Subject: "EES Sale Prices 2/1-2/7".

Body: Attached are the EPMI-EES sale prices for the first week of February. I will resume responsibility for maintaining and sending the spreadsheet tomorrow, and you can expect to receive it daily. Thanks for your patience while we were working out the kinks on this one. Kate

Subject: "Financial Trading List".

Body: Per my meetings with Credit and further research, I am making the following changes to the financial counterparty approval list. Credit/Mark, let me know if you disagree with any of my changes. List #1 1. AES Power Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes" , approved for financial trading 2. CXY Energy Marketing (USA) Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 3. DTE Energy Trading, Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 4. Duke Energy NGL Services, Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading List #2 1. AES Corporation: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 2. Cascade Natural Gas Co.: no master in place, changing to "no", not approved for financial trading 3. Equitable Power Services Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 4. ICC Energy Corporation: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 5. Montana Power Trading & Marketing Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 6. PSEG Energy Technologies, Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 7. Tenaska Power Services Co.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 8. The American Coal Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 9. Thermo Cogeneration Partnership: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 10. TransCanada Pipelines Limited: no master in place, changing to "no", not approved for financial trading 11. Unitil Resources Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 12. Washington Gas Energy Services, Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading List #3 1. AGIP Petroleum Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 2. Ball Corporation: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 3. Bank of America International Limited: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 4. Comstock Resources Inc.: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 5. Cyprus Amax Coal Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 6. Heritage Gas Services, LLC: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 7. Ormet Corporation: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading 8. Swift Energy Company: no master in place, changing to "yes", approved for financial trading Bob, there are a few others I am still re-reviewing, I will get back to you as soon as I resolve/answer my questions.

Subject: "Credit Derivatives-FYI".

Body: I spoke to Edmund to get the scoop on what we are going to be doing on the confirms for Credit Derivatives, and he said that his current understanding is that all of the confirms will be done out of London. I communicated that to Bob Bowen. He also said that London was going to be hiring 120 people to deal with the Credit Derivatives business. Wow!

Subject: "Transwestern Contract Approval Request".

Body:
The only problem I can see with this is that paragraph 4 could be construed to encourage NMNG to request amendment not only to increase the MAXDTQ but also to decrease it (if the MAXDTQ has been increased by a previous amendment). I worry that this might mislead NMNG that the parties can decrease the MAXDTQ by agreement rather than NMNG using capacity release procedures. However, the paragraph does not obligate TW to do anything & doesn't give NMNG any rights, since any change in the MAXDTQ must be by mutual agreement (and it's subject to available capacity). Since it does not seem to give either party anything they do not already get under the tariff, I think I would recommend we omit it. However, NMNG might insist on this or similar language to reflect the "deal" --- or at least the conversations of