Subject: "Issues List".

Body: Susan: Could you have Taffy type up a new issues list based on your initial e-mail and the e-mail that I sent to you for tomorrow's group meeting so that I can pass it around? Thanks. Carol

Subject: "Municipals (including municipal utilities and other regulated entities) vs. investor owned utilities ("IOUs")".

Body: I am trying to distinguish these two types of entities both practically (what are we able to negotiate) and legally (what do we really need in our Schedule). I am also interested in your experiences in dealing with these parties. ENA's form of "municipal" Schedule ("the ENA Schedule") was essentially taken from the 1992 ISDA U.S. Municipal Counterparty Schedule ("the ISDA Schedule"). In addition to other provisions, the ISDA Schedule (1) adds reps designed to avoid "an Orange County" type meltdown and (2) incorporates the concept of "Incipient Illegality" (which occurs before the Termination Event of Illegality). The "Incipient Illegality" concept is used in Section 2(a)(iii) (obligations) as well as the Section 3 (reps) of the ISDA Schedule: the concept is added to the Section 3(b) rep ("..absence of Event of Default, Potential Event of Default, Incipient Illegality...), and for purposes of notifying the other party of its occurrence. Interestingly enough, the ENA Schedule does not include the Section 3(b) rep change. I think we need to add this change to ENA's Schedule. With respect to IOUs, we need to clarify our position on "Regulatory Development" (which is actually a watered-down "Incipient Illegality" concept). If such an event occurs, ENA should be advised of the event (Notice). But, does ENA really want the ability to terminate trades at mid-market ("Additional Termination Event") or simply to have this event included as part of a Section 3(b) rep such that the occurrence of the event merely triggers an Event of Default at ENA's side of the curve (for breach of the Section 3(b) rep)? I have found that negotiating with IOUs for the "Notice" provision can be difficult. Extracting the Additional Termination Event is tough. Arguing for a Section 3(b) change may be easier (and would mirror the municipal format). I think ENA really needs the ability to decide when to halt trading with a counterparty experiencing a Regulatory Development (which we may only learn about through notice from the counterparty). Thus, I recommend that for IOUs, we add a notice provision and Section 3(b) rep change incorporating our latest definition of "Regulatory Development." But we really have to negotiate for this protection. Otherwise, why bother to include this additional language? What do you think?

Subject: "Associate PRC - Input Needed".

Body: I will serve as a representative to the Associates PRC meeting that will take place on July 19. As a PRC rep, I have been assigned the Associates to represent in the meeting as indicated on the attachment. The Associates Program has provided me with your name as the PRC supervisor of the associate as listed. Please provide me with the following by Friday, July 14: Associate's accomplishments for the first half of 2000 (prepared by the associate or summarized by you) Description of associate's current responsibilities/assignment (and any additional rotational assignments during this first six months of the year) Pre-ranking of the associate from your business unit PRC , or your suggestion on ranking if no business unit PRC process has been completed (Superior, Excellent, Strong, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Issues) Any other information that you believe will be helpful in accurately representing the associate in the PRC process Recommendation for promotion, if any I will receive a copy of the Consolidated Supervisor Feedback from the PEP system through the Associates Program. I will be on vacation until Monday, July 17. My assistant, Patti Thompson, will be contacting you next week to ask if you would like to meet with me for a few minutes on Monday or Tuesday, July 17 and 18 (or phone call) to discuss your associate and his/her performance in more detail. Thanks for your attention to this. If you are not the appropriate PRC supervisor for the associate listed on the attachment, please reply by e:mail as soon as possible and my assistant will research where I should go next for this input.

Subject: "call for sign up - Diehards 3".

Body:
This is the official notice to sign up for our golf pool. It is now in its 12th year, the 3rd using Yahoo. Rules are described below. Necessary action: Let me know of your intention to participate by getting me your initial ante of $25 before January 2, 2002. Most of you have amount left over from last year that can be applied. We welcome new recruits, as long as they ante and have the commitment to participate all year long. The initial ante, which will serve as collateral, is due in the first week or any time the manager's collateral is more than $5.00 insufficient. After receipt of the collateral, the remainder of the year's accounting is by credit. The fee for entering each week is the greater of $5 or $2 per million of event prize money. Participation is mandatory except for three "vacation" weeks which require you to set all of your players as "reserve" or notify the members in advance of the deadline. The pool of entry fees will be distributed proportionally by each manager's credits for the week. Credits will come from three sources: (1) Margin; (2) Rank among the managers for the week; and (3) Handicap. For the weeks until Yahoo starts (probably with Pebble Beach) we will use a spreadsheet method as follows: A list of eight golfers must be submitted to me by 8:00am (Central Time) on Thursday. Managers will get points by dividing their listed golfer's winnings by the sum of one plus the number of managers who have listed that golfer. For the above Margin component, a pool of credits (equal to 100 per participating manager) will be distributed proportionally by each manager's points in excess of half of the average points. For the above Rank component, a pool of credits of equal size to the margin pool will be distributed such that each position is 41.4% higher that the next lower. (For you actuaries, this is from the square root of two; the ratio doubles with every two steps up.) For the above Handicap component, the points are 0.0014 * (average team score) * ( $ in the hole at the start of the week 2 )?After Yahoo is up and running, the procedure will remain the same as last year. You will need to make your picks according to the Yahoo website and managers will get points according to the site's scoring. ?For the above Margin component, each manager's margin will be their Yahoo points in excess of half of the average points. ?For the above Rank component, a pool of credits of equal size to the margin pool will be distributed such that each position is 41.4% higher that the next lower. (For you actuaries, this is from the square root of two; the ratio doubles with every two steps up.) ?For the above Handicap component, the points are 0.0014 * (average team score) * ( $ in the hole at the start of the week 2 ) Rules may be modified for weather delays, nonstandard tournament formats, or other special situations. Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings .