
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:56:00 -0800 (PST)
From: david.fairley@enron.com
To: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
Subject: Re: FW: optout language for TVA
Cc: janice.moore@enron.com, kyle.schultz@enron.com, rogers.herndon@enron.com,
joseph.wagner@enron.com
Bcc: janice.moore@enron.com, kyle.schultz@enron.com, rogers.herndon@enron.com,
joseph.wagner@enron.com

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






