As promised. The Illinois Power CA info is: Counterparty:Illinois Power 500 S.27th Decataur, Ill 62521 Attn: Steve Warren Deal info: IP is the Utility relative to our proposed NICOR transaction Facility: Nicor Storage Facility at Troy Grove, Ill Note: IP is owned by Dynegy, however, I understand that IP is bound by "affiliate rules" with regards to Dynegy. How comfortable are you with this? Do you think we need additional language in the CA to protect us? With regards to the Devon CA the following are the Devon comments; You should add at the beginning of paragraph 3, the following: "Each party represents that in providing Confidential Information to the other, it has the right and authority to do so." Whenever we look at a CA, we should endeavor to limit it in time and coverage. You say that the agreement concerns purchase of electricity in the Carthage area, but in the opening paragraph, the CA states that it is related to "a proposed sale and/or purchase of natural gas or fuel." You should get this clarified to say something more definitive. For example, more definitive language would be something like "...in connection with a proposed sale and/or purchase of electricity in the Carthage Field area for purpose of providing power to compression facilities." Other than that, the CA looks good. Thanks. >>> Blaine Wofford 07/25/01 07:52AM >>> Jim, do you mind taking a quick look at this document. It's relative to the purchase of electricity for the Carthage area. Thanks,
Answer: More CA's- Deals to follow?
Kevin and Elizabeth, Attached is a proposal summarizing our restructuring talks with VEPCO last week. We had proposed to them what Kevin had suggested, and they said their view on pricing in Virginia is slightly different (at a discount to PJM/VAP as against a premium suggested by us). They'd requested we send them some discussion points from our meeting today, so we can continue our discussions on an ongoing basis. Please review the bullet-point summary of our discussions last week, and the draft proposal. We would appreciate your quick comments - but keep in mind, this is just to stimulate further discussions with them. Our overall objective is to migrate them to a new contract and away from their rights to audit the last few years. Discussion summary: Both parties agree that the contract needs to be revised to reflect current market conditions (pricing, liquidated damages, etc.). Enron would retain flexibility around the physical delivery points. VEPCO would like to continue treating this as a call option (versus a firm delivery). Settlement: Would prefer the Day-Ahead index versus the hourly index Could also look at another PJM West index - VAP/Alleghany Will look at alternate times for calling on power, if necessary Would like to renegotiate by 12/01/01 Rahil
Answer: VEPCO
Charlene, I am sending you as promised the information I have about 3 of our summer interns. I shall fax you this morning two additional resumes I have in hard copy. In the case of Paulo Rocha we don't have a formal resume, just a letter from him with the summary of his skills. Thanks for your help. Enron desperately needs this talent. Vince
Answer: Resumes
I thought you might like this. Do you have a ticket to Chicago yet? I don't think Jenny will have any luck getting hired in Risk. We pretty much rule anyone out without prior experience unless they are internal candidates. However, I have forwarded her resume to Settlements and Volume Management. I think she should get a call from them. How's life in Dallas? Also, what is your new cell number. The Houston Cellular number no longer works. DG
Answer:
[Fwd: Counting Sheep]