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!!