IN: This is an email
Please find the attached draft version of our proposed gas supply structure. We have focused on minimizing your fixed charges while still giving you the right to call on up to 30,000 mmbtu/d of Firm Cheyenne supplies. In addition, Enron will manage your transportation and imbalances associated with your PSCO transportation contracts. Obviously we will need to see those contracts prior to finalizing this transaction in order to assure we can meet those obligations. In addition, I am sure we will need to "tweak" this proposal to meet you physical requirements (volumes, terms etc.) Please give me a call once you have had a chance to review the attached.

What is the subject?

OUT: Cheyenne gas supply proposal

IN: This is an email
Bob, On the Texas desk, the majority of our deals are nominated manually (on Excel or preprinted forms), with most of the information pulled from Sitara instead of Unify. So, these noms were not late. For a couple of 3rd party pipelines, we do use Unify. But we did not have nom changes for 5/4. Our only problem was sending noms to HPL. Which is sending information to yourself, but it still delays the confrimation process for the pipeline. This nom was sent about 30 minutes late. Let me know if you have any questions. Daren

What is the subject?

OUT: Unify

IN: This is an email
I agree with Mark's points. While we have advocated our merger with PGE (which did not concentrate market power) we have intervened in opposition to most others. Moreover, there is some hope that the German government will take the opportunity to use the proposed utility merger to force greater open access. We will likely encourage that action and may oppose the merger otherwise. Most mergers in this industry are defensive, not procompetitive, and, in my view, deserve no credit for convergence, innovation, or liberlization.

What is the subject?

OUT:
Speech to the British Institute of Energy Economists