Message-ID: <10622608.1075844533005.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 06:59:00 -0800 (PST)
From: sara.shackleton@enron.com
To: mark.taylor@enron.com
Subject: Financial Power - "Negative Pricing"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Sara Shackleton
X-To: Mark Taylor
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: SHACKLETON-S
X-FileName: sshackle.nsf

The east and west power desks are creating slightly different floating price 
language for some of the power pools.  The west desk wants "negative prices" 
to be averaged in as "zeroes"; the east desk wants to average in all prices 
"positive or negative".  I'm inclined to let the traders do as they wish.  I 
can't seem to get an explanation for the difference in approach (in each 
instance ENA may take either side of the deal).  The confirm desk will have 
to pay attention to the source of the confirms to use the correct pricing 
language.  I don't know if this will create an on-line trading issue.

What do you think?  Sara