This is the content of an email: Howdy! My name is Jennifer Bohac '87 and I am the new Director of Travel for The Association of Former Students. I am excited to be here and look forward to working with you. We are currently scheduling the trips for 2002, lining up some wonderful and exciting packages and destinations. I think you will be very pleased at the great trips we are putting together -- there will be something for everyone. We will be featuring two "Young Aggie" trips,

Subject: Traveling Aggies

This is the content of an email: Open Enrollment for your 2002 Health Benefits begins Monday, October 29, 2001! Q. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A. If you plan to make changes to your existing benefit coverage, you will need to make changes during Open Enrollment which begins Monday, October 29, 2001 at 8:00 AM (Central) and ends on November 12, 2001 at 5:00 PM (Central) To facilitate these changes, you received an Open Enrollment Benefit Packet at your home address. This packet contains a personalized [Julie Kearney] worksheet and the Enron Instruction Guide to help you make your selections. (If you have not received your Info Packet, please let us know ASAP! ) Q. WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? 1. If you are satisfied with your current elections and do not need to make changes, do nothing. Your current choices will automatically roll over to 2002. 2. If you plan to make changes to your coverage, you will need to either access the Intranet website at work: benefits.enron.com or at home at www.Enron.BenefitsNow.com or call the Phone Enrollment Line at (800) 332-7979, Option 5. Q. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. I NEED MORE INFORMATION. A. If you have more questions or need more information, you may call in to our Open Enrollment "Brown Bag" Info Session being held on Friday,October 26 @ 11:30 PM in the Mt Hood Conference Room. EWS Portland HR Office Julie Kearney x7404 Grace Rodriguez x8321

Subject: Open Enrollment for Benefits

This is the content of an email: After a careful review of the wholesale and retail gas trading and scheduling process it has been decided that the Gas Logistics teams should report directly into the Enron America's Commercial organization. This realignment will help to strengthen the commercial focus and communication between the trading desks and the schedulers and will play a critical role as Enron tries to maximize opportunities and maintain a competitive trading edge. The details are as follows: Wholesale Bob Superty will maintain his management of the Logistics support functions which include the Transport Rate team (Kim Olinger), Electronic Commerce team (Tammy Lee-Jaquet) and Regulatory Affairs teams (Suzanne Calcagno). In addition, Bob will now manage the Northeast Logistics team as part of the East desk. Bob will report directly to Scott Neal and will also help coordinate the Logistics function across all regions working closely with each of the regional Logistics Managers, Commercial desk heads and Enron Americas senior management team. Victor LaMadrid will manage the Southeast Logistics team and will report directly to Scott Neal. Victor's knowledge and overall east desk experience will be critical to help maximize east desk opportunities and promote new initiatives across all regions. Lisa Kinsey will manage the Central Logistics team and will report directly to Hunter Shively. Patti Sullivan will manage the West Logistics team and will report directly to Mike Grigsby. Darren Farmer will manage the Texas Logistics team and will report directly to Tom Martin George Smith will manage the Well Head Logistics team and will report directly to Fred Lagrasta. Retail Donna Greif will now report directly to Don Black. Each of the regional Logistics Managers (East - Marde Driscoll-Ernest, Central - Charlie Muzzy, West - Sabra Dinari) will continue to report directly to Donna. Donna will continue her ongoing efforts in the development and integration of the new retail trading systems, prior period adjustments and development of a strong and talented Logistics team. Congratulations to all involved and welcome to the commercial gas team - John Lavorato, President and CEO, Enron Americas.

Subject: Logistics Commercial Realignment

This is the content of an email: Harry: At the meeting yesterday, we concluded that it would be a good idea to take the proposal that you put together based on your meeting with EES and use it as the "base case" to start running the numbers. Idea being that before we shop anything around, we need to know what the numbers look like to determine whether the thing's got any legs. Once we have a clear understanding of how the base case numbers shake out, we thought we might then want do some sensitivity analyses around the variables, come up with a final proposal, and then go back to the commercial groups for buy-in. We hoped that your folks could get together with Roger Yang et al and provide some assessment of what the base case numbers look like by middle of next week. How's this plan sound? Few other points: We assume that bullet 6's reference to "net" means that the deferral is calculated by taking any "overcollections" and subtracting them from any "undercollections" over the entire 3 year period,not year-by-year. What is the significance of the 3.1 CTC roll-off date? We're assuming it's commercially driven. We correct? If so, what's the driver? Same goes for the 2004 ending date. Some tweeks were made to the proposal at the meeting to create an "Option 2" for folks to consider. (Though we don't think that any numbers need to be run on "Option 2" until after having completed the analysis on option 1, since those results could influence any scenarios we decide to construct). Option 2 would: Keep the hydro with the utility and apply Edison's proposed ratemaking treatment. Beginning 6.1.01, make large customers "noncore," similar to the gas model in California, and force those customers to choose an ESP. Beginning 1.1.03, introduce competitive default service for remaining "core" (i.e., rez and small commercial) customers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Finally, couple of things that occurred to me after yesterday's meeting that I want to throw out for folks to react to: Seems that, to be successful, the proposal needs to remain as stripped down and simple as possible. When the proposal nets out the deferral costs, does it include the over/undercollections associated with utility residual generation? In option 2, by adding the "noncore" feature, and by implementing that feature and the default service feature prior to the 04 ending date, the proposal gets more complicated (and adds significantly more risk to the utility's position). This is not to say that the complications can't be worked out, or that the added risk can't be accounted for, but wanted to highlight it for folks to consider. Attached is the original, with just a couple of minor edits, and "Option 2." Best,
Subject: PG&E Proposed Solution