Your recollection is correct.  However, I got the disturbing sense that FERC 
would have pounded NGPL for setting the recouse rate a penny higher than the 
negotiated rate reserve price.  Lets talk MOn. on whether we are still OK on 
the ENA deal.  Thanks. DF   


   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           12/17/99 05:20 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley 
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: ENA Deal  

I think the major difference is that in NGPL"s as I recall, they set the 
recourse at max while the other negotiated rate was significantly lower.  We 
did not set the recourse at max--  MK


   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           12/17/99 03:28 PM
	

To: Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria 
Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: ENA Deal

I read Wednesday's NGPL order (RP00-18-002) as applying only to NGPL due to 
their unique restrictions and tariff rules.  I do not read it as forcing the 
rest of the industry (i.e., us) to use the floor rate as the reserve price 
for negotiated index rate bids and ordinary recourse rate bids.  I think we 
can still determine the reserve price on a prearranged deal like the ENA deal 
based on our good faith valuation of the upside provided by the index 
mechanism.  I.e., on that type of deal, we can determine that the index 
mechanism is worth "x cents" to us and require a discounted recourse rate 
bidder to bid more than the floor plus x cents to win.  Agreed?  

Note that NGPL whined that the unique rules they are subject to place them at 
a competitve disadvantage to the rest of the industry (i.e., us) on this 
issue.  The commission didn't say anything about that, implying to me that 
the rest of us are still free to do what NGPL cannot do.   DF