Subject: Re: FW: optout language for TVA
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:56:00 -0800 (PST)

Elizabeth -- Three comments to consider:

In the first change, I think that I understand your change, but my impression 
was that "provided for in this Confirmation" was referring or tieing 
specifically to the "deal" defined in the Confirmation, therefore the change 
to say "may be agreed to" seems to weaken that reference.

On the 10th line, does adding the word "firm" in front of energy potentially 
conflict with the specific transaction if it is something more or something 
different than a simple firm deal.  Shouldn't the level of firmness be fully 
defined elsewhere in the confirm.

In (b), suggest adding some reference to quantity after your reference to 
timing along these lines:  " (b)  the starting and ending time and date, and 
the quantity of the release or interruption;"     Since partial quantity 
releases are possible/likely, probably even successive releases (due to 
gradual weather changes)  it would be equally as important to identify 
quantity and timing.  Example:  start with 200 MW for the month, release 50 
MW starting day 10 for balance of month, then another 50 MW over a weekend.

As always, thanks for your assistance. -- David

Joseph Wagner@ENRON
12/06/2000 02:57 PM
To: David Fairley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kyle Schultz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rogers 
Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect
cc:  
Subject: Re: FW: optout language

---------------------- Forwarded by Joseph Wagner/NA/Enron on 12/06/2000 
02:55 PM ---------------------------
From: Elizabeth Sager@ECT on 12/06/2000 02:53 PM
To: Joseph Wagner/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: FW: optout language  

Attached is TVA language, to which I made a few changes.  Concept is fine, 
but before we start using and drop in confirm I will need to see the rest of 
a draft confirm that we use with TVA.