|
|
Enron Mail |
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.
|