This is the content of an email: Good morning, The 10:00 a.m. Power Trading Group Meeting is being rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. today in EB3872. Please plan to attend and we apologize for any inconvenience. Thanks.

Subject: Power Trading Group Meeting MOVED

This is the content of an email: Ken Jan Brandon and Travis, Thanks for having Susan and I. It was great. We are home and wondering why it is still hot here... ?? Thanks again

Subject: Back Home --- Wonderful experience

This is the content of an email: When: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:30 PM-2:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: TBD *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* This is a new day and time for this meeting. Thank you and I apologize for any inconvenience. Background: A request was received by the Gas Tactical group that would have implications on the system you use. The request was to have the existing warning window appear if the trader enters a date that is before the date of the trade. Knowing that there are times where trades can be back dated we cannot restrict this but to have the trader see a warning window appear to make them double check their dates (if they are for a previous date) would be beneficial to the requestor. If they know the date is correct they would have the option to continue with the terms. Often times, due to human error, Book Admins see mistakes made where the trade date is 10/15/01 and the terms are 10/01/01 to 10/31/01. Because we are in the middle of the month a red flag is being raised with the Book Admins to question this trade. Often times it is found that it was a mistake. To date the system will only show a warning window if the trade terms were for 9/01/01 to 9/30/01. Request Review: Is it possible to allow the existing warning window to display for a date that is before the trade date (even a day before) and not just for a different month? Thank you in advance.

Subject: Warning Window for the Tagg Deal Entry

This is the content of an email: This is a very rough draft based on an agreement done previously with a jv company. I'm sending it for Enron review only, since I haven't even read the entire thing yet. I thought you might want to take a look at it to see what you think, and to consider the scope of the services to be provided. As for legal services, one alternative would be to have the services provided by an outside law firm, not associated with either principal. Could you forward me what you received from Clement regarding the corporate guaranty issue? I would like to see what's the latest in that regard. Thanks,
Subject: Services agreement