Message-ID: <8248183.1075842213296.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 07:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: david.fairley@enron.com
To: dan.hyvl@enron.com
Subject: Re: SMC FP&L Confirm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: David L Fairley
X-To: Dan J Hyvl
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: HYVL-D
X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf

Dan -- It sounds okay, but I would expect them to question the need for this 
provision.  Of course, the first reason is that the deal needs to get done.  
The second is the reg-out that FP&L wants.  Is it a fair representation that 
our language is the same as FP&L's?  I know the language is not identical, 
but I want to say our language is a very short version of what FP&L has 
drafted.  Is this okay?

Also, the traders want to be sure that the $0.50/MMBtu LD's are also 
incorporated.  You may have heard this request already, so disregard mine if 
duplicate?

Thanks -- David


   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  Dan J Hyvl                           08/18/99 09:50 AM
	

To: David L Fairley/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: SMC FP&L Confirm  

David,
 Please review Item 4. of the Other provision and give me your thoughts.  



   
	Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
	
	From:  David L Fairley                           08/18/99 08:32 AM
	

To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: SMC FP&L Confirm