Message-ID: <5827770.1075854470705.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 04:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: david.delainey@enron.com
To: adam.umanoff@enron.com
Subject: Indian Mesa
Cc: mark.frevert@enron.com, james.noles@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mark.frevert@enron.com, james.noles@enron.com
X-From: David W Delainey
X-To: Adam Umanoff
X-cc: Mark Frevert, James L Noles
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: Delainey-D
X-FileName: ddelain.nsf

Adam, I believe that we have formally responded to all your issues as per 
your memo to me of August 8, 2000. In all or almost all cases, we have 
accepted your position.  The agreement should look and behave very closely to 
what you would have signed with the competing utility. In addition, ENA is 
paying a higher price, sharing credits and have voluntarily increased the 
term to twelve years from ten.

I do not understand what is holding up completing this transaction other than 
a complete re-trade on the original transaction. I hope this is not the 
case.  The ENA team worked hard to facilitate this transaction for Enron 
Wind.  In fact, we were originally solicited by Enron Wind to help build the 
merchant wind market and we had to coax Enron Wind to do this transaction 
with ENA versus TXU.

I look forward to finding a solution to this current impasse.

Regards
Delainey