This is the content of an email: FYI. I don't know what I think about this email. I will say that I've heard good things about Clark, but haven't worked with him. Also, there is a big difference between a transmission project and a power project, since tranmission assets are treated differently from an accounting standpoint. Obviously, I don't consider the question of who is handling this (internally or externally) to be resolved, pending further discussions. Kay

Subject: New Power Project

This is the content of an email: The following is a letter dated today, November 29, 2001 regarding the above referenced. Immediate attention <<Ltr Sitter and others 112901.doc>> requested. - Ltr Sitter and others 112901.doc

Subject: Kennedy Oil and Enron North America Corp.

This is the content of an email: Before I took on the ERCOT responsibilities, I was working with other EPSA members in preparation for the upcoming DOE sponsored forum to develop a wholesale electric standards setting organanization. Since my move, it is likely that I will not be attending this workshop. I have been an instrumental part in pushing for the formation of the wholesale electric quadrant of EISB. Although I have not committed to making a presentation at this workshop, there was a possibility that I would be speaking on behalf of EPSA. The meeting is a critical juncture for the EISB vs NERC showdown. NERC will likely present its latest restructuring proposal which includes a 9 sector model. I and other EPSA members have been advocating much fewer sectors for EISB. A key point of the NERC proposal is that it may be able to accomodate an EISB approval process for standards. This is imporatant in that it may be able to resolve the dichotomy between NERC expertise/infrastructure and EISB's reknowned (including FERC) consensus building process. NERC could retain its standards development expertise, however, lose its biased voting process. I think it is important to have coverage for this meeting, either, by someone on the NERC team or someone close to NERC in Washington. The likely outcome of this meeting is a solidifying of industry support for either the NERC approach, or a clean slate EISB approach. Jim would like for us to have a conference call to discuss. I am available Monday, Wed, and Fri. Charles X30348

Subject: DOE Meeting Dec 7th

This is the content of an email: I am currently responsible for the following companies: 20R 20Q 890 1572 In preparing our monthly tax accrual closing entries, I have noticed that the MTM activity on each of the above referenced companies does not roll between the Income Statement and the Balance Sheet. There are PRM assets on each of the companies (except 20R) and there is unrealized revenue on each of the companies (except 1572). However, the change in activity on the balance sheet does not equal the income that is recognized in the 4200-0000 account. I have attached a spreadsheet detailing the B/S accounts that I am looking at, as well as the amounts booked in account 4200-0000 on each company. There is a difference of 15,886,556 that I cannot explain. For tax purposes, I am currently reversing the amounts related to the balance sheet accounts, but I need to know where the offset is for the 15,886,556 appearing on the income statement. Please let me know if you have any information concerning this issue. Thank you.
Subject: MTM Income