Peter:

My only concerns would be:

 (1) To the extent of any overlap in customers (which seems unlikely but it's 
happened here), we would want all of the transactions to be in the same 
entity for netting and setoff purposes.
 (2)  It's been a while since we've done any due diligence focused on retail 
financial transactions in Canada.  We are pretty restricted in that area in 
the US.  As I remember it, the new law and subsequent regulations we 
unearthed a couple of years ago may impose similar restrictions in Canada.
 (3)  If traders in the US might close one of these transactions with a 
Canadian counterparty or traders in Canada transacted with a US counterparty, 
they would not be covered by the services agreement in place between Enron 
Canada and ENA.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Mark T.



	Peter Keohane
	05/09/2001 03:28 PM
		 
		 To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: Rob Milnthorp/CAL/ECT@ECT, Mark Powell/CAL/ECT@ECT, Mark 
Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sharon Crawford/CAL/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Financial Transactions - Enron Direct Canada

Mark (and Mark) are there any concerns with Enron Direct Canada (EDC) (the 
mass markets retail affiliate, that is soon to be a subsidiary of EES) as 
opposed to Enron Canada (as wholesale affiliate of ENA) entering into 
financial transactions?  To date EDC has been entering into physical 
transactions only for gas and power under forms that have been developed 
based upon our wholesale physical contracts, Enron Direct UK's form, and 
compliance with the local regulatory requirements for retailers.  If EDC was 
to enter into financial transactions, they would tend to be papered under 
omnibus financial GTCs with EDC (as ISDAs would likely not be marketable).  
Of course credit would need to be obtained in advance, and the transactions 
are not booked until the counterparty executes the paper.  Please let me know.

Peter.