FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 04/04/2001 
07:31 AM ---------------------------


Linda Robertson
04/02/2001 06:27 PM
To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Proposed Changes to Business Practices Based on the California 
Energy Crisis  

We will check.  Joe?



	Richard Shapiro
	04/02/2001 05:20 AM
		 
		 To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Proposed Changes to Business Practices Based on the California 
Energy Crisis

FERC implications for merging EPMI into ENA?
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron on 04/02/2001 
04:19 AM ---------------------------
From: Mark E Haedicke@ECT on 03/28/2001 04:24 PM
To: Mark Frevert/Enron@EnronXGate, Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT, John J 
Lavorato/Enron@EnronXGate, Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rick 
Buy/Enron@EnronXGate, Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, 
Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, William  S 
Bradford/Enron@EnronXGate
cc:  

Subject: Proposed Changes to Business Practices Based on the California 
Energy Crisis

Over the past several months, we have reviewed in detail our trading 
contracts and the companies through which we conduct our trading business in 
California.  In order to reduce Enron's non-market risks ( e.g. legal, credit 
and regulatory) in the volatile commodity markets in California or any " 
future California", we propose the following changes:

1.    Mandatory Uniform Set-Off Provisions in All Trading Contracts for All 
Commodities -- set-off language varies commodity by commodity in trading 
contracts.  Set-off is one of the most critical tools available to Enron in a 
major default situation and it is critical to have set-off language and to 
have it be uniform commodity to commodity so that Enron can get the best 
advantage from set-off and not just the least common denominator.

2.     Master Netting Agreements For Appropriate Counterparties With Multiple 
Masters With Significant Opposite Exposures -- where it is necessary to have 
multiple masters with a counterparty, a "bridge" should be put in place 
between the masters whenever there is significant opposite exposures under 
the two or more masters.

3.     Merge EPMI into ENA -- power trades are done through EPMI.  Merging 
EPMI into ENA and conducting power trades through ENA is much more efficient 
from both a credit and legal point of view.

4.     No Automatic Termination for a Bankruptcy Event -- in the PGE/SCE 
situation, it should be the non-defaulting party's (Enron in this case) 
option to terminate rather than an automatic termination on "inability to pay 
debts as they become due".

Let me know if you have any other proposed changes to our trading contracts 
or entities through which we conduct our trading.  I believe these changes 
will (i) improve efficiency, (ii) reduce risks, (iii) develop the opportunity 
to do more business with certain counterparties and (iv) substantially 
improve Enron's position in the next California type market.  The long range 
goal is to conduct as much as possible of the trading business through a 
single entity and a single or limited number of standardized agreements.