QUESTION: Twanda, would you please schedule a meeting with me, Hector, Sheila W., and Brian Schaffer re: follow up to the Bashen information? I would like to have this group discuss how to close the loop with Sally's employees and implement any recommendations for follow-up. I think the meeting with last approximately 1 1/2 hours. Thanks. Michelle
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Anonymous Letters

QUESTION: In connection with the execution of the new ISDA Master Agreements between ECT and ECT Canada and PG&E Energy Trading Gas Corporation and PG& E Energy Trading, Canada Corporation, we, and they, will be issuing new "umbrella" guarantees that will cover all transactions between the above entities and also cover EPMI and PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P. and CEG Energy Options Inc. (a PG&E affiliate) These new guarantees will cover all physical, financial and power transactions between the above parties. I have sent them the original of my Enron Corp. Guaranty for $105,000,000 and have received in the original of the PG&E Corporation Guaranty for $100,000,000. Rod is resolving whether we agreed to increase the Enron Corp. guaranty to $110mm. In connection with the issuance of the new bilateral guarantees I need to return to them the originals of the following PG&E guarantees: (1) PG&E Corporation Guarantee dated as of March 28, 1998 covering business between Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P., (2) PG&E Corporation Guarantee dated as of June 5, 1998 in favor of Enron Power Marketing, Inc. covering physical transactions, and (3) PG&E Energy Trading Corporation Guaranty dated March 11, 1997 covering physical business with ECT Canada. I will also be returning to you the returned originals of the Enron Corp. Prior Guarantees.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Need Documents

QUESTION: I read Wednesday's NGPL order (RP00-18-002) as applying only to NGPL due to their unique restrictions and tariff rules. I do not read it as forcing the rest of the industry (i.e., us) to use the floor rate as the reserve price for negotiated index rate bids and ordinary recourse rate bids. I think we can still determine the reserve price on a prearranged deal like the ENA deal based on our good faith valuation of the upside provided by the index mechanism. I.e., on that type of deal, we can determine that the index mechanism is worth "x cents" to us and require a discounted recourse rate bidder to bid more than the floor plus x cents to win. Agreed? Note that NGPL whined that the unique rules they are subject to place them at a competitve disadvantage to the rest of the industry (i.e., us) on this issue. The commission didn't say anything about that, implying to me that the rest of us are still free to do what NGPL cannot do. DF
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
ENA Deal