This is the content of an email: Kim, Here are the draft documents with comments from Mark. I need your input to make sure that the settlements group would understand the terminology the same way I have defined it. I have followed strict ISDA definitions which is not how we typically draft our documents. If we need to I can meet with you to discuss how this is to be structured. Kathryn, How was it envisioned that ConfirmLogic would handle the difference between the Term of the Underlying Transaction and the exercise period of the swaption? Leslie, I modified the ERCOT definitions to make them consistent with the latest draft you sent me. There are two floating price definitions that appear to have additional variables in them. (The Megawatt Daily Index Daily and the Megawatt Daily Index Forward.) How were these additional variables to be handled in ConfirmLogic? Additionally the headings of each of these Floating Price descriptions do not seem to be consistent with the pub code designation that will be used in ConfirmLogic. Are the descriptions going to be updated to be consistent? Please let me know if anyone has any questions or comments on the draft documents. Regards,

Subject: Entergy Koch

This is the content of an email: Based on recent discussions with several energy firms, there appears to be interest in conducting a survey which * summarizes the current state of risk management best practices within the industry, and * provides benchmark data addressing current levels of risk based performance for various energy related lines of business To respond to this interest, we would like to conduct a survey which addresses these goals. We have prepared a proposal which outlines our approach for conducting a survey, and provides samples of expected output. I will be in touch sometime next week to discuss the proposal with you, and determine your interest in participating. I look forward to speaking with you, and potentially working with you as a participant in this project. <<Benchmark_Sales_Presentation_v2.ppt>> Thank You

Subject: Risk Management benchmarking survey

This is the content of an email: Russell: Since late 1998, we have been trying to put in place a Master between ENA and the above counterparty. We currently have a Master dated July 1997 between ECC and Pancanadian Petroleum Limited and Pancanadian wants to pretty much duplicate this Master. Here are the credit terms of the late 1998 drfat that we sent them which I need for you to tell me are still okay: No Credit Support Providers Cross Default - $50,000,000 for ENA and $25,000,000 for them Additional Event of Default - occurrence of a MAC and the failure to provide Perfprmance Assurance in accordnace with annex A. MAC is defined as Enron's rating going below BBB- and their Net Worth falling below $133,000,000 opr their Funded Debt to Net Worth being more than 1 to 1 They want to defined the "control" concept in Affiliate as ownership of more than 50% of equity. This term is used in the Setoff language and limits the possible entities that could be Affiliates on our side and their side Forms of collateral are cash and LC's Collateral Thresholds are $10,000,000 for us and $3,500,000 for them Let me know what you think. Carol

Subject: Pancanadian Energy Services

This is the content of an email: Jeff: On our conference call on the SATO MoU a week back I promised to send you the DASH and press release on the 50:50 Swiss trading JV Enron Europe has recently put in place with the Swiss municipal power company EWZ. Note the DASH is draft only. Interesting precedent. Regards - Jeremy
Subject: SATO: Enron Europe Trading JV