Sandi - I misspoke - this note was sent only to Dan, not to you.  George
---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 05/17/2001 
10:49 AM ---------------------------
   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  George Weissman                           04/16/2001 03:37 PM
	

To: David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT, Brian M 
Riley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bob M 
Hall/NA/Enron@Enron, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts

David,

You asked us to determine if, after the sale to AEP, ENA has enough contract 
coverage for its then-former HPL customers.  We have reviewed all contracts 
in either the HOUGAS or HPL Maintenance Groups of our Global Contracts 
Database, and as of 4/12/2001, we have determined the following:

1.  There are a total of 7,434 active contracts in the two Groups, 5,680 in 
the HOUGAS Group and 1,754 in the HPL Group.

2.  With some minor, inconsequential exceptions, the Enron counterparty for 
all contracts in the HOUSGAS Group is Enron North America Corp. and the Enron 
counterparty for all contracts in the HPL Group is either the Houston Pipe 
Line Company or HPL Resources Company.

3.  Of the 7,434 active contracts, a total of 2,056 contracts are Master 
Agreements - that is, they are generic in nature and can therefore capture 
deals at any point on the grid.  My category of Master Agreements includes, 
among others, the following:  all GISB contracts and  all Master Purchase 
and/or Sale contracts (both spot and firm).   My category of Master 
Agreements does NOT include the following:  Committed Reserves contracts, 
GTCs (General Terms and Conditions contracts, both spot and firm) or Single 
Transaction contracts - these contracts are always point specific.

4.  Of the 2,056 Master Agreements, 1,888 are in the HOUGAS Group (Enron 
North America Corp.) and 168 are in the HPL Group (Houston Pipe Line Company 
or HPL Resources Company.

5.  We have reviewed each of the 168 HPL Group Master Agreements and assigned 
one of four designators to each agreement as follows:

 a.  "going/need?" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP - does ENA need 
a replacement for business after 6/1/2001

 b.  "going/staying" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP but an 
identical contract already exists for ENA

 c.  "going" indicates the HPL contract is going to AEP but a similar 
contract already exists for ENA

 d.  "staying" corresponds to "going" on the ENA side - it's the similar 
contract that already exists for ENA

The "going"/"staying" designation can best be described by citing a specific 
example.  On the attachment, Boyd Rosene and Associates, Inc. is listed on 
lines 24 and 25.  The Master Purchase Sale Spot contract with HPL is going to 
AEP, but the GISB Base Contract is staying with ENA.  Technically, the 
contracts are somewhat different, but in general, the parties can conduct the 
same business under a Master Purchase Sale Spot contract as under a GISB Base 
Contract.  Thus, I would suggest that ENA needs to take no further action 
with respect to contracting with Boyd Rosene and Associates, Inc. as a result 
of the Master Purchase Sale Spot contract moving to AEP.

The attachment sets forth, in alphabetical order by counterparty, the 
counterparties associated with the 168 HPL Master Contracts and the 
corresponding ENA Master Contracts with those parties, if any.  The list is 
very counterparty specific.  For example, Exxon Mobil Corporation is not the 
same party as ExxonMobil Gas Marketing Company.  In all, we have identified a 
total of 116 HPL Master Contracts that may need to be replaced by ENA, those 
designated "going/need?"

This analysis does not cover those ENA contracts that will be going to AEP 
thru Lodisco, such as Reliant Energy - Entex.

George x3-6992



   

  




---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 04/16/2001 
11:35 AM ---------------------------
   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  George Weissman                           04/11/2001 07:11 AM
	

To: Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT, David 
Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Linda S Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts  

David wants to determine if, after the sale to AEP, ENA has enough contract 
coverage for its then-former HPL customers.  We're going to provide, by 
tomorrow, a list of all the customers with Master or GISB contracts with ENA 
and HPL and then review same to see where the holes may be.  For example, if 
HPL has a GISB with, say Amoco, but none in place with ENA, then ENA could 
determine if they want to put one in place for future business.

George x3-6992




To: George Weissman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Melissa Graves/Enron@EnronXGate, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: ENA Texas Contracts  

What is this all about?


   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  George Weissman                           04/10/2001 08:19 AM
	

To: Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT
cc: Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Troy Denetsosie/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: ENA Texas Contracts

fyi
---------------------- Forwarded by George Weissman/HOU/ECT on 04/10/2001 
08:05 AM ---------------------------
Linda S Bryan   04/10/2001 08:04 AM

To: David Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert L 
Hall/ET&S/Enron@Enron, George Weissman/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: ENA Texas Contracts

I have scheduled a meeting to discuss David Baumbach's request to determine 
what HPL customers do not have ENA contracts and as to whether we need to 
negotitate contracts.

Date:  April 10, 2001
Place:  EB 3758
Time: 1:30pm