![]() |
Enron Mail |
_______________________________________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________________________ David: Here are my comments re the Agency Agreement draft sent last week: (1) Section 1.27. I would suggest replacing "in Peoples' sole discretion" with "in accordance with Sections 6.1 and 6.2". This is more consistent with the intent re changes to the Operating Statement. (2) Section 2.4. Each one of the new provisions re nominations, (a) 1,2, and 3, ends with a similar sentence: "Peoples will confirm these requests as soon as practicable prior to such nimination deadline and shall enter any nominations necessary by such nomination deadline." Should this be more specific, perhaps something like : "Peoples will confirm acceptance of these requests as soon as practicable prior to the nomination deadlione and shall schedule such nominations prior to the dealdine."? (The wording for no. 3 is similar to 1 and 2.) (3) Section 2.9 (ii) From a regulatory perspective, I prefer the bracketed language. As I noted regarding the last draft, a regulator would be concerned with an agreement commiting only to "commercially reasonable efforts" re compliance with the GTC, or a Law or Judgment. (4) Section 2.10. There is a typo in the second line from the bottom of 8, it's "remains" unpaid, not "remain". (note that this concept of a Peoples credit policy is consistent with Peoples' rights re denial of serivice under Section 8.2 of the GTC, which allows Peoples to refuse service based on a credit analysis.) (5) Section 5.1. At the time of the last draft, we discussed an additional representation for Peoples that "it has provided MEH with a copy of the G&TC in effect as of the Effective Date". This could inserted in 5.1 as (d), with a relettering of current d and e. (6) Section 7.2 I don't think the second to last sentence will work. This says that, if Peoples rejects an offered Extended Hub Transactions or doesn't timely accept, it can't enter into a similar transaction with the party involved for 6 months. The problem with this is that Peoples must provided Hub Service under the GTC, except when a ground for refusal stated in Section 8.2 of the GTC applies. The circumstances described in 7.2 are not a legitimate ground for refusal. I beleive, however, that we get to the same place if 7.2 were modified to require that Peoples pay MEH its percentage of Cumulative Net Revenues in the event that a transaction similar to one previously rejected for the same party is accepted within 6 mos. after termination of the Agency Agreement. (7) Section 8.3. Item (vi) of the list of functions could be expanded to state: "assisting in the pareparation and filing of requests for Governmental Approval in accordance with Section 10.1 and/or the preparation of FERC reports that are required in the ordinary course of business and not specifically requested by FERC." I wan't sure of the intent re the last phrase of this. Does this mean that if a Report is specifically requested by FERC, MEH would be paid separetly for work on the Report? I would have thought that routine review of regulatory filings and work on reports might all fall into the category covered by the $50,000 payment, regardless of whether a particular report is requested. Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks
|