Message-ID: <13589904.1075844458542.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: carol.clair@enron.com
To: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
Subject: Setoff language
Cc: sara.shackleton@enron.com, mark.taylor@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: sara.shackleton@enron.com, mark.taylor@enron.com
X-From: Carol St Clair
X-To: Elizabeth Sager
X-cc: Sara Shackleton, Mark E Taylor
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Forms
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

Elizabeth:
We are in the process of negotiating 2 ISDA masters with a counterparty, 1 
with ENA and 1 with PGE.  In looking at our setoff language, it would appear 
as if under certain circumstances the application of such language would 
result in PGE subsidizing ENA's payment obligations.  How would you suggest 
we handle this?  If we do nothing and such provision is unenforceable and we 
rely on our severability language, are we okay?
Carol