Looking through my e-mail messages, I did receive SoCal's comments on 
Thursday afternoon of last week.  On cursory review, little if anything has 
changed in the format.  SoCal has suggested splitting the one guarantee into 
two guarantees, one for trading and the other for the tariff program.  With 
respect to the guarantee for trading, SoCal has conceded on a few points.  
Alternatively, SoCal has communicated that it will not concede with respect 
to my comments on the guarantee for the tariff program.  Of course the lack 
of changes with respect to my comments is not conducive for finalizing the 
guarantees and, based upon numerous past examples, will result in protracted 
negotiations.  I must add to the last sentence of your e-mail below, SoCal is 
unwilling to transact with Enron until we agree to its terms in the 
guarantee.  Given the situation, and the desire to trade immediately with 
SoCal, you may want to consider temporary security until we can reach 
resolution on the guarantees.  The alternative is to suggest to SoCal that it 
has entered into several guarantees with Enron Corp. that in the past was 
acceptable to SoCal, the most recent in June 2000, and that we find it 
difficult to understand why SoCal is insistant on using the form that is 
proposes.  



	Russell Diamond@ECT
	10/17/2000 12:02 PM
		 
		 To: Clement Abrams/Corp/Enron@ENRON
		 cc: William S Bradford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Phillip K Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jane M 
Tholt/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 Subject: Southern California Gas -Gty

Clement,

Please give me a status update on your review of the SoCal guaranty.  
Conversations with their credit group indicate SoCal has sent back their 
comments to the guaranty to you and are now waiting on your comments.  As I 
have mentioned in previous e-mails, SoCal is unwilling to transact with Enron 
until the guaranty situation has been resolved.  

Thank you,
Russell