As for the email on Risk Memos:  I thought it looked good and is very 
appropriate.  I did note that there were 4 categories for low risk 
jurisdictions, and only 3 categories for each of medium and high risk 
jurisdictions.  Maybe we cannot have a "no legal" risk in a high risk 
jurisdiction; but what about "many significant" legal issues in a medium risk 
jurisdiction?  Is this then too many categories?   Also, would it make any 
sense to have ratings of 1 through 4 only, with a requirement to specify 
whether we are dealing with a low, medium or high risk jurisdiction?  In 
other words, could anyone be confused into believing that  a rating of 4 is 
better than a rating of a 5?  As currently set forth, a higher rating does 
not necessarily equate to a greater risk.  Unless a reader were very familiar 
with the rating scale, someone might interpret a low number, out of say 10, 
as having minimal risk, when ratings 4, 7 and 10 may actually be the "worst".

As for the OGC and Legal Committee:  I note only that Dan and Lisa would no 
longer be on the LC.  How do you think we would convey this to them?  Also, I 
was understanding that Stuart would start to be included.  I have also been 
asked recently where Randy Young technically fits within the system.  He is 
on the OGC, but I am still confused where he is technically on some 
organization chart.  

Thanks.  Lance.

W. Lance Schuler
Enron North America Corp.
1400 Smith Street, EB 3826
Houston, Texas  77002
Phone:  713/853-5419
Fax:  713/646-3393
Email:  lance.schuler-legal@enron.com