This is the content of an email: =09 =09 Dear Michael, I'm Washington Bureau Chief Peter Cook filling i= n for Jay Rickerts. In Washington, we'll continue to examine the major en= ergy issues expected to arise during the New Year. We'll take a look at wh= at Congress will do with comprehensive energy and electricity legislation. = Our Washington bureau will also follow the FERC and its push for regional = transmission organizations and wholesale competition. These are some of t= he issues we'll look at as 2002 begins. On Wednesday, energy consultant a= nd former Assistant Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration R= obert Gee will join us in the Washington bureau. He'll give us his take on= the U.S. relationship with OPEC and we'll get his assessment on the start = of retail competition in Texas. Gee will join us during the noon ET newsca= st on Wednesday. The big switch is coming to Houston - On Wednesday we'll= bring you a report on deregulation starting in Texas on January 1. The Ho= uston bureau will have details on how the power grid reacted to the switch,= and get an update from retail electricity providers. Also from Houston= , John S. Herold, Inc. CEO Arthur Smith says upcoming earnings releases may= hold some unwanted surprises. He'll join us from Houston on Wednesday to d= iscuss his company's research report and what we can look forward to in 200= 2. Catch these reports from the Houston bureau on Wednesday. Closing= Prices for Monday, Dec. 31, 2001 Crude: $19.84/bbl -$0.57 Unleaded: $= 0.5725/gallon -$0.0157 Heating Oil: $0.5507/gallon -$0.0158 Gas: $2.570= /mmBtu -$0.204 Scheduling Note: We're dark on New Year's Day. We'll see = you Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. ET. Thanks for making this a great first year a= t EnergyNewsLive - Have a Happy New Year! Keep in mind things are subje= ct to change at a moment's notice. Occasionally guests have to reschedule o= r change time slots. We'll continue to do our best to keep you updated on = future interviews and events. Be sure to watch our newscasts every busi= ness day - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, at the top of each hour. =09 =09=09=09=09 =09=09=09=09=09=09 =09 =09 =09Peter Cook, EnergyNewsLive.com Washington Bureau Chief View today's= Energy Wrap Video Windows Media Player: 56K | 100K | 300K Real Player: = 56K | 100K | 300K (Requires Windows Media Player or Real Player ) Expe= rience all that Williams Energy News Live has to offer! If you are receiv= ing this letter for the first time and wish to continue, subscribe now T= o stop receiving this letter, unsubscribe now If you are having trouble = receiving this e-mail, please let us know or call (800) WILLIAMS (800-945=

Subject: Williams Energy News Live -- today's video newscast

This is the content of an email: I reviewed the latest draft of AA's management rep. letter and caught a few innaccuracies in the way AA described the deal. I attach a revised draft of the letter, with a redline version to highlight for you the changes I think we need to make to keep it accurate. First, AA only listed two of the four agreements that comprise the deal. They apparently forgot that we had created a second SBA. Additionally, at Transcanada's request, we put the transaction fee into a separate letter agreement this year. You will recall that last year, Sempra wanted the transaction fee put right in the SBA. Second, AA's bullet no. 4, as originally drafted, states that Northern does not intend to enter into an option to purchase any base gas during the term of the agreement. That statement is confusing given that Article VI.B of the Monthly Pack Agreement includes an account balance cash out mechanism that is a form of purchase option. That cash out mechanism was in Kent's bullets describing the deal and has been in every draft of the documents that AA looked at, so I assume they are OK with the mechanism and were just inartful in drafting bullet no. 4. My simple fix was to leave AA's language alone but to add an "except for" reference at the beginning of bullet no. 4. Third, AA's draft of bullet nos. 5 and 6 includes the somewhat ambiguous references to "other agreements" and "additional agreements" respectively. Since AA's list of the agreements in the intro paragraph was incomplete, these references in bullet nos. 5 and 6 were also innacurate. Now that I have made the list of agreements in the intro paragraph complete, I've clarified the bullets by adding the "other than those agreements referenced above" language to both bullets. The couple of other changes in bullet 5 simply clarify the meaning. Finally, I've modified the signature blocks per conversation with Bill to delete MKM and myself. I am certainly willing and able to sign this letter, but MKM is not up to speed on the deal and has not reviewed the agreements. Getting her up to speed enough to sign the letter would take some time. Additionally, Bill's thought was that MKM and I are his direct reports anyway, so it doesn't serve much purpose to have the subordinates sign if the top guy has signed. Please give me a call if you have any questions or want to discuss these matters.

Subject: Mgt. Rep. Letter

This is the content of an email: Michelle, have you had chance to review the attached. I sent the attached spreadsheet last week. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thanks, Cole.

Subject: Q&As

This is the content of an email: Just remember that the DPR is used as an accounting tool as well. despite my constant reminders that it is a tool for reporting daily trading results and positions against board approved limits. So do approach this as fact-finding; and then I would suggest reviewing any recommendations that you may have with Wes Colwell and the RAC group before any changes are made. Looks like a good group. I hope that all will attend and participate. Did Pam do some due diligence for you before sending this e:mail so that you know this date and time works for everyone? Keep me posted on progress. --Sally
Subject: DPR - what it consists of, where it is going