I was informed by Steve Douglas this morning that for tax reasons we need t= o assign a number of weather transactions ENA entered into with XL Trading = Partners Ltd. from ENA to Chiricahua III LLC and Chiricahua V LLC. These t= wo entities are ultimately wholly owned subsidiaries of ENA. It is intende= d that these entities will also enter into a few weather transactions direc= tly with XL Trading Partners Ltd. All of these transactions must have a te= rm that ends no later than midnight December 31 2001. My understanding is t= hat some time after these transactions are assigned or entered into the Chi= ricahua entities will be liquidated sometime during the month of December a= nd the weather transactions will be transferred to the parent entity which = will subsequently be liquidated and moved to its parent and so on until the= transactions end up at ENA. I would ask Bret or Steve to clarify the proc= ess to the extent that I have left anything out or misstated the proposal i= n broad terms. If anyone needs a detailed explanation of the process pleas= e call Bret at ext. 54390. I would ask that everyone review the attached documentation in light of the= proposal above to give their views from a credit, Dynegy merger agreement,= legal, operational, commercial, corporate governance, and guarantor perspe= ctive. I am proposing the following draft documents for the assignment of the ENA = trades to Chiricahua III and V entities. =20 =20 I am proposing the following blacklined draft master agreements to be enter= ed into between Chiricahua III and V and XL Trading Partners Inc. These ar= e based on the executed ENA/XL Trading master. Please note that Chiricahua= and XL Trading would be providing parent guaranties in the form previously= agreed upon by ENA and XL Trading. Deb, please note the documents to be d= elivered section for the Chiricahua entities. Will we need some new resolu= tions passed? =20 I am attaching final drafts of the confirmations that were entered into bet= ween the parties. The first six will be assigned to Chiricahua III and the= second six will be assigned to Chiricahua V. Rebecca, please note that I = will need copies of the executed confirmations for these transactions or th= e document that we sent to XL Trading if they have not yet signed the docum= ent by tomorrow midday if at all possible so I can attach them as exhibits. Chiricahua III =20 Chiricahua V =20 Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on the documentati= on. If you have any comments or questions relating to the tax purpose or p= rocess of this series of transactions please call Bret Well at ext. 54390. Regards,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Chiricahua Assignments
John, I have reviewed the contracts (Asset Agreement and the GPA) and here are my= thoughts regarding your request. In short, the agreements do not specific= ally address capacity being needed by third parties. ENA does have a right= to all of their capacity free and clear of all encumbrances. Last year we= did discuss this issue (the interruptible VNG customers wanting to take re= leases of VNG capacity), but at the time Jim Scabareti indicated that he wa= s going to play hard ball with his interruptible shippers in year 2 (i.e. n= ow), since VNG was really getting tight on assets due year-on-year load gro= wth and no new capacity additions. He gave the assets up last year because= he did not want to have any noise at the VSCC when the VSCC was considerin= g the affiliate relationship between VNG and AGLES. However, as I reflect = on it now, it seems to me that VNG (aka Sequent) really needs to weigh heav= ily the decision to release any assets to third parties through this winter= (interruptible or otherwise). At a minimum, any releases should be done r= ecallable based on weather forecasts based on some HDD amount. The profit = sharing provision is the same for years 1 and 2. My suggestion is that you do the following: (1) remind Sequent about the de= liverability issue facing VNG and (2) develop a plan with Sequent for talki= ng to Customers, so as to minimize any VSCC risk since the VSCC thinks Sequ= ent is VNG's asset manager. =20 Mark Breese is back in the office tomorrow and I will confer with him as we= ll. You might seek Jeff Hodge's thoughts as well. If you have any questio= ns, please ask. Regards,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: VNG transportation capacity
Gerald, this will confirm our telephone conversation earlier this morning in which you advised me that Enron/LRCI would have no objection to my firm representing Reliant in connection with the referenced matter. I shall look forward to working with you in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion. Should you have any questions as this matter proceeds, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: LRCI/Reliant Sale - Assumption Parish, Louisiana Property
Today I filed on behalf of EPMI a brief protest of Entergy's proposed overhaul of the ancillary services provisions of its OATT. The protest focuses on modifications we believe Entergy must make in order for the tariff provisions to be nondiscriminatory. Susan Scott Lindberg
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Protest of Entergy ancillary services filing