|
|
Enron Mail |
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
|