Gerald - Where we are on getting the amended CSA executed. When we spoke last - you were going to forward executed copies to me for FGT's signature, so I wanted to make sure they weren't floating around in the inter-office mail or something. Thanks, Staci
Answer: Amended Compression Services Agreement
Here is an email: As we discussed, attached is a brief description of ENA's and EES' key goals in California and the actions underway to achieve them. We'll update the status report weekly. We hope that the weekly update will serve as a useful internal communication tool to keep folks abreast of activities and developments in CA. It can also serve as a tool to help identify the need to modify our goals and/or actions as circumstances change. Comments on the form and/or substance of the document and how we can make it more useful are welcome. Best,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: California Update--12.12.00
Q: Mike: I have discussed your proposed language with Brant Reves, our credit person, and we are okay with the concept except that we would like for the ratings trigger to be based only on either a drop in the S&P rating or a failure to have an S&P rating. In addition, Brant has advised me that should we put in place a CSA, that the following would be the credit matrix for collateral threshold: BB to BB+ $2,500,000 Below BB Zero I look forward to hearing from you. Should we send you our form of Credit Support Annex?
Propose a subject line
A: MAC Language
IN: Here's the latest, not-yet-final-but-getting-better agreement. I may not have sent this to everyone who needs it, but I know Reagan will take care of it. Speaking of Reagan, he is generating exhibits. Kay

Generate a subject line.

OUT: MDEA revised draft
IN: This is an email
Can you call him about this? I wouldn't worry too much about the tone of this letter or stepping on his toes. Jim overreacts at times.

What is the subject?

OUT: DPC - Privileged and Confidential
I've simulated the Aggregate power portfolio's VAR with the BPA contract (approx. $51MM) as a stand alone (approx $3MM) and with the BPA position reversed out (approx $49MM). Only issue seems to be that the VAR related to the position per credit Agg does not "tie" with VAR related to position in Enpower - I'm attributed this to the peak/off peak simulation difference. Specifically, the credit agg file does not define what was peak or off peak, whereas file from Enpower did, resulting in more accurate measurement of risk. Bottom line is that BPA removal appears to be risk reducing. Frank
Answer:
BPA removal