Some corrections to the write-up for the first one for EES, some attribtuon 
changes (I think) and an additional valuation for EES.  Also, includes 
changes to the write-ups for ENA and what I got from Tim Belden.  I also have 
a note discussing Tim Belden's "philosophy" in giving me valuations.

EES

RAP '98
Enron raised the issue of the UDCs imposing an artificial cap on the PX 
credit for direct customers during the very first proceedings during which 
the method of CTC collection was raised.  The CPUC shined us on. Later, we 
raised it in the very first Revenue Adjustment Proceeding (RAP '98) RAP '98 
and ensured that it became part of WPTF's case as well.  The way the "cap" 
worked, the UDCs would not pay ESPs the full PX credit when prices were high 
-- they would pay a credit that, when added to the other bill components, did 
not exceed the frozen rate for the direct access customer, thereby costing 
ESPs a lot of  money  potentially.  It was clear in the previous CPUC direct 
access decisions that UDCs had no right to cap direct access credits. Because 
of our good case and the fact that the UDCs believed the chance of such high 
PX prices was LOW, the UDCs settled on this issue in 1999.

2000 NPV estimated by Dennis Benevides: $30 - 40 million
% Attributed to Enron's GA Efforts: 90%

Green Credit Legislation
Enron and other green suppliers began work in 1998 to extend the credit given 
for sales of green power. The credit was scheduled to end by 2002. In 1999, 
the money specified in AB 1890 was being depleted rapidly and Green Mountain 
took the lead in pressing for legislation. We actively supported Green 
Mountain by lobbying legislators and other interest groups, working with 
environmental organisations, and spearheading legislative amendments.  
Although this bill became wrapped up in the San Diego crisis and ISO/PX 
issues, the green credit portion of the bill remained intact.  We had also 
decided jointly to propose a ten-year credit and were very pleased and 
surprised that it survived into the final bill.  Governor Davis is expected 
to sign the bill. 

2000 NPV estimated by Dennis Benevides: $50 million
% Attributed to Enron's GA Efforts: 25%

RAP '99
Enron, through ARM, has successfully made its case that retail procurement 
and retail sales costs should be removed from the Distribution Charge that 
all customers pay.  Direct Access customers would receive a credit on their 
bills in addition to the PX credit. Enron was the first party to raise these 
issues as part of RAP '98 and got a Commission decision in that case to 
determine the credit in RAP '99.  In RAP '99, Enron chose to use ARM to 
litigate the case as a cheaper alternative.  Hearings were completed in the 
Spring of 2000.  ARM has negotiated settlement rates with certain parties and 
has convinced the Assigned Commissioner to draft his own decision to 
counteract the unfavorable ALJ decision. An additional credit of from $0.25 
to $0.30/MWh is expected.  The decision will be voted out within the next two 
months.

2000 NPV estimated by Dennis Benevides: $1 - 5 million
% Attributed to Enron's GA Efforts: 75%

San Diego Marketing
Government Affairs worked closely with EES origination to help the staff 
understand the wildly fluctuating regulatory and political arena in San Diego 
and to assist its efforts to take advantage of the unique marketing 
opportunity afforded by volatile wholesale market prices.  EES created a new 
Enron milestone.  Beginning at a point with no personnel working on San Diego 
deals, EES moved in and was able to sign deals worth $1 million in three 
weeks time.  EES has received kudos from the highest levels of Enron for this 
effort, which continues today.  Martin Wenzel and Doug Condon of EES 
origination have stated their belief that these deals would not have happened 
with the assistance of Government Affairs.

2000 NPV estimated by Doug Condon: $1 million and growing
% Attributed to Enron's  GA Efforts: 90%


ENA

Note:  Tim Belden, VP West Trading Desk, discussed with me how these 
valuations would be used.  He found it difficult to assess Gov Affairs' 
contribution to the ENA dollars made.  In the end, he settled on the concept 
that Government Affairs works, sometimes for years, to present ENA with an 
opportunity to make money and then it is up to ENA to run with it.  So, the 
value Tim provides is the value ENA made with the opportunity.  I think this 
is consistent with the way Dennis Benevides calculated the value for me.


FTR Release April 1, 2000
I have spearheaded the release of firm transmission rights in CA since I 
joined the Company in 11/96.  When I joined Enron, the plan of market 
participants was to have financial-only rights.  I began working immediately 
to move people in the direction of physical rights. A very long and painful 
fight ensued, including a number of personal appearances by Bill Hogan. This 
culminated with an ISO decision to have physical-type FTRs and to release 
some, but not all, FTRs in April of this year.  ENA actively participated in 
the auction and became the largest single purchaser of FTRs.  The new 
congestion management approach, which Enron also spearheaded, will require 
100% release of FTRs, but will not take effect until next year. This 
valuation looks only at the FTR release in 2000.

2000 NPV estimated by Tim Belden: $20 million
% Attributed to Enron's Efforts: 90%


ISO Price Caps
Price caps have been discussed in California beginning a few days after the 
market opened in April 1998.  Over the course of the last two years, 
Government Affairs had as a number one priority to provide rapid advance 
information on price caps, educate Board members on the effects of price 
caps, and, when appropriate, work to move price caps.  By June, 2000, ENA had 
a substantial long position in the market in the West and had millions at 
risk when lower price caps began to be discussed in CA in mid June.  
Government Affairs, working with Dave Parquet and others, was instrumental in 
delaying the movement to lower price caps by six weeks, thereby giving ENA 
time to move out of those positions in an orderly fashion .  The following 
events happened in 2000.  We entered the year with a price cap of $750, 
having fought to raise it to that level in 1999.  In March 2000, the ISO 
considered lowering the price cap to $500 but voted to leave it at $500, 
because the Board believed at the time that market power had been adequately 
mitigated.  After the three very high-priced days in June, the ISO considered 
lowering the price cap to $250 with a vote on June 22. Government Affairs 
initiated an all-out lobbying effort to convince Board members and their 
constituents to oppose lower price caps.  We also lobbied interest groups, 
banks, venture capitalists, NYMEX and others to weigh in on this issue with 
individual Board Members and the Board itself, going so far as to set up a 
special arrangement with the ISO staff to allow interested parties to address 
the Board telephonically.  The vote on June 22 failed by ONE VOTE. Instead, 
the Board lowered the price cap to $500.  The Board voted again on July 1 to 
lower the cap and again the vote failed by ONE VOTE.  Finally, on August 1, 
the Board approved the $250 price cap, effective August 7.  In the end, it 
was the end-use customers, Enron and the generators who opposed price caps.  
Utilities and munis favored them. Enron was the only party lobbying against 
the lower price caps (the generators gave up early in the fight) and had 
significant credibility with the end-use customer reps on the Board.

2000 NPV estimated by Tim Belden:  $16 million
% Attributed to Enron's Efforts: 70%


New Market-Oriented Board Member
The ISO recently held Board elections for the first time.  Government Affairs 
actively sought market-oriented individuals to run for the Board and replace 
those that do not support competitive markets.  Enron was successful in 
getting about five to run.  The Members selected or confirmed by the EOB have 
been held up and we do not yet know the outcome of those Board seats.  
However, one seat of interest has been decided.  Dave Parquet suggested a 
potential municipal representative who was extremely market-oriented (Michael 
Wood, Attorney for the City of Pittsburgh).  Government Affairs worked with 
him closely to decide which seat to run for, help him prepare his 
application, suggest lobbying tactics, assist in lobbying and support him 
with other Board Members.  He won the election and became a Board Member in 
early September.  This effort is significant, because the munis voted nearly 
100% in support of lower price caps. The position he took was one of those 
votes.  All other things being equal, we have now added a vote on our side 
that could be instrumental in defeating further efforts to impose lower or 
additional price caps, given the close votes that have taken place thus far.

2000 NPV: Tim did not feel this is measurable at this time, but agreed it 
could be worth millions if future votes are as close as they have been
% Attributed to Enron's Efforts: 100%