Message-ID: <9073823.1075845899248.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: reagan.rorschach@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com, heather.kroll@enron.com, david.fairley@enron.com, 
	kayne.coulter@enron.com, jeffrey.miller@enron.com
Subject: RE: Beck Comments
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Reagan Rorschach
X-To: Kay Mann, Heather Kroll, David Fairley, Kayne Coulter, Jeffrey Miller
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Notes inbox
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

See assignments and comments in red.  Reagan/Kayne/Dave/Jeff responses due =
to=20
Kay by noon today.


1) General comments -=20
a) We have not seen a draft of the MPPSA or the MGPSA for review and commen=
t.=20
Kay
b) All section references in the draft should be reviewed and checked.  The=
=20
majority of the references checked were incorrect. Kay
c) Since financial security is still an outstanding issue, all comments=20
regarding the provisions in the draft pertaining to that subject have been=
=20
excluded.  Kay
d) The draft contains references throughout to exhibits that will be attach=
ed=20
to the agreement that were not included in the draft.  See bleow. =20

2) Article 1, pages 6 and 7 - Profit and Savings: These definitions referen=
ce=20
exhibits that were not included in the draft.   One of the most significant=
=20
issues we had with the prior drafts were with the definition for "savings" =
so=20
it is important to review a draft of these exhibits as soon as possible.  =
=20
Reagan/Kayne/Dave/Jeff to chech with Marvin.  He should have forwarded=20
exhibits with everything else.  time is running out on them to do anything=
=20
here.  Will report more on this issue.
  =20
3) Section 3.1(b): This section obligates EPMI to =01&Propose=018 a load pr=
ojection=20
and stack model.  Should this say =01&Prepare=018 as opposed to =01&Propose=
=018. =20
"Prepare" is fine.

4) Section 3.1(c): First line refers to a =01&request by Customer=018.  Cus=
tomer is=20
not defined, is this intended to refer to MDEA?  If not, include a definiti=
on=20
of Customer.  "...upon request by Customer" is not necessary.  This has=20
already been done.

5) Section 3.2(a): Provides that EPMI will use =01&commercially reasonable=
=20
efforts=018.  The draft does not include a definition for this term.  Sugge=
st=20
including a definition since this standard is used throughout the draft.  K=
ay

6) Section 3.2(a): Suggest adding the following phrase in the second line=
=20
after =01&schedule Products=018, =01&in a manner intended to minimize the c=
ost of=20
serving MDEA=01,s native load=018.  Adding this seems fine; however, are th=
ere any=20
legal implications, Kay?  If not, add it in.
=20
7) Section 3.2(c): Line 3 refers to Cajun and EPI, which are not defined in=
=20
the draft.  Suggest including definitions or inserting the phrase =01&Exist=
ing=20
Contract Resources=018 in place of =01&SEPA, Cajun, EPI=018.  The substitut=
ion is fine.

8) Section 3.2(h): Line 1 provides =01&EPMI will optimize scheduling and us=
age=20
or resale (when appropriate)=018.  Would suggest deleting =01&when appropri=
ate=018 and=20
inserting =01&(in accordance with the terms and conditions of each Existing=
=20
Contracted Resources contract)=018.  The suggested change is OK.

9) Section 4.1(a): Line 1 requires MDEA to operate and maintain its native=
=20
load distribution system in accordance with Prudent Operating practices=01(=
.=018. =20
Would suggest deleting the phrase =01&and the Native Load distribution syst=
em=018. =20
This agreement does not bear on how the cities would operate and maintain=
=20
their distribution systems.  Reagan/Kayne/Dave/Jeff

10) Section 6.4: The fourth sentence states =01& due to the use of imprecis=
e=20
data such as weather reports, heat rate estimates and the like, it is=20
understood between the Parties that the resulting projections,=20
recommendations and daily plan are consistent with commercially reasonable=
=20
industry practices=018.   According to this provision, the parties agree in=
=20
advance that the resulting projections, recommendations and daily plans are=
=20
consistent with commercially reasonable industry practices.  We believe tha=
t=20
the =01&use of that type of data=018 is consistent with commercially reason=
able=20
industry practices, but do not believe that that this automatically=20
translates into the projections themselves being consistent with commercial=
ly=20
reasonable industry practices.  Text should be changed as appropriate to=20
reflect this change.  Reagan/Kayne/Dave/Jeff


11) Section 7.1: Second sentence provides =01&Risk of loss and all price an=
d=20
unit contingency and transmission risk shall be borne by Customer=018.  Sug=
gest=20
adding the phrase =01& For Back to Back Transactions=018 at the beginning o=
f this=20
sentence.  MDEA should not be responsible for unit contingency, transmissio=
n=20
risk etc. for an EPMI Transaction.    Reagan/Kayne/Dave/Jeff

12) Section 10.2(a): Line 3, change =01& MDA=018 to =01&MDEA=018.  Kay

13) Section 14.6: Line 3, change =01&and the MPPSA=018 to =01&the MPPSA and=
 the=20
MGPSA=018.  Kay

14) Section 15.1(d): provides three business days written notice to the=20
defaulting party to cure a Financial Event of Default, otherwise the=20
agreement can be terminated.  Three days is too short of a time period for=
=20
MDEA.  Kay/David Hunt/Jeff

15) Section 17.1: Second sentence, provides that an independent auditor=20
reasonably acceptable to EPMI is entitled to audit all books and records of=
=20
EPMI.  However this provision goes on to state that EPMI shall be entitled =
to=20
audit MDEA=01,s books, not an independent auditor subject to MDEA=01,s appr=
oval.=20
Suggest deleting =01&EPMI shall be entitled to audit=018 and adding =01&An =
independent=20
auditor reasonably acceptable to MDEA=018.  Kay

16) Article 28: As we have previously noted, this section contains language=
=20
related to conflict of interest issues and the lack of notification related=
=20
to conflicts of interest that should be read carefully reviewed by MDEA and=
=20
the Cities.  Kay/David Hunt/Jeff