Message-ID: <10343953.1075846738758.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:50:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: mary.miller@enron.com
Subject: Re: daily firm on TW
Cc: mary.darveaux@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mary.darveaux@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Mary Kay Miller
X-cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Darveaux, Glen Hass
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

The term of the FTS-1 agreement is for one day, and automatically renews from 
day to day.
The discount letter provides that the discount applies to the one-day term 
and each consecutive one-day term (if any).  The term of the discount letter 
is typically one month or 3 months.  The discount letter does not obligate TW 
to provide service for more than one day, but as long as the term of the 
service agreement renews, the same discount would apply.  

My point is that if we are already contracting for daily firm this way, it 
should not matter whether the discount is effective for one month or for 12 
months.  

If there is a problem with the current arrangement, we should discuss it.  
Nothing about the way we do these deals has changed since we discussed it 
last December.


   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           03/10/2000 12:19 PM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: daily firm on TW  

I do have a problem or concern with this--  how do we argue it is daily 
capacity and at the same time we agree to rate to be applicable for a year?  
MK


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           03/10/2000 09:01 AM
	

To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: daily firm on TW  

Yes, we did revise the language.
Commercial Group's question is whether we see a problem with making the 
discount effective for one year.  I think it should make no difference.


   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           03/09/2000 05:52 PM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Darveaux, Glen Hass 

Subject: Re: daily firm on TW  

I thought we had worked on some revised language, because we had a concern 
when the agreement indicated the discount was available for the month.  Glen 
was working with you on this I believe.  MK


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           03/09/2000 11:44 AM
	

To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: daily firm on TW

The Commercial Group has asked whether they can sell daily firm for longer 
than a 3-month period.  This phrasing is of course misleading; TW's daily 
firm contracts are always for a term of just one day, but renew for 
consecutive one-day terms unless terminated.  The discount letter, on the 
other hand, grants a discounted rate for each of the one-day terms for a 
certain period of time (typically one month).  Steve Harris wants to be able 
to "sell daily firm for a one-year period."  In contractual terms all this 
would mean is that the contract is for renewabable one-day terms (as usual), 
and the discount applicable to such terms would be effective for one year.  I 
see no problem with this, do you?  (Apparently the current perception in 
marketing is that regulatory/legal was limiting daily firm to a 3-month 
period.)