Message-ID: <31487555.1075842491795.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) From: drew.fossum@enron.com To: dari.dornan@enron.com, mary.miller@enron.com, maria.pavlou@enron.com, shelley.corman@enron.com Subject: ENA Deal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Dari Dornan, Mary Kay Miller, Maria Pavlou, Shelley Corman X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf 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