Supplement to Gas Letter

I'm OK with the language, but I want to make sure everyone is OK on the
concept. When we left this (unless there have been subsequent conversations
with ECS that I wasn't a part of) we rejected Courtney's proposal to reduce
our up front payment by $500,000. He was to come back and propose a monthly
quantity of gas to be paid over the term of the contract that would equate to
the $500,000, but I don't recall that we agreed to it. Did we intend to
leave the issue open for more horsetrading on the amount of a haircut ECS
should take or were we content to cover ECS at 100 cents on the dollar? I am
advised that the Btu number in the letter would allow ECS to get the full
$500,000 of up front value.

Rod and Steve--this one is up to you and I think its totally a question of
whether we want to argue for some more $$ because I can't think of any other
open issue with ECS on this or any other deals that we might be able to
trade. DF

---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 05/11/2000
05:46 PM ---------------------------

From: Susan Scott 05/11/2000 03:37 PM

To: David Foti/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, James Centilli/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON

Subject: Supplement to Gas Letter

Please take a look at this and let me know whether it accurately reflects
what you discussed with ECS. I'm reviewing it now and will let you know my
comments soon. They want to sign this up tomorrow.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 05/11/2000
03:34 PM ---------------------------

Gerald Nemec@ECT
05/11/2000 03:35 PM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Knippa/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Supplement to Gas Letter

Susan, Attached is the supplement to the gas letter which increases the
amount of gas TW delivers to the LLC. Please review and let me know.