|
|
Enron Mail |
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000
04:13 PM --------------------------- David W Delainey 08/25/2000 09:09 AM To: Adam Umanoff/EWC/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Indian Mesa Adam, thanks for the response, I guess it is a good thing for Enron that we didn't do this deal with TXU. Nevertheless, I hope that we can find a way through this without significantly impairing value for ENA. The ENA team will work with you on this item;however, I need your committment to try and keep us whole as much as possible. Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 08/25/2000 09:00 AM --------------------------- Adam Umanoff@ENRON 08/22/2000 06:59 PM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Indian Mesa Thanks for the message. I appreciate your responses to my August 8 memo and agree that the deal you are currently proposing looks alot closer to the deal we had been discussing with TXU. As far as negotiating approach is concerned, my intention was not to retrade our deal, but frankly your team's approach up until your recent response certainly suggested that you were. As we considered our options, we used the time to scrub our economics and as I think Jim Noles told you, have discovered that our economics have deteriorated (significantly). Not your fault/problem, but a real issue for me. I have my people looking at the deal again to see if we can offer some creative suggestions to improve the deal for us (without killing you). At the end of the day, I want to do this deal; but I can't do an uneconomic deal. By the way, the other parties who signed up with TXU all did so in the $26-27.5 range (energy and RECs), suggesting that our deal for you is way under market. I am committed to pushing hard to get this deal done! Let's talk later this week once my team hooks up with yours to see if we have a way forward. Adam David W Delainey@ECT 08/21/2000 09:49 AM To: Adam Umanoff/EWC/Enron@ENRON cc: Mark Frevert/NA/Enron@Enron, James L Noles/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Subject: Indian Mesa Adam, I believe that we have formally responded to all your issues as per your memo to me of August 8, 2000. In all or almost all cases, we have accepted your position. The agreement should look and behave very closely to what you would have signed with the competing utility. In addition, ENA is paying a higher price, sharing credits and have voluntarily increased the term to twelve years from ten. I do not understand what is holding up completing this transaction other than a complete re-trade on the original transaction. I hope this is not the case. The ENA team worked hard to facilitate this transaction for Enron Wind. In fact, we were originally solicited by Enron Wind to help build the merchant wind market and we had to coax Enron Wind to do this transaction with ENA versus TXU. I look forward to finding a solution to this current impasse. Regards Delainey
|