Message-ID: <28002631.1075842236108.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:55:00 -0800 (PST) From: kim.ward@enron.com To: dan.hyvl@enron.com Subject: RE: Cc: barry.tycholiz@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: barry.tycholiz@enron.com X-From: Kim Ward X-To: Dan J Hyvl X-cc: Barry Tycholiz X-bcc: X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: HYVL-D X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf Dan, When we originally discussed a physical gas contract with SMUD, I mentioned that we had sent them a contract in the past. That is why I asked if we could incorporate some of the language from their long term contract in order to appear to be working with them. Also, I was under the impression that you were working with Shari to incorporate applicable language from the agreements that we have come to terms with them on. So, I guess using the standard agreement, which is not what I requested, might have been a waste of your time. I understand that their contract language might be lacking and I didn't expect to use their contract in full. ( He indicated that SMUD used language from one of Enron's old contracts?). If you say that we can't use any of their language - that's fine too. It just seems as though you sent a standard form without considering my requests. I also need to be informed of the reasons we can't use any of their language so I can discuss this with them. SMUD is one of the customers we have already missed opportunities with and if we can appear to work with them - it would be to our benefit. Legal, as well as credit, is considered to be a part of the team that helps build these customer relationships. I hope we can work with them on this agreement. Thanks, Kim Dan J Hyvl 03/13/2001 05:39 AM To: Kim Ward/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: RE: Kim, What is meant by a "new review of this agreement"? Have they reviewed the master previously? If so, I have been wasting my time inserting the credit requirements into the standard agreement? I have reviewed the contract form that they provided and it is lacking in numerous areas. I think it is a form they put together for use with a Canadian producer. The remedy for a default is determined by the sales or purchase price that the other party can negotiate, as such ENA cannot comply because we do not allow anyone the ability to review our contracts with other parties. The form also has no credit provisions, no limitation of liability provisions, no acceleration provisions in the event of default, etc. Additionally, a transaction can only be done by signing a confirm, and if not signed, no agreement. Let's discuss where we go from here. Kim Ward 03/12/2001 05:17 PM To: Dan Hyvl cc: Subject: RE: Dan, This was the reaction that I just got from SMUD. I am assuming that we didn't incorporate any of their language, which is fine. It would just be a point of discussion if I could point out that we were working with their language. Thanks, Kim ---------------------- Forwarded by Kim Ward/HOU/ECT on 03/12/2001 05:14 PM --------------------------- Calvin Miller on 03/12/2001 03:15:47 PM To: "'Kim.Ward@enron.com'" cc: Subject: RE: Kim- I received your e-mail. I did not know that you were sending "your Master Agreement". I'm not sure as to when I will be able to give a "new" review of this agreement. Calvin -----Original Message----- From: Kim.Ward@enron.com [mailto:Kim.Ward@enron.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:32 PM To: cmiller@smud.org Subject: Calvin, Attached is a draft copy of our Master Firm Physical Gas Agreement. Please let me know what I can do to help facilitate the process required to get this in place. Thanks, Kim (See attached file: SMUD_enfolio_draft1_Mar_12.doc)