Regarding the need for the RMT confirms, I have always thought this was really a tax issue and that for audit purposes they were needed.  If that is not the case, I don't object to doing away with them altogether.

We have approved doing away with confirms for EOL trades on a counterparty by counterparty basis.  We haven't actually gotten there with anyone yet, having just started the actual discussions this week.  Our plan was to negotiate an written agreement with each affected counterparty to amend the master agreements where appropriate.  Initially we are only working on physical power, physical natural gas and derivatives transactions (other than weather).  The idea is that a lawyer from each affected group would be involved to insure that all of the bases are properly covered.  This will obviously be a very time-consuming and laborious process.  The initial list of 10 or 15 counterparties to approach was selected by the back office people.  Our conclusion that this was even possible was based only on Texas and New York law analysis.  If any Canadian deals are at issue, we will need to get you involved both for the analysis and the negotiations.

Hope this is helpful.  Let me know if it makes sense to you.

Mark

P.S. -- Please be careful when sending e-mails to me.  There are two Mark Taylors and we're hard to tell apart.  The other guy has his middle initial ("A") in some of the lists and sometimes there is a globe next to his name, but not mine.  My name usually has my phone number next to it.  We're trying to get the IT people to do something to better distinguish us.
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Taylor, Mark  
Sent:	Monday, June 25, 2001 11:43 AM
To:	Taylor, Mark
Subject:	Financial Confirms


---------------------- Forwarded by Mark A Taylor/EFS/EES on 06/25/2001 12:45 PM ---------------------------
From:	Peter Keohane/ENRON@enronXgate@enronXgate on 06/25/2001 11:00 AM CDT
Sent by:	Sharon Crawford/ENRON@enronXgate
To:	Mark A Taylor/EFS/EES@EES
cc:	Peggy Hedstrom/ENRON@enronXgate, Dianne Seib/ENRON@enronXgate, Laura E Scott/ENRON@enronXgate, Morris Richard Clark/ENRON@enronXgate, Greg Johnston/ENRON@enronXgate, Mark Powell/ENRON@enronXgate, Chris Gaffney/TOR/ECT@ECT, Derek Flaman/ENRON@enronXgate, Linda Sietzema/ENRON@enronXgate, Sharon Crawford/ENRON@enronXgate 
Subject:	Financial Confirms

Mark, I wanted to track down two procedural matters with you respecting financial confirms:

1.	Currently we generate approximately 40-50 confirmations each day between ECC and ENA/RMT, which creates some significant administrative and filing burdens.  I am generally aware, but not precisely clear on the details, that there has been a recent decision that for certain counterparties, or at least with respect to EOL transactions, that Confirms are no longer necessary.  If in fact this is the case, can we do away with the formal confirmation procedures between ECC and ENA/RMT where there is not likely to be any dispute.  [Morris/Laura, if we do away with the formal confirms between ECC and ENA/RMT, and provided that we have a TAGG or Sitara Deal Ticket, is there any ancillary tax purpose for generating confirms between ECC and ENA/RMT?]

2.	In the same vein, for certain non-inter-company financial transactions completed on EOL, I understand that it has been approved not to send Confirms.  Again, Mark can you please clarify this policy for me, including how we determine for which counterparties this ought to apply in Canada.  It was my (again general) understanding that it may have depended upon the wording of the Master Agreement with the counterparty and/or the volume of  transactions executed with the counterparty.

Please let me know.

Regards,
____________________________________
Peter C.M. Keohane
Vice President, Assistant General Counsel
and Secretary
Enron Canada Corp.
3500, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta  T2P 4H2
Phone:	(403) 974-6923
Fax:	(403) 974-6707
E-mail:	peter.keohane@enron.com