IN: This is an email
I have changed the following deals to reflect a monthly expiry frequency instead of daily: 483753 483759 483765 483766 Since I don't enter options very often, and have only done daily options before, I'm still getting familiar with all the different parameters of the deals. I'm sorry for the confusion. Thanks for catching that. Kate

What is the subject?

OUT: Changed Option Deals

IN: This is an email
Jeff Candidly, this wouldn't have been my approach (posh location, closed format, odd group, seemingly self-serving agenda). I read the article below as unsympatheticand almost mocking in its tonetoward Enron. It's noteworthy theBeverly Hills meeting was not covered in the Los Angeles papers. Instead, this article comes fromthe front page of the Bay Area's San Francisco Chronicle (Democratic bastion and home to both of California's United States Senators, power broker Willie Brown, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the state's public utility commission). Consistent with myconcern about a "coast-to-coast firestorm"engulfing Enron, the New York Times ran two articles today that were unsupportiveof the company. q Senator Calls for Hearings Into Energy Regulators' Moves By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS Senator Dianne Feinstein called for hearings into possible improprieties between members of the F.E.R.C. and private energy interests. q Enron's Dispute With Utility in India Grows More Tangled By SARITHA RAI The dispute between the Enron Corporation and Indian federal and state government officials keeps getting messier. These follow the Times' tough piece on Ken Lay yesterday. Undoubtedly, the Washington Post will have to get into fray soon. My feeling is that just as with the "business" side, Enron's public policy strategy needs be well informed, sophisticated and comprehensive. I fear that anything less will fuel the potential of undesirable outcomes for Enron's reputation, leadership and shareholdervalue.

What is the subject?

OUT: Enron's secret bid to save deregulation - PRIVATE MEETING Chairman pitches his

IN: This is an email
Susan, I am pleased that the PUC demonstrated some level of propriety and common sense by not acting in a retroactive manner on direct access. Accordingly, we are placing our work in abeyance pending further instruction. If any party is interested in litigating further the direct access decision from September 20, it will be necessary to petition for rehearing at the PUC. An aggrieved party will only be able to go to court if the PUC denies the petition for rehearing or upholds its original decision following rehearing. The grounds for judicial review now appear to be limited to (1) denial of procedural due process and (2) PUC conduct contrary to law. This latter argument is based on a statutory duty to hold hearings when deciding whether to change a policy originally decided following hearings. Unlike the problems caused by a retroactive decision, there is probably no basis for a stay pending final decision. The attached petition is the most recent generation and has fairly accurate tables of authorities and content. It does not have the two most recent developments (the statement by the Department of Finance indicating that bonds may not be necessary and the argument that there was a statutory duty to conduct hearings). If this petition is revived, those arguments can be quickly inserted. I have also retained all comments so those will be available if the petition is revived. Best regards,

What is the subject?

OUT:
Direct Access Petition