This is the content of an email: This project has been noticed by FERC (CP01-422). Adds 906,626 dth/day (845,500 Mcf) of capacity from Opal, WY to delivery points primarily in California. Service commencing 5/1/2003. Incremental rates and fuel. Seventeen shippers have signed 18 long-term agreements (10 or 15 years) and 95% has primary delivery points in California, mostly for existing and new power generation. Any issues? Are we a shipper? Comments and interventions are due Aug. 29th. Since I will be in D.C. that week, need your input by Aug. 23rd. We are downloading a copy of the filing (392 pages). Let me know if you would like a copy.

Subject: Kern River 2003 Expansion Project

This is the content of an email: Today was the final ENA PRC. Relative ranking results up through the Senior Director level are final. You and your management team can begin the process of giving performance reviews to your employees. I spoke with Sheila Walton today to inquire about an expected time frame for completing and conducting the employee reviews. She indicated that the target completion date should be the end of July. Promotions will be effective August 1st. It is Dave Delainey's intent to announce ENA promotions sometime after he returns from vacation on July 24. This drives the end of July target completion date for reviews. I do not yet know if Delainey wants all ENA promotions to be announced in a single memo, or if each group within ENA will prepare such a memo. I will keep you updated on this as I get direction from him. Please note the following change since our Energy Operations PRC in June. In order to place focus on the qualitative feedback during this mid-year review process, we will not share performance clusters with employees when conducting their reviews. It is very important for all of us to be consistent in this process, so please communicate this to all in your groups who will be giving performance reviews. It is important to note, however, that the content of an employee's review should be consistent with our view of that employee's relative ranking. In other words, an employee in the Satisfactory category should not be given a review that simply states that the employee is doing a great job. Clearly, a large number of employees performed at a higher level than those employees in the Satisfactory category, so the feedback to that employee should include some specific areas of improvement needed in order for the employee to make a stronger impact in the organization, help you achieve the groups goals, etc. Also please note the following: Performance reviews for anyone in the Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Issues categories must be reviewed by HR prior to these reviews being given to the employees. This will ensure that our feedback is commensurate with the relative performance of that employee. (This has been the stated process for the bottom two categories, and we are adding Satisfactory to this process as well.) Please remember to include a more experienced member of your management team, yourself, or an HR professional in reviews being conducted by inexperienced members of your management team, or those management team members where you have a concern over their ability or willingness to deliver candid and perhaps tough performance feedback. I believe that we have spent some time in identifying these situations. I ask your help to ensure that we follow through on this commitment. Thanks for all of your efforts in making this mid-year PRC process a meaningful one. It is Dave Delainey's intent to announce It if 0

Subject: Update on PRC Process

This is the content of an email: I am trying to track down in London the author of an ISDA Schedule on the deal between ECT and the ETOL Trust. The top of the Schedule says "Milbank Draft" and the document # on the botton says LN1: #20030058v5. Robina Barker-Bennett in Treasury left Mark Taylor an email about this, and I left her a voicemail trying to track down the document, but haven't heard back. I would think the document was prepared by one of your lawyers. Mark needs the computer document so we can do a blackline against another agreement here in Houston. Can you see what you can do to track it down for me. I'd appreciate it.

Subject: Need Your Help

This is the content of an email: Attached is the Enron Americas GasTrading violation memo for Maturity Gap Risk for August 13, 2001. The Office of the Chairman for Enron Americas is responsible for printing out a hard copy of this memo, signing and returning the hard copy to Chris Abel at 3560f, who will forward it to RAC to obtain their signature. Thank You
Subject: Final 8/13/01 Gas Violation