Re: MISSING DEALS

Sean just looked these confirms over, and skimmed our contract with Aquila,
and he said the language is fine as it is. I guess Unrestricted Mid-C is just
a reiteration of Mid-C. If this causes a problem with your confirm process,
though, I would have Bloomberg change it. It doesn't seem like we should have
to go to the trouble of adding another, redundant delivery point name in our
system just because that's what they call it. I know that sounds mean - but
I'm so slammed today I can't help it!

Thanks for your help,
Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
04/27/2001 02:05 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: MISSING DEALS

Yes this is the first time I've seen unrestricted Mid-C on any of their
confirmations. Normally they have into Mid-C on the confirmations which I
know should be Mid-C excluding the into part. Anyway, I will wait to clear
this two deals. Keep me informed.
Below is the two confirms they sent me.

Kate Symes @ ECT 04/27/2001 03:50 PM

To: Evelyn Metoyer/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: MISSING DEALS

595511 - buy Idaho, May, Mid-C, 330

And on the Bloomberg confirms re: Mid-C - I'm pulling up the contract through
Livelink, because Sean wants to make sure the language does not allow for
curtailment at Mid-C if another unit in the path goes down. He says our Mid-C
is unrestricted anyway, so we shouldn't need another name in Enpower. Is this
the first time you've seen this delivery point name in a confirmation? Hold
off on this confirm for just a minute while I go over this with Sean.

Thanks,
Kate

Evelyn Metoyer@ENRON
04/27/2001 01:45 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: MISSING DEALS

Bloomberg
Mike Swerzbin

I am missing
Buy from Idaho May Mid-C peak 25mw at $330.00

Also, Bloomberg sent over some confirmations for deal 595472 and 595473 and
the location is for unrestricted Mid-C. Should we have this deal in enpower
as unrestricted Mid-C because if so it's not a selection currently. Just
wondering!!