Problem: BODY: Bob: Thanks for the memo and we should discuss in a future meeting dedicated to form changes. If we adopt the 2000 Definitions in our Schedule, we will also need to change the existing reference in Part 6(f)(iii) to "Negotiated Fallback" (to Section 7.5(c)(iv)) Also, the term "Relevant Price" is used in the "Negotiated Fallback" definition. We should clarify whether we need to retain Part 6(f)(iv) of the Schedule when using "Negotiated Fallback" or whether we intend that "Fallback Reference Dealers" be an entirely separate and distinct fallback (i.e. the 4th fallback in our Schedule).
======
A: SUBJECT: ISDA 2000 Supplement to the 1993 Commodity Derivatives Definitions

Problem: BODY: Please note the following addition to the credit reserve for October 2001: CP: Talisman Energy Inc. Deal No: 813319 Deal Date: 10/10/01 Deal Specifics: ECC sells financial swap to CP Term: 1/1/2002 thru 12/31/2010 Volume: 2 MW/h, 7x24 Price: Fixed $41.90 CAD Region: Alberta Power Pool Trader/Mid-Marketer: John Zufferli/Derek Davies Credit Reserve Amount: $65,000 CAD RAC: transaction confirmed under 3/4/99 ISDA Master Agreement between ECC and Talisman Energy Inc. Please call with questions or comment. Thank you
======
A: SUBJECT: October Reserves - Talisman Deal #813319

Problem: BODY: Cynthia: As you know, the Bankruptcy Code revisions never made it through the recent Congress. I understand they bogged down in the final days over issues which were essentially irrelevant to us in ECT. I'm not sure you are aware of the importance to our trading business of certain of the other proposed revisions. We anticipate that the revisions will be reintroduced in the next Congress and are beginning to think about ways that we can influence the outcome this time around. Are you the right person in your shop for us to talk to about this? If you could let me know, I'd appreciate it. Thanks,
======
A:
SUBJECT: Bankruptcy Code revisions