I am working on a financial contract audit and could not find any records in the Financial Lotus Notes Tracking system for the following counterparties. I was able to pull and make copies of the executed agreements from your legal files last week and I am sending them to the file room to be scanned into Livelink and properly filed. Since the Financial tracking system is one of our means of verifying information, would you please populate this information in it? If any of these counterparties are not active, I will need to know that information also. Counterparty Name Enron Entity Contract Date CP ID No. Global Contract No. ECT Strategic Value Corp. ECT (now ENA) 12/20/96 52121 96004598 Enron Finance Corp Enron Corp 03/01/92 1315 96006318 Joint Energy Development Investments Limited Partnership ERMS (now ENA) 09/01/93 11284 95000341 Joint Energy Development Investments II Limited Partnership ECT (now ENA) 03/31/98 60568 96031272 Lomax Exploration Company JEDI 09/21/01 11209 96010012 Louisiana Land and Exploration Company (The) ERMS (now ENA) 09/30/94 130 96000113 Methanex Corporation ECT Canada 06/04/98 6214 96019602 Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corporation ECT (now ENA) 11/10/98 64195 96018552 Please call me at 5-4435 if you have any questions. Thanks,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: COUNTERPARTIES NOT IN THE FINANCIAL TRACKING SYSTEM
- Lisa, Barbara Gray requested that I fax a copy of the subject guaranty to you for your review. This guaranty was not included in the initial list of guarantees provided by the credit group. Apparently one of the analyst had the file pulled and on his desk for review. Barbara has also asked that you prepare a Substitution and Release Agreement for this guaranty. Please call me if you have any questions. My phone number is 713-853-6895.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Enron Corp. Guarantee dated August 31, 2000 regarding Guadalupe Power Partners, L.P.
Last week, the WSPP drafing group met in sunny California to continue the slow and steady march towards a standardized, "national" agreement. Schedule C , the service schedule for firm transactions, was the primary topic and the following is a summary of where the group is headed. After much discussion, we proposed that the group consider the definition of firm energy that Tim, Christian and others have been considering. The following is proposed language (the base was EPMI's version) that the WSPP group is currently reviewing: Firm Power is power that is sold and scheduled in accordance with applicable reserve requirements for which the only excuse for the failure to deliver or recieve are those set forth in Schedule 3.9 of the WSPP Agreement. Seller shall take steps necessary for the power to be considered Firm Power under this definition. Schedule 3.9 only allows interruption if (i) within agreed recall time, (ii) due to an Uncontrollable Force or (iii) power is need for native load; provided, however it was agreed that a party would neverless be liable for LDs if it interrupts due to native load requirements (this last point is a major accomplishment that apppears to have uniform agreement and will be implemented in the next draft - the group claimed that the "optics" are necessary to help traditional utilities). As a further note, the group agreed to do away with all references to C1 and C2 and have just one Schedule. Changes from EPMI's proposed definition where the result of the following discussions: 1. Generated vs. Sold - "Sold" was elected over "generated" because the group thinks that it is the receiving control area that determines the generator's reserve requirements. 2. "Schedule" was added to bolster the scheduling requirements. 3. "Reserves" instead of "Operating Reserves" was used because the group thought the word operating may be too restrictive. 4. "WSCC reserve requirements" was replaced with "applicable" reserve requirements because the group thinks that the WSPP Agreement is national in scope and should not be limited to WSPP. 5. References to Non-firm supply as being excluded from Firm Power was excluded because the group thought it was redundent - no control area would accept a non-firm supply as being firm. 6. Power rather than energy is being used only bacause that is the decision that has already been made. This defintion will be further discussed at the next meeting on Aug 20th in Denver. Prior to that time, I would like to get your thoughts on how this is shaping up and what additions/deletions are appropriate. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
WSPP - Definition of Firm Energy