Datasets:

MichaelR207

/

enron_qa_0822

like 0

Subject: RE: Wabash and other parties Sender: stephanie.panus@enron.com Recipients: ['leslie.hansen@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/deleted_items/13. ===================================== Sara gave two lists to Harlan to look at if you want to coordinate with him. Gerald also has the list from yesterday that will need to be reviewed. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Hansen, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM To: Panus, Stephanie Subject: RE: Wabash and other parties I can look at them. Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Panus, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:47 AM To: Sager, Elizabeth; Portz, David; Nettelton, Marcus; Moore, Janet H.; St. Clair, Carol; Hansen, Leslie; Murphy, Harlan Subject: Wabash and other parties Importance: High Can someone call Ed Baughman regarding Wabash Valley Power Association and whether or not this contract has been properly terminated? Also, I have some termination lists that need to be reviewed. Please let me know if you can review them. Thanks, Stephanie =====================================

["According to Stephanie's email about Wabash and other parties, who is in possession of the list from yesterday that requires review?", 'On what date and at what time did Leslie Hansen send her response to Stephanie Panus regarding the email about Wabash and other parties?']

phanis-s/deleted_items/13.

phanis-s

Subject: RE: EPMI List Non terminated parties Sender: david.portz@enron.com Recipients: ['stephanie.panus@enron.com', 'elizabeth.sager@enron.com', 'marcus.nettelton@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/deleted_items/6. ===================================== Stephanie -- Please keep watch for termination letters coming in from any of these counterparties and make me aware immediately of anything received --also Elizabeth Sager, Marcus, Harlan and Leslie. We may be resuming the scheduling of power with these counterparties but will not do so with a party that has terminated its enabling agreement(s) with EPMI. Thanks. Restore Service List 21 Dec. 01 AES New Energy Alcoa Power Geenerating Ameren BECO (Boston Electric) Cargill Alliant LLC Central Maine Citizens Communications Co CP&L (Carolina Power & Light) DTE Energy Trading Entergy Services First Energy Solutions Green Mountain Power Corp. GPU Service HQ Energy Services (Hydro Quebec) IP&L (Indiana Power & Light) LG&E (LG&E Energy Marketing) Minnesota Power & Light NIMO (Niagara Mohawk Energy NSTAR Electric ) OG&E (OGE Energy Resources) Select Energy Southern Illinois Split Rock Energy Taunton Municipal Light TXU Energy Trading UI (United Illuminating) VEPCO (Virginia Electric Power Co.) Wisconsin Electric -----Original Message----- From: Panus, Stephanie Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:00 AM To: Portz, David; Nettelton, Marcus Subject: EPMI List << File: EPMI List.xls >> << File: Letter Log 12-20.xls >> Attached is a list of the EPMI terminations. The 12-20 list may contain additional EPMI counterparties that have not yet been added to the Master List. =====================================

['In the email from Stephanie Panus to David Portz, which file does Stephanie Panus mention as containing the list of EPMI terminations?', 'Who, in addition to Stephanie, is David Portz asking to monitor incoming termination letters from the listed counterparties?', 'Which company is referred to by the abbreviation "BECO" in the list of counterparties mentioned in the email?']

phanis-s/deleted_items/6.

phanis-s

Subject: Theres Still Time for Holiday eCards at BlueMountain.com! Sender: yourfriends@maildb.bluemountainarts.com Recipients: ['stephanie.panus@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/deleted_items/1. ===================================== Say Happy Holidays with the World's Most Popular eCards: Christmas Bear http://maildb.bluemountainarts.com/cgi-bin11/flo?y=eCs30E7EZP0iI0wMp0AT Christmas Sing-A-Long http://maildb.bluemountainarts.com/cgi-bin11/flo?y=eCs30E7EZP0iI0wMa0AE The All -Weather Snowman Kit http://maildb.bluemountainarts.com/cgi-bin11/flo?y=eCs30E7EZP0iI0wMs0AW Patriotic Christmas http://maildb.bluemountainarts.com/cgi-bin11/flo?y=eCs30E7EZP0iI0wMj0AN BlueMountain.com...For Everything You Want to Say. BlueMountain.com values your privacy. This message was sent to you by BlueMountain.com. We will not sell or share your personal information with another company without your permission. To view our privacy policy, visit: http://maildb.bluemountainarts.com/cgi-bin11/flo?y=eCs30E7EZP0iI0wJp0AQ If you prefer not to receive promotional email from BlueMountain, please send a message to: unsubscribe_bma@maildb.bluemountainarts.com and type "Remove" in the subject field. This system is automated and must be contacted from the email address you wish to have removed. =====================================

['What URL does BlueMountain.com provide for viewing its privacy policy?', 'What are the titles of the four holiday eCard options presented in the email from BlueMountain.com to Stephanie Panus?']

phanis-s/deleted_items/1.

phanis-s

Subject: RE: East Power Meeting Sender: m..presto@enron.com Recipients: ['jeffrey.miller@enron.com', 'lisa.burnett@enron.com', 'dana.davis@enron.com', 'jim.fallon@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/inbox/10. ===================================== I believe Wabash has also terminated. Don, As you know, we had a meeting like this the week prior to Christmas and had an accurate list at that time. Our group can do nothing about delays between actual termination notification by the counterparty and communication to trading that termination has occurred. I think the meeting is warranted, however, we are not going to completely eliminate the timing issues. I will see you on Wednesday at 2:00 pm. -----Original Message----- From: Miller, Don (Asset Mktg) Sent: Fri 12/28/2001 3:12 PM To: Presto, Kevin M.; Davis, Mark Dana; Burnett, Lisa; Miller, Jeffrey; Reeves, Leslie; Evans, Casey; White, Stacey W.; Gilbert, Gerald; Bentley, Corry; Sager, Elizabeth; Nettelton, Marcus; Bradford, William S.; Sacks, Edward; Portz, David; Choate, Jason; Sturm, Fletcher J.; Racicot, Paul; Panus, Stephanie; Murphy, Harlan Cc: Fallon, Jim Subject: East Power Meeting We need to meet on Wednesday, the 2nd, at 2:00 pm (in the big conference on the sixth floor in ECS) to go back through the East Power contracts that we will continue to serve either through the pools or under bilateral deals. Given the drill we went through today in preparing for the January schedules in PJM and NEPOOL, it became apparent we need to get all the team members on the same page and make sure we have a good system for notifying all relevant parties of terminations, changes, etc. Bill/Ed - Can you please run the most recent DPR for non-terminated East Power contracts. Casey and Stacey - will you please update the spreadsheet that you ran for Kevin last week. Let's make sure we all agree on contracts that have been terminated. As most of you probably have seen, a number of terminations have been received in the past several days (see below). United Illuminating - effective January 1, 2002 HQ Energy Services - effective January 1, 2002 First Energy Solutions - effective January 2, 2002 Old Dominion - effective January 10, 2002 - we should schedule in PJM through the 10th of January (do we have any other positions with Old Dominion). Ameren Energy GPU Energy - effective January 21, 2002 - we should schedule in PJM through the 21st of January (they may push back, but we should remind them that they will be subject to LDs). Thanks, Don 3-0492 =====================================

["According to Don Miller's email, where is the big conference room situated for the East Power Meeting?", 'What specific tasks did Don Miller assign to Bill/Ed and Casey/Stacey in his email to prepare for the East Power Meeting, and what were they expected to deliver as a result of these tasks?', "According to Don Miller's email, what penalty might Ameren Energy GPU Energy face if they push back on their termination date of January 21, 2002?", "According to Kevin Presto's email, what is the current situation with Wabash in relation to the East Power Meeting?", "According to Don Miller's email, which two entities were involved in the drill that was conducted to prepare for the January schedules, as part of the East Power Meeting preparations?"]

phanis-s/inbox/10.

phanis-s

Subject: RE: Return of LC Sender: carol.st.@enron.com Recipients: ['tanya.rohauer@enron.com', 'sara.shackleton@enron.com', 'stephanie.panus@enron.com', 'r..brackett@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/inbox/2. ===================================== Tanya and/or Debbie: What is the exposure situation with this counterparty? Carol St. Clair EB 4539 713-853-3989 (phone) 713-646-3393 (fax) 281-382-1943 (cell phone) 8774545506 (pager) 281-890-8862 (home fax) carol.st.clair@enron.com -----Original Message----- From: Panus, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:08 PM To: Rohauer, Tanya; Brackett, Debbie R. Cc: Shackleton, Sara; St. Clair, Carol Subject: Return of LC FYI - I received a call from Ryan Youngblood of Kona Ltd. (281-820-7889) requesting the return of the letter of credit Kona posted to ENA in connection with an ISDA Master Agreement. =====================================

['What agreement type is associated with the letter of credit that Kona Ltd posted to ENA, according to the email?', 'In the email about the return of the letter of credit, what cell phone number is listed for Carol St. Clair in her contact information?']

phanis-s/inbox/2.

phanis-s

Subject: FW: Ameren Sender: stephanie.panus@enron.com Recipients: ['m..presto@enron.com', 'David', 'edward.baughman@enron.com', 'Portz'] File: phanis-s/sent_items/4. ===================================== -----Original Message----- From: Sager, Elizabeth Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:31 PM To: Panus, Stephanie Subject: RE: Ameren Hi Stephanie Will you forward this message regarding Ameren to Don Miller (assets), Kevin Presto and Ed Baughman. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Panus, Stephanie Sent: Thu 12/27/2001 1:13 PM To: Sager, Elizabeth; Hansen, Leslie; Murphy, Harlan; Nettelton, Marcus Cc: Portz, David Subject: Ameren We have received a termination notice from Ameren, which is one of the counterparties identified by David for resuming scheduling of power. Let me know if you would like a copy of the notice. =====================================

['When did Stephanie Panus initially send the email about Ameren to Elizabeth Sager, Leslie Hansen, Harlan Murphy, and Marcus Nettelton?', 'Who is requested to send the message regarding Ameren to Don Miller, Kevin Presto, and Ed Baughman?']

phanis-s/sent_items/4.

phanis-s

Subject: FW: Columbia Energy Services Trades Sender: stephanie.panus@enron.com Recipients: ['jean.bell@enron.com', 'diane.anderson@enron.com'] File: phanis-s/sent_items/2. ===================================== Diane, Below is a list of gas trades that were originally between Columbia Energy Services and ENA, which Settlements is trying to reconcile. CES says they are not their trades, and they do not appear to be part of the trades that were assigned from CES to New Power. Can you give me anymore information on them? Thanks. Stephanie Panus Enron Wholesale Services ph: 713.345.3249 fax: 713.646.3490 -----Original Message----- From: Stevens, Mechelle Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:22 PM To: Sayre, Frank; Panus, Stephanie Cc: Aucoin, Evelyn Subject: Columbia Energy Services Trades Frank & Stephanie, Here are the trades that CES claims are not theirs. N67489.4 N67489.5 N91852.1 N92407.1 N92407.2 NE1116.1 NE1787.3 NE1787.4 NK2091.1 NV5353.1 NV5435.1 NW7628.1 NW7721.1 Please let me know if you need additional information. Regards, Mechelle x37278 =====================================

['What phone number does Stephanie Panus provide in her email to Diane Anderson and Jean Bell?', "What company did Columbia Energy Services originally assign the trades to, according to Stephanie Panus' email?"]

phanis-s/sent_items/2.

phanis-s

Subject: LDC Forum-Atlanta-Sign Up Now! Sender: 10jribnick@interchange-energy.com Recipients: ['steven.p.south@enron.com'] File: south-s/notes_inbox/6. ===================================== [IMAGE] Register now -- before it sells out! Your customers are already signed up. Click here to register and/or see the attendee list! The Atlanta LDC Forum promises to be the largest gathering of energy buyers in the Southeast. Network with your customers and hear from industry experts about the growing gas and power crunch in the Southeast Region. The last 4 LDC Forums were sold out, so don't be too late! Special Focus at this year's Atlanta Forum: Risk management Supply constraints and availability New projects Will California problems spread to the Southeast? Click here to go directly to the Atlanta LDC Forum Registration Form For an agenda, a pre-listing of attendees or more information, visit our website at www.interchange-energy.com (then click on the Atlanta Forum) or call Jerry Ribnick at 763-545-1515 or 800-427-3976 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? ?The LDC Forum Series ?Atlanta June 4-5. 2001 ?Chicago ? Sept. 10-12, 2001? ?Boston April 18-19, 2002 Interchange Energy Group, 620 Mendelssohn Avenue North, Suite 161, Minneapolis, MN 55427 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you prefer to not receive future e-mails regarding The LDC Forums, please REPLY to this message and indicate REMOVE in the subject field. - 9915star.gif =====================================

['What is the number of LDC Forums that sold out prior to the Atlanta Forum?', 'What are the exact dates listed in the email for the upcoming LDC Forums in Chicago and Boston?', 'What contact information is provided in the email for reaching Jerry Ribnick about the Atlanta LDC Forum?']

south-s/notes_inbox/6.

south-s

Subject: Re: MAE/COEX - ANEEL Resolutions Sender: luiz.maurer@enron.com Recipients: ['joe.kishkill@enron.com', 'richard.shapiro@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/27. ===================================== Joe We have had several conference calls since last Saturday. Perhaps you should talk to Orlando and join us from now on. This subject is in state of flux. As you know, those measures triggered a hostile reaction from D/Cs and from Gs. Aneel (Jose Mario and Jose Alves) called me on Saturday asking for help. We discussed this subject internally over the weekend. On Monday, Joao defended ANEEL in the COEX meeting. However, we were the only ones. Other players were very angry. They perceived the action as pure intervention (despite necessary and timely for most). ANEEL was informed about the COEX reaction and thanked us for our position. We examined the Resolutions in great detail. Unfortunately, it seems that ANEEL went far beyond its institutional responsibilities. The substance is OK. The format is legally weak. Our strategy (we will try to sell to Abradee, CBIIE, COEX and ABRACEEL) is to remove the spotlight from the legal arguments and propose to our industry peers to focus on the design of a new Market agreement (to create a sense of buy-in). We know that the changes will be only cosmetic. The basic principles of the resolution should be maintained. As per Enron's suggestion, I spoke to ANEEL again (Jose Mario and Jose Alves) showing them how difficult the situation is. In our view, thard he only way to validate the measures is to write a new agreement (Fred and Debora are working on that). I was open in saying that the Resolution are weak from a legal standpoint. They agreed with us. Publicly they say otherwise. They said they are willing to negotiate. We also expressed our view to ANEEL that part of the reaction is parochial: some COEX members will lose their jobs. ANEEL agrees. That is why they are inviting all CEOs and Chairmen of the Board to a meeting tomorrow, where ANEEL will explain what is happening and ask for support from top management. Why has ANEEL approached us? Perhaps two reasons: 1) They know we defend markets 2) We wrote Informativo Regulat?rio # 3, attached (which basically purports the replacement of COEX by a professional Board - I discussed those issues with Rick Shapiro before the IR was issued to understand Enron's view on power pool governance) Your comments/involvement would be very important. It is a pretty delicate and messy situation. My personal view. 1) This was a necessary evil. MAE would not function otherwise. Our merchant plants would be in jeopardy. 2) I would dare to say that this is a "window of opportunity" to get MAE working (and therefore our long term strategy) 3) However, the way ANEEL did was disastrous. They should have acted long before. (imposing gradual penalties). Now they suddenly "fired" 26 CEOs of the largest utilities in Brazil 4) We should support ANEEL. However, it has to be in a very diplomatic way. Orlando will take care of Abradee. Joao - COEX. S,rgio CBIEE. We have to walk over a fine line. If we push to hard, they will reject Enron (together with ANEEL's Resolution) 5) We should be the champions in drafting a new Market Agreement LM Joe Kishkill 04/25/2001 01:07 PM To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: MAE/COEX - ANEEL Resolutions when are we talking? Luiz Maurer 04/24/2001 09:42 AM To: Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: MAE/COEX - ANEEL Resolutions Perfect LM Joao Carlos Albuquerque 04/24/2001 09:30 AM To: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: MAE/COEX - ANEEL Resolutions At the COEX meeting yesterday, it was clear from the lawyers presentation that there are grounds to legally challenge ANEEL's resolutions. Some romantic guys were kind of going in that direction. My position was to take the subject to a Market Assembly for the shareholders to deliberate. Also everybody knows, and some acknowledged, that MAE governance was not working. Our line of action at the Assembly would be to support the general direction of the measures, and at the same time, preserve MAE autonomy, opening a negotiable line with ANEEL. The main point of discussion will be if we should discuss without going to court or after challenging ANEEL in court. The Assembly was called for next Thursday, April 26th. Fred is going to talk to Luiz Maurer for us to have a deep exam of the resolutions and see what points we can propose to ANEEL to improve. Also, in that negotiable line, we should discuss/propose some names to the new COEX. We need to discuss this subject tomorrow. Jo?o Carlos =====================================

["Who has been assigned to handle Abradee, according to Luiz Maurer's email about the ANEEL Resolutions?", "According to Joao Carlos Albuquerque's email about the MAE/COEX - ANEEL Resolutions, what is Fred Sampaio going to do with the ANEEL resolutions?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email, how many CEOs of the largest utilities in Brazil were suddenly dismissed by ANEEL as a result of the Resolutions?", "According to Joao Carlos Albuquerque's email on 04/24/2001 09:30 AM, what will be the central issue debated at the upcoming Market Assembly regarding ANEEL's resolutions?", 'What potential benefit or outcome does Luiz Maurer see as a result of the "window of opportunity" created by the ANEEL Resolutions, in relation to Enron\'s long-term strategy?', "According to Luiz Maurer's email, what does ANEEL intend to achieve by inviting CEOs and Chairmen of the Board to a meeting?", "Who has been tasked with drafting a new Market Agreement, as mentioned in Luiz Maurer's email regarding the ANEEL Resolutions?", "What potential outcome might Enron face if it fails to walk the fine line in supporting ANEEL's Resolutions, as mentioned in point 4 of Luiz Maurer's personal view?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email to Joe Kishkill and Richard Shapiro, who were the individuals he spoke with on Saturday regarding the ANEEL Resolutions?", 'What is the main idea or proposal presented in the document "Informativo Regulat?rio # 3" that Luiz Maurer discussed with Rick Shapiro before its issuance, in relation to Enron\'s perspective on the governance of power pools?', "According to Luiz Maurer's email, what is the consequence of ANEEL's resolutions on some COEX members, which ANEEL acknowledges as a parochial reaction?"]

south-s/southern_cone/27.

south-s

Subject: energy situation Sender: orlando.gonzalez@enron.com Recipients: ['joe.kishkill@enron.com', 'james.hughes@enron.com', 'sergio.assad@enron.com', 'rebecca.mcdonald@enron.com', 'jose.bestard@enron.com', 'john.lavorato@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/23. ===================================== The president named Pedro Parente as the Energy Czar yesterday to coordina= te=20 the rationing crisis and develop short and medium term solutions for the=20 sector. Rumors are that the Aneel directors will be replaced. Mauro Arce,= =20 Sao Paulo state energy secretary will also be on the coordination team with= =20 the Mines and Energy minister. We have very strong personal relationships= =20 with both Parente and Arce and I have been invited to participate as one of= =20 the private sector repesentatives. We are scheduling a call with your=20 assistants for an update. =20 See attached: Official Admits Government Underestimated Energy Crisis Government officials Thursday opted to create a special interministerial=20 group to address Brazil=01,s current energy crisis. Cabinet head Pedro Parente, who will coordinate the group, made the=20 announce-ment and also admitted that the situation is more serious than originally though= t.=20 His comment seemed addressed at strongly worded criticisms by business leaders = who have charged that the government failed to act in time to deal with the=20 crisis. The head of the infrastructure department of the S?o Paulo State Federation= of Industries (Fiesp), Pio Gavazzi, warned that industry could not support an= =20 energy cut of over 6%. Any reduction above this level would have "catastrophic results= ,"=20 Gavazzi said. Fiesp research and statistics director Clarice Messer added that the=20 rationing would stop the expansion of jobs in S?o Paul industry, which began last year.=20 According to Messer, 13,000 new jobs would not be created in the second semester as a=20 result of the energy cuts. =====================================

['What percentage of energy cut does Pio Gavazzi consider to be the threshold above which the results would be "catastrophic" for industry?', "What department does Pio Gavazzi head within the S?o Paulo State Federation of Industries (Fiesp), as mentioned in Orlando Gonzalez's email about the energy situation in Brazil?", "Who will be in charge of the special interministerial group established to address Brazil's energy crisis, as announced by Cabinet head Pedro Parente?", 'Who made the decision to appoint Pedro Parente as the Energy Czar to coordinate the rationing crisis and develop short and medium term solutions for the sector?']

south-s/southern_cone/23.

south-s

Subject: Facing difficulties Sender: luiz.maurer@enron.com Recipients: ['richard.shapiro@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/20. ===================================== Rick As you know, the energy sector is facing several challenges: MAE intervention, rationing, drafting a new market agreement and the like. It is all happening as we speak. In my capacity of President of the Brazilian Association of Energy Traders, I have defended correct economic signals, have a functioning MAE, keeping market rules stable, creating wholesale and retail competition, honoring contract sanctity, and the like. More importantly, that rationing should not be an excuse for "revoking" supply and demand Those are not ideologic positions only. They represent, in my view, the best interest for Enron in the short, medium and long terms. We have already agreed on that in a recent Enron executive commitee. That means, I am in fact wearing Abraceel hat to defend Enron's best interests. Just two examples on how those principles are linked to our interest (among many others) a) By defending contract sanctity, we defended Elektro's contractual position on Annex V, which sets a formula on how financial contracts decline during rationing. Simulations have indicated that our long position, even during the deepest rationing will offset loss of revenues. On the contraty, w/o Annex V loss of EBITDA may be US$ 60 million in 2001 b) By defending the integrity of MAE, spot prices and the like, we are paving the road for Eletrobolt's success. Needless to say, Abraceel message has been consistent "across the board". For example, if one believes on markets, we have to defend the use of market signals (economic incentives/penalties) during rationing. And prices to allocate a scarce resource. Also, as a corollary, no intervention in spot prices, which will, in turn, make our Eletrobolt merchant plant feasible. I feel very comfortable in defending Enron's interests and wearing my Abraceel hat. There is a positive synergy. However, Orlando is the President of ABRADEE, the Brazilian Association of Distributors. The interests of ABRADEE are not always the interests of free market (seldom are); nor they are the interests of Enron. For example, ABRADEE as a group, criticizes the government for changing MAE governance; they wanted rolling black-outs instead of economic signals; they advocate caps on spot and the like. Needless to say, there is a [potential] crash here, with some internal reverberations. Today, the government announced the rationing plan. It is based on quotas with an overlay of economic signals (tied to wholesale prices). This is consistent with markets and what ABRACEEL has been saying on and on. However, ABRADEE wanted rolling black-outs. (paving the road for eliminating MAE rules and setting caps on spot to avoid exposures) Guess what happened? Orlando is being pressured by his peers to criticize the plan and kill it. I am convinced that the government made the right decision (and we helped influence it) The subject has received a lot of press coverage on TV, radio and other media. Abraceel has been viewed as one of the champions of market forces. Last Tuesday, I was invited to express our views to the "Minister of the Rationing" and I think I was quite persuasive in showing that there is elasticity in demand, MAE should work asap, intervention was necessary, government should refrain from the temptation to set caps on spot, etc. Most of those statements where contrary to what Abradee had stated in the very same meeting. The plan the Government announced today embeds several elements of market forces. It was a sudden shift from the plan announced a few days ago, where market signals were completely neglected. (CERA has recently referred to it as a "step away from market forces"). And it was indeed. Internally, we have been managing this tension in a productive way for Enron. However, the situation is getting more complicated, as tension increases. Orlando is getting a little uncomfortable because his peers perceive Luiz Maurer as someone against the interest of the distribution business. In sum, there is an internal issue going on. I do not want to be a trouble maker. However, I feel that we have now a window of opportunities to make things work. (or at least to try to) Our relationship with ANEEL and with the powerful Ministry of Rationing has been excellent. I feel we should take advantage of it and put a stick on the ground. That is our culture. I think that spending too much time and energy in building consensus among different stakeholders is not going to lead us anywhere (beside, we know that we do not want markets). That is what we have been doing at COEX in the last two years, with no material results. We have remained silent in key issues waiting for this consensus to happen. This has been the case for the market intervention. The market is misinterpreting our views. For example, there was a press article today, stating that Enron, together with AES, were dominating COEX and are trying to revert the situation back to the old regime (stakeholder board). What a gross misinterpretation of our views !! Informativo Regulatorio # 3 has conveyed the opposite message and it has inspired ANEEL to start fixing the mess !! They gave us the credit. We are still silent on our view, waiting for consensus to happen. May be I am in too much of a hurry, because I am leaving soon. But I feel that we have a window of opportunity to make things happen (or at least knowing that they are not going to happen any time soon). And we are not taking advantage of it. I am not expecting any immediate action from you. Just for you to be aware on what is going on and share some concerns. If you have any comments or any advise, please let me know. I have even considered to resign Abraceel leadership to avoid future internal conflicts. Luiz Maurer =====================================

['What internal conflict led Luiz Maurer to consider stepping down from his leadership role in Abraceel, as mentioned in his email to Richard Shapiro?', 'What specific points did Luiz Maurer make to the "Minister of the Rationing" during their meeting, regarding the role of MAE and government intervention in the rationing plan?', 'What was the context in which Luiz Maurer was invited to express his views to the "Minister of the Rationing", as described in his email to Richard Shapiro?', "According to Luiz Maurer's email, what was the outcome of the government's decision on the rationing plan, and how did it align with or differ from the previous proposal?", 'According to Luiz Maurer\'s email to Richard Shapiro, which day of the week did Luiz Maurer meet with the "Minister of the Rationing" to share his opinions?', "Which two companies were incorrectly reported in a press article as trying to dominate COEX and revert to the old regime, according to Luiz Maurer's email?", "According to Luiz Maurer, what was the significant shift in the government's approach to rationing between the plan announced a few days prior and the one announced on the day of his email?", 'What are the current difficulties affecting the Brazilian energy sector, as described by Luiz Maurer?', 'What effect did the document "Informativo Regulatorio # 3" have on ANEEL\'s actions, according to Luiz Maurer\'s email to Richard Shapiro?', 'According to Luiz Maurer\'s email to Richard Shapiro, which day of the week did Luiz Maurer meet with the "Minister of the Rationing" to share his opinions?', 'What are the names of the two associations mentioned in the email, and who are their respective Presidents?']

south-s/southern_cone/20.

south-s

Subject: Putting a stick on the ground - Enron's view on MAE, caps, Annex V, Sender: luiz.maurer@enron.com Recipients: ['remi.collonges@enron.com', 'adriana.domingues@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/5. ===================================== Gentlemen: Here is the revised letter with the appendices. It incorporate all the comments received in the last 24 hours. The other two documents are of public domain and should be attached to the leter. The letter has a kind of executive summary, as requested by Orlando/Sergio. Thanks for the good comments from Legal (Sami) and TRM (David). Again, I feel that time is of the essence. We need to express our views to the Minister before Mario Arce comes up with a final proposal (he has already a pre-cooked one) LM Luiz Maurer 05/29/2001 10:28 AM To: David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, Adriana Domingues/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Lucio Reis/SA/Enron@Enron, Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Sami Arap/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Karla Azevedo/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Baccaro/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith? Gentlemen: Here is the letter for your review Time is of the essence. Ideally,we should send it today. Parente should get acquainted with the issue before Mario Arce makes a final decision. LM David M Rosenberg 05/28/2001 09:42 AM To: Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Adriana Domingues/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Lucio Reis/SA/Enron@Enron, Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Sami Arap/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Karla Azevedo/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Baccaro/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith? I think it's a great idea, Luiz. How about a paper organized around Remi's four points with you developing the arguments (such as the argument for contract sanctity included in this e-mail chain). Perhaps Orlando and / or Kish could get a meeting with Parente to present the paper and explain how it is a comprehensive roadmap to permanently reslove the problem. --DMR Remi Collonges 28/05/2001 08:57 To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Adriana Domingues/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Lucio Reis/SA/Enron@Enron, Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Sami Arap/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Karla Azevedo/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Baccaro/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith? I think it is a good idea to state our position on Annex V and to take this chance to reaffirm our belief in the following 4 basic principles: 1. Contract sanctity (Annex V holds, all contracts hold) 2. No caps on spot prices (if Brazil still wants to attract private funds in new generation) 3. Pass through of MAE price at LDC level for end-user consumption above their respective quota 4. Brazil needs MAE to settle: make it work. Only way: reinforce credit worthiness of all MAE members. Remi Luiz Maurer 05/28/2001 08:16 AM To: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Lucio Reis/SA/Enron@Enron, Debora Klinger/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Sami Arap/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Jose Lucio Reis/SA/Enron@Enron, Karla Azevedo/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Baccaro/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith? Last Friday, Patricia Arce, (Mario Arce's daughter and a full time ASMAE employee) was expressing her [distorted] views to the press on why generating companies should not abide by Annex V. She was not speaking on behalf of ASMAE: however, she was probably reflecting ASMAE view. I did not mean to shoot the messenger, but I could not refrain myself from expressing an opposite opinion. There are two problems in Patricia's view: 1) She is not supposed to express any views on contracts. MAE should only settle contracts, but never attempt to arbitrate or solve bilateral contract disputes. The lack of clarity on this point is the sole responsible for MAE's frustrated attempt to solve the Angra II - Furnas conflict in the last 6 months. Informativo Regulat?rio # 4 explores the issue in more detail. 2) She was dead wrong. Quite na<ve arguments. A few arguments why Gs should indeed abide by Annex V (we may use externally, as you see fit) 1) Gs were forced to sign Initial Contracts. * So what? It is a regulated contract by nature, as so many others, such as CUST, CUSD, CCT, CCD. Does it mean that parties signing those other agreements should not abide by their clauses? 2) Gs and Ds did not have chance to negotiate terms and conditions * So what? I asked Patricia why should any agent sign the Market Agreement without any chance to negotiate its terms (it is by definition an adhesion contract). Does it mean that agents should not abide by the MAE Agreement provisions? Guess what the answer was? None 3) Some Gs did not sign Annex V - e.g. Furnas, which [apparently] disobeyed Annel's instructions (as per Law 9.648/98) * This is serious * That means that in addition to not be bound by Contract, those Gs do not want to abide by Law? No response 4) Some companies do not have Annex V * So what? Discussion is about Annex V * Those companies should follow specific provisions on their supply contracts 6) Ttariff (energy price) was not subject to negotiation as part of the Initial Contracts - therefore, they were not able to price the risk represented by Annex V * So what? * Many contracts have regulated prices. All use of system contracts have regulated prices. * Furthermore, the privatized generators had chance to price the Annex V risk. Why giving them a windfall now? (Since it is a zero sum game, a windfall for generators is tantamount to a loss to distributors) 7) Annex V was not designed to deal with rationing: it was designed to mitigate hydrological risks due to central dispatch * Wrong * ERM (Mecanismo de Realoca??o de Energia) was the mechanism put in place to deal with risks deriving from a central dispatch in a hyper tight pool operation * Annex V was indeed designed to deal with rationing. It is called "dry period relief" clause. It was proposed by the generators and approved by Annel. The spot price is a "proxy" for the depth of rationing. One should not evoke rationing. I think it is advisable to have a strong legal opinion on how Annex V is "bullet proof". In the meantime, let me share my views: * There is very limited room for negotiation whatsoever on Annex V and on the [ridiculous] proposal made by generators that merchant plants should collect part in cash and part of their sales in [junk] bonds. We should make this clear at the outset. * We should make Minister Patente realize that Mario Arce's proposal is non-sense. Changing established contracts or setting caps on spot prices is a bad precedent. No bail out for the ones who did mitigate perfectly known risks. A cap on spot is equivalent to what the Central Bank did for Makra and Fonte-Cindam (and became a public scandal) . If we do want to create a market , we need to have responsible contracting. Irresponsible contracting should not be forgiven. If we do it, we will create a bad precedent and a poor environment for contracting. We have to show Minister Parente that irresponsible contracting has to be penalized at market rates (no caps on spot). Irreponsible contracting will not expand capacity. Breaching contracts will create an uncertain environment for new PPAs. Crisis will get worse and worse. * Generators should have the burden of proof. In the meantime, Annex V is effective and should be enforceable * Regarding California case, as mentioned by Mario Arce: It is a totally different situation. In California D/Cs were not allowed to contract. In Brazil they were strongly encouraged. Generators who signed Annex V could also have hedged their residual risks on Annex V.They did not. They acted irresponsibly. They second-guessed regulations. They did not help in expanding capacity. They knew goverment will bail them out and revoke Annex V. * The argument "no one should lose, no one should gain" during rationing is inconsistent with market signals. Some one has to lose, some one has to gain by definition. And [hopefully] someone has to go bankrupt. This will be a great lesson. People will start taking market signals more seriously. Otherwise, there will never be expansion and there will never be a market. * We have to be as transparent as possible. Finally, I suggest Enron to write a position paper on our own view on Annex V and caps on spot and deliver it to Minister Parente early this week. I volunteer to prepare a first draft, if you guys agree it is a good idea. LM =====================================

["Who is the ASMAE employee and Mario Arce's daughter who, according to Luiz Maurer, expressed views to the press that Luiz disagreed with regarding generating companies' obligations under Annex V?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email, who is mentioned as having a proposal that is already largely decided, and what is Luiz Maurer's concern about the timing of this proposal in relation to Enron's views being expressed to the Minister?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email, what historical event does he use as an example to illustrate the potential consequences of setting a cap on spot prices?", "What distinction does Luiz Maurer draw between the Brazilian and Californian contexts regarding the generators' ability to manage their risks through contracting and hedging?", 'What are the organizational affiliations of the main addressees of Luiz Maurer\'s email with the subject "ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith?" sent on 05/28/2001 08:16 AM, excluding those who are copied on the email?', 'What is the title of the government official that Luiz Maurer wants Enron to present their views to before Mario Arce makes a final decision?', 'What key points does Remi Collonges propose that Enron should emphasize in their stance on Annex V, as outlined in his email to Luiz Maurer and others?', "What is the consequence, according to Luiz Maurer, of generators who signed Annex V not hedging their residual risks, as mentioned in his email about ASMAE's view on Annex X?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email about ASMAE's view on Annex X, what source provides more information on the issue of MAE's role in settling contracts?", 'On what date and at what time did Luiz Maurer send an email with the subject "ASMAE taking the [wrong] view on Annex X - Ignorance or bad faith?" to a group of recipients that included Sergio Assad?', "What does Luiz Maurer imply about the behavior of generators who signed Annex V but failed to hedge their residual risks, according to his email about ASMAE's view on Annex X?"]

south-s/southern_cone/5.

south-s

Subject: Re: Turbine Export Issue Sender: jeff.dasovich@enron.com Recipients: ['richard.shapiro@enron.com', 'scott.reblitz@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/21. ===================================== I can make either time. Just let me know. Best, Jeff Scott Reblitz@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 05/14/2001 05:48 PM To: Jeff Dasovich@EES cc: Joseph M Galan/Enron@EnronXGate, Ranabir Dutt/Enron@EnronXGate Subject: Turbine Export Issue Jeff: We are going to have a call with OPIC tomorrow to discuss the turbine export issue and the state of affairs in the California re power. The two times that OPIC people are available are 11:30-2:00 and 4:30-5:30 (both times are eastern standard time). Does one of these slots appear better for you? I don't anticipate that you would be needed for the entire time allotted for the call but I'm sure the OPIC people will have some questions requiring your knowledge of California. Attached, please find a summary document we're working on containing talking points we want to convey to OPIC. Again, thanks for your help, Scott =====================================

["What are the available time slots for the call with OPIC, according to Scott Reblitz's email about the turbine export issue?", "What are the available time slots for the call with OPIC to discuss the turbine export issue, as mentioned in Scott Reblitz's email?"]

south-s/southern_cone/21.

south-s

Subject: Re: MAE's Price June 2001 Sender: luiz.maurer@enron.com Recipients: ['cecilia.mercio@enron.com', 'fred.sampaio@enron.com', 'sergio.assad@enron.com'] File: south-s/southern_cone/1. ===================================== Cecilia Great victory! No playing around with caps on MAE prices. We have to make sure this is sustainable (and people will actually pay for their exposures) LM Cecilia Mercio 06/01/2001 05:12 PM To: Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: MAE's Price June 2001 FYI ---------------------- Forwarded by Cecilia Mercio/SA/Enron on 06/01/2001 05:17 PM --------------------------- Cecilia Mercio 06/01/2001 05:09 PM To: Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Sassatani/SA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Lisboa/SA/Enron@Enron, Guy Ishikawa/SA/Enron@Enron, Breno Nogueira/SA/Enron@Enron, Julian Poole/SA/Enron@Enron, Patrick Hansen/SA/Enron@Enron, Rodolfo Freyre/SA/Enron@Enron, Jorge Gumucio/SA/Enron@Enron, Luis Henriques/SA/Enron@Enron, Moacyr Carmo/SA/Enron@Enron, Luis Berti/SA/Enron@Enron, Eduardo Cancian/SA/Enron@Enron, Roberto Schloesser/SA/Enron@Enron, Marcelo Parodi/SA/Enron@Enron, Idel Metzger/SA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo Mucci/SA/Enron@Enron, Ricardo D Cunha/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Baccaro/SA/Enron@Enron, Murilo Hyai/SA/Enron@Enron, Andre Salomao/SA/Enron@Enron, Paulo Squariz/SA/Enron@Enron, Federico Cerisoli/SA/Enron@Enron, Erwin Landivar/SA/Enron@Enron, Mateus Andrade/SA/Enron@Enron, Joca Paciello/SA/Enron@Enron, Flavio Silberberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Roberto Hukai/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Guillermo Atenor/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: MAE's Price June 2001 It was published in ASMAE website (www.asmae.com.br). =====================================

['What was the time when Cecilia Mercio first sent the email with the subject "MAE\'s Price June 2001" to Joe Kishkill and others?', 'What was the date and time when Luiz Maurer replied to Cecilia Mercio\'s email with the subject "MAE\'s Price June 2001" and the message "Cecilia Great victory! No playing around with caps on MAE prices. We have to make sure this is sustainable (and people will actually pay for their exposures) LM"?', 'What phrase does Luiz Maurer use to convey his opinion on "caps on MAE prices" in his response to Cecilia Mercio\'s email?', "What conditions does Luiz Maurer mention as necessary for the MAE prices, in addition to not being subject to caps, in his response to Cecilia Mercio's email?"]

south-s/southern_cone/1.

south-s

Subject: Re: CAP no MAE Sender: luiz.maurer@enron.com Recipients: ['joe.kishkill@enron.com', 'David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron', 'Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron', 'joao.albuquerque@enron.com', 'Fred'] File: south-s/southern_cone/11. ===================================== Jo?o Congratulations for you enlightening participation at todays' meeting with generators to rebuff Annex V arguments. For the first time in two years I have seen the "underdogs" distributors beating the powerful generators. The performance reminded me the Brazil 4 x Italy 1, June 21, 1970 final world cup soccer match. Let's not give up. Luiz Maurer 05/24/2001 07:02 PM To: Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Britaldo Soares/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: CAP no MAE Joao I know we are all in the same boat. We share the same ideas as well. The only difference is perhaps the approach. I am kind of skeptical of negotiating with those guys. COEX has been a two year failure in terms of consensus building. Where has consensus led us? Nowhere. After some point, it is worthless discussing with those guys. (I know that you have been standing and fighting) You are probably right when you say I am being radical . Given my skepticism, I think there are only two ways: (i) going straight to Pedro Parente (ii) or, a big splash in the media. (because we have a coherent story, there are always many reporters willing to listen to us; I think we should not be afraid of putting a stick on the ground, as necessary) I know that Mario Arce got upset with me and I did not mean it. However, he has to know that if he comes up with some "pre-cooked" crazy ideas (Kill Annex V, caps on spot) he will have to face the "discipline" of the media. He (or any other) has to know that we will do whatever is necessary to get our ideas across. It is a war. No time for consensus building or for being the nice guy. They are writing new laws as we speak. There is a strong sense of urgency. It is a make it or break it situation. This is my modest view only. LM Joao Carlos Albuquerque 05/23/2001 09:05 PM To: Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Britaldo Soares/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: CAP no MAE David and Luiz, Please don't be radical and don't put words when you do not know what is going on. Some important players and people are supporting a very low cap: some 320 reais or even less (320 is in one of the Generators proposal). I was the one fighting in all meetings I had, last and this week, standing up in front of everybody, supporting NO CAP AT ALL. What I tried to share with you was a second line of defence Plan B type. So don't think you are the only paladins of the market. We are fighting hard for ENRON's positions, in the real word, and working very hard, believe me. thanks, Jo?o Carlos Joe Kishkill 05/22/2001 08:39 AM To: Orlando Gonzalez, Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: CAP no MAE Got the info late, but... I also can not see how we can even consider supporting price caps. If they come, they come. Politica are a reality. But we should not support them or even hint at encouraging them. If we are thinking about doing so, please let me know because I strongly object. Thanks, Kish ---------------------- Forwarded by Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron on 05/22/2001 08:36 AM --------------------------- David M Rosenberg 05/21/2001 10:40 AM To: Joe Kishkill/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: CAP no MAE FYI. I just noticed that you weren't in this chain. ---------------------- Forwarded by David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron on 21/05/2001 10:44 --------------------------- David M Rosenberg 21/05/2001 10:20 To: Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Britaldo Soares/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: CAP no MAE Luiz, Thanks again for maintaining a voice of sanity. In my not so humble opinion, it is commercial suicide for us to even give the appearance of supporting price caps. I can't think of any other situation anywhere in the world where Enron has supported price caps in a market. To the contrary, we are almost always public in our opposition to such market-killing sophistry. Consensus is a noble objective, but sometimes it is just better to let people know your true opinion. --DMR Luiz Maurer 20/05/2001 23:16 To: Joao Carlos Albuquerque/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron, Britaldo Soares/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron, Remi Collonges/SA/Enron@Enron, David M Rosenberg/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: CAP no MAE I strongly disagree "If it is impossible to reach an agreement within ABRADEE",, then we should be loud an clear in expressing our own view, to all levels of government including a position paper to Pedro Parente asap. Caps at this point in time may jeopardize the rationing plan per se. We had a victory in anchoring the penalties to the MAE price. Why surrender it now? Why do we have to abide by ABRADEE's desires? This is not a religious issue only. There are a few US$ million left on the table. How many US$ million are on the table for Enron? - Ballpark, possibly US$20f or Elektro's long position (60 in EBITDA * (680-460)/680) - A lot, lot more for Eletrobolt (perhaps to the point of killing the project, as Joao Albuquerque stated) Are we being consistent? About a week ago, we submitted our views to ANEEL, on Public Hearing 02/2001, advocating for an increase in the cost of defict to US$ 2350/MWh. The trading group (Remi, David) were adamant about this position submitted by Regulatory Affairs (I think they are right) Are we acting to the best interest of our shareholders? LM Joao Carlos Albuquerque 05/20/2001 11:40 AM To: jmazon@elektro.com.br, Orlando Gonzalez/SA/Enron@Enron, Sergio Assad/SA/Enron@Enron, Luiz Maurer/SA/Enron@Enron, Fred Sampaio/SA/Enron@Enron cc: Britaldo Soares/SA/Enron@Enron, Brett R Wiggs/SA/Enron@Enron Subject: CAP no MAE Algumas empresas de distribui??o short em 02 e 03 est?o defendendo fortememte CAP no MAE, bem abaixo do custo do d,ficit ( cerca de R$ 680). ( CERJ, Cataguases, LIght est? em cima do muro, etc...) Se for inevit?vel, nossa posi??o deve ser: - N?O PODE SER INFERIOR AO PRE_O PRATICADO NO PRE-RACIONAMENTO ( R$ 460,00 ) - N?O PODE SER INFERIOR ? MAIOR TARIFA COBRADA DOS CONSUMIDORES ( TROS VEZES A TARIFA RESIDENCIAL ATUAL - 200% SOBRE A MESMA, PARA CONSUMOS ACIMA DE 500 KWh POR MOS) . Mazzon, calcule a ordem de grandeza deste valor. _ importante termos isto em mente quando formos falar com as autoridades amanh? e, em especial com Mauro Arce. Lembrar, ainda, que um CAP baixo, sem FLOOR, pode matar ELETROBOLT, uma vez que as receitas que esta auferiria em 2002 n?o compensariam o decr,scimo das mesmas de 2003 em diante, quando, com a redu??o de mercado devido ao racionamento e o aumento de entrada de novas fontes de gera??o, tamb,m incentivada pelo racionamento, poder? derrubar fortemente os pre?os do MAE. N?o devemos nos esquecer que o per?odo de amortiza??o de ELETROBOLT , de cinco anos. Jo?o Carlos =====================================

['Which company, alongside Cataguases and Light, is mentioned by Joao Carlos Albuquerque in his May 20, 2001 email as strongly advocating for a CAP no MAE that is significantly lower than the deficit cost?', 'Who does Luiz Maurer mention as having gotten upset with him in his email on May 24, 2001?', "What stance does Pedro Parente take on price caps, according to Luiz Maurer's email on May 24, 2001, in the context of the price cap debate?", "What is Luiz Maurer's assessment of COEX's effectiveness in achieving consensus, as mentioned in his email on May 24, 2001, in relation to the price cap discussion?", "Which company is mentioned alongside Cataguases and Light as a strong supporter of a CAP no MAE, significantly lower than the deficit cost, in Joao Carlos Albuquerque's email dated May 20, 2001?", "In his email on May 24, 2001, Luiz Maurer compares the distributors' performance in the meeting with generators to a specific soccer match. Which match does he mention?", "According to Joao Carlos Albuquerque's email on May 23, 2001, what is the lowest price cap that some important players and generators are supporting?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email on May 20, 2001, what group submitted views to ANEEL on Public Hearing 02/2001, advocating for an increase in the cost of deficit to US$ 2350/MWh?", "How does the five-year amortization period of the Eletrobolt project affect its vulnerability to a low CAP, according to Joao Carlos Albuquerque's email on May 20, 2001?", "According to Luiz Maurer's email on May 20, 2001, what was the specific cost of deficit that Enron proposed in the document submitted to ANEEL for Public Hearing 02/2001?", "What formula does Luiz Maurer use to estimate the EBITDA of Elektro's long position in his email on May 20, 2001?"]

south-s/southern_cone/11.

south-s

Subject: Crescendo April Nom Change Sender: joan.quick@enron.com Recipients: ['stacey.brewer@enron.com', 'hillary.mack@enron.com', 'steven.south@enron.com', 'jjosborne@apex2000.net'] File: south-s/discussion_threads/50. ===================================== Nom will be changed to 3,100 MMBtu/d, effective April 25th. per disc with hillary, 4/23 pm. -----Original Message----- From: Quick, Joan Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:59 AM To: Mack, Hillary; Brewer, Stacey; South, Steven Subject: Crescendo April Nom Change Hillary - please call me re this. i have left you a voicemail. joan x33152 -----Original Message----- From: "Jim" <jjosborne@apex2000.net>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jim+22+20+3Cjjosborne+40apex2000+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ENRON. com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:34 AM To: Quick, Joan Subject: RE: April Noms Based on no penalties, please lower our April nom to 2.84 MMCFD. Thanks Jim -----Original Message----- From: Quick, Joan [mailto:Joan.Quick@ENRON.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:01 AM To: jjosborne@apex2000.net Subject: RE: April Noms you shouldn't have any penalties from enron...none that i can think of. all the excess is sold Gas Daily, so you shouldn't be penalized anything. joan > -----Original Message----- > From: "Jim" <jjosborne@apex2000.net>@ENRON > [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jim+22+20+3Cjjosborne+40apex2000+2Enet+3E+40ENRO > N@ENRON.com] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:35 AM > To: Quick, Joan > Subject: RE: April Noms > > Joan > > We need to make sure that if we lower our nom, we won't have a penalty > from Enron. > > Please respond. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Quick, Joan [mailto:Joan.Quick@ENRON.com] > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:19 AM > To: kckrisa@apex2000.net; JJosborne@apex2000.net > Subject: RE: April Noms > > > Ken, > > what do you suggest we lower the nom to? > > joan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Ken" <kckrisa@apex2000.net>@ENRON > > > [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Ken+22+20+3Ckckrisa+40apex2000+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ > > ENRON.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:31 AM > > To: Quick, Joan > > Subject: FW: April Noms > > > > Joan, > > One Compressor at the San Arroyo station was down for several days, > > causing > > high line pressures - it takes a while to work this pressure down. > > > > Let's discuss the lowering nomination option - give me a call when > you > > get a > > chance. > > > > Ken Krisa > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim > > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:37 AM > > To: Ken > > Subject: FW: April Noms > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Quick, Joan [mailto:Joan.Quick@ENRON.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:45 PM > > To: JJosborne@apex2000.net > > Cc: Otis, Brian > > Subject: April Noms > > > > jim, > > > > i see that production is down a bit - around 2,954 mcf/d. our April > > first of the month nom is based on 3,123 mcf/d. do you think we > > should > > lower our nom? > > > > thanks > > joan > > > > > > - winmail.dat << File: winmail.dat >> - winmail.dat =====================================

["What benefit does selling excess gas on Gas Daily provide, according to Joan Quick's email dated Monday, April 23, 2001 10:01 AM, in the email thread about April nominations?", 'What did Ken Krisa attribute the high line pressures at the San Arroyo station to in his email on Friday, April 20, 2001 8:31 AM?', 'According to the email conversation about April nominations, what is the email address associated with the name Ken Krisa?', "According to Joan Quick's email, what change is being made to Crescendo's nomination amount, and when will this change take effect?", 'In the email thread about April nominations, what did Ken Krisa report was the status of the compressors at the San Arroyo station in his email sent on Friday, April 20, 2001, at 8:31 AM?', 'When did Jim send an email to Ken with the subject "FW: April Noms" in the discussion about April nominations?', "What is the discrepancy between the April nomination amount initially set and the actual production amount as of Joan Quick's email on Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:45 PM?", "In the email thread about April nominations, who received a copy of Joan Quick's email sent on Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:45 PM?"]

south-s/discussion_threads/50.

south-s