Message-ID: <1630386.1075855397855.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:39:46 -0800 (PST) From: evelyn.aucoin@enron.com To: sara.shackleton@enron.com Subject: RE: payment date for financial power transactions Cc: kimberly.hundl@enron.com, s..theriot@enron.com, ann.murphy@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: kimberly.hundl@enron.com, s..theriot@enron.com, ann.murphy@enron.com X-From: Aucoin, Evelyn X-To: Shackleton, Sara X-cc: Hundl, Kimberly , Theriot, Kim S. , Murphy, Melissa Ann X-bcc: X-Folder: \Sara_Shackleton_Jan2002\Shackleton, Sara\Inbox X-Origin: Shackleton-S X-FileName: sshackl (Non-Privileged).pst I apologize for not returning the call. I discussed the issue further with = Melissa M. and Kimberly H. I think we currently have two separate issues: First: Melissa and Kimberly H. I think would prefer to have one paragraph of settl= ement language to use on all power financial confirms (rather than the two = current versions) so they could have a "one size fits all" description that= still addressed the two types of deals - 1) deals less than one month and = 2) deals one month and greater. Melissa - can you confirm if this is the id= ea behind what we discussed? Second: The language being used currently actually requires I invoice separately th= e two classes of deals (as specified above) - because the language we uses = makes deals less than one month due on the fifth workday of the month and m= akes Month + deals due on the seventh business day because indices are not = known until second workday. Invoicing these types of deals separately woul= d be more time consuming that any benefit that would result. I have yet an= other challenge - I have a counterparty that demands their remittance perio= d of five days starts over if the index is revised after original publicati= on. Then I have Williams (who we exchange paper with - confirms are not sig= ned) - who puts net 10 on all their deals. I really cannot come to a soluti= on. I have only a handful of power counterparties - they end up doing both = classes of deals - and the settlement date becomes a negoiation every month= . This is the going to be the third month my department has been responsibl= e for this area - so the whole situation is rather new. So at this time I t= hink the probability of solving my problem is remote. So while I appreciate= your offer of assistance - I am not entirely sure what to do. Given the ot= her priorities I have right now - addressing these is going to be in the fu= ture for me. =20 I have not had an external request to change the language. I think the main= request was from confirms and my issue(s) are secondary - and for which I= have no good solution. =20 I apologize for the long email - I am trying to do this from home to get ca= ught up. Thanks Evelyn =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Shackleton, Sara=20 Sent: Tue 11/27/2001 1:21 PM=20 To: Aucoin, Evelyn=20 Cc: Hundl, Kimberly; Theriot, Kim S.=20 Subject: payment date for financial power transactions Evelyn:=20 I left a voice mail for you in mid-November inquiring about your request fo= r language in financial power confirms (same counterparty) for payment upon= termination of deals rather than aggregation of multiple deals with paymen= t at the end of a calendar month. Credit is inquiring as to whether this r= equest is internal or external. Can you please call and explain the issues?=20 Thanks.=20 Sara Shackleton=20 Enron Wholesale Services=20 1400 Smith Street, EB3801a=20 Houston, TX 77002=20 Ph: (713) 853-5620=20 Fax: (713) 646-3490