolls up, both in terms of membership and dollar contribution per member. My reservation about the Chamber is that they won't take a stand on something which is in the best interests of the vast majority of their membership if it will alienate a vocal few. Electric restructuring was a key example of this. There was no doubt where they should have been on the issue, but instead of embracing retail open access legislation at the federal level they decided to have a "process". Naturally, all the utilities volunteered to participate in the process and outnumbered the nonutility members when it came time to vote. The vote supported wholesale, but not retail, reform (with heavy emphasis on ensuring stranded cost recovery). Afterwards, the federal debate shifted solely to wholesale legislation (though this is not exclusively the Chamber's fault). Unfortunately, Tom's forceful and competitive approach when it comes to raising his membership rolls leaves him unwilling to do the right thing if a few members will be upset. For Enron it's a bit like paying $100,000 for a veto right. The only things the organization pushes for are the things everyone agrees on in the business community -- eg China PNTR and lower
Subject: US Chamber