|
|
Enron Mail |
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
|