In what I'm sure is an oversight, EEI forgtot to send me a ballot. After 
appealing for my right to vote, a ballot was forthcoming.  I voted "NO" on 
the proposal.  We will see what happens from here.
---------------------- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 02/28/2000 
12:42 PM ---------------------------


"Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org> on 02/28/2000 11:52:31 AM
To: Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Fwd: Ballot on Article 2.3



Here you go.

Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney
Edison Electric Institute
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20004
Voice:  202-508-5616
Fax:     202-508-5673
e-mail:  akatz@eei.org

Received: from listserver.eei.org by mail.eei.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:45:14 
-0500
Return-Path: <AKatz@eei.org>
Received: from mail.eei.org ([204.254.108.2]) by listserver.eei.org with SMTP 
(Lyris Server version 3.0); Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:37:08 -0500
Received: from WPDomain-Message_Server by mail.eei.org with Novell_GroupWise; 
Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:44:59 -0500
Message-Id: <LYR9187-46755-2000.02.25-14.37.12--aKatz#eei.org@ls.eei.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:44:28 -0500
From: "Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org>
To: "Wholesale Electric Contract Standardization Group" <contract@ls.eei.org>
Subject: Ballot on Article 2.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-contract-9187S@ls.eei.org>
List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-contract@ls.eei.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:owner-contract@ls.eei.org>
X-List-Host: EEI List Server <http://www.eei.org>
Reply-To: "Wholesale Electric Contract Standardization Group" 
<contract@ls.eei.org>
X-Message-Id: <s8b6956b.072@mail.eei.org>
Sender: bounce-contract-9187@ls.eei.org
Precedence: bulk


The following Message was sent to members of Contract List Server, the EEI 
Contract Standization Mailing List.
To Members of the Working Group:

A proposal was considered at the meeting in Houston on January 26 to add 
language to Article 2.3 of the Master Agreement which would require an 
agreement of both parties before any contract terms not part of the oral 
Transaction (but added to the written Confirmation) could become binding.  
Those in favor of adding such language hope to avoid the "long form 
confirmations" which have proliferated in the marketplace in the absence of 
an underlying master agreement - those containing arbitration clauses, Y2K 
representations and other non-commercial terms.  Those who oppose adding such 
language believe it is critical to market participants to know at some point, 
relatively promptly after the oral trade call, that the confirm represents 
the commercial Transaction, and that trade tapes can be overwritten.  They 
ask only that counterparties accept or reject the commercial Transaction 
terms within two Business Days.  If there is a dispute about the terms of the 
Transaction as it appears in the Confirmation, they want to be notified so 
that tapes can be preserved and the issues can be addressed promptly.

After much discussion, the Drafting Committee has developed language that 
could be added.  Given the strong feelings on both sides of this issue, 
however, the Drafting Committee decided to poll each company in the Working 
Group as to whether such  additional language should be added at all.   If 
the Working Group votes "yes", the additional language below would be 
inserted in Article 2.3 as an option that only would apply if selected on the 
cover sheet.

The following wording was developed by the Drafting Committee:

"If a Confirmation contains provisions, other than those provisions relating 
to the commercial terms of the Transaction (e.g., price, special transmission 
conditions), which modify or supplement the general terms and conditions of 
this Master Agreement (e.g., arbitration provisions,  additional 
representations and warranties), then such provisions shall not be deemed to 
be accepted pursuant to this Article 2.3 unless agreed to either orally or in 
writing by the Parties; provided that the foregoing will not affect the 
validity and binding nature of the Transaction."

Accordingly, would ONE representative from each company in the Working Group 
please respond using the REPLY function of your email program to the 
following questions by cob Tuesday, February 29:

 1. Should the language addressing this point be inserted into the Master 
Agreement?  (If  yes, the language will be an option selected on the Cover 
Sheet.)

Yes_____ No_____


Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney
Edison Electric Institute
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20004
Voice:  202-508-5616
Fax:     202-508-5673
e-mail:  akatz@eei.org


-----*** EEI - A Powerful Partner in a Competitive World sm ***-----

You have received the above message as a subscriber to
   the EEI Contract Standization Electronic Mailing List:
      contract
Your subscription address is listed as:
      [aKatz@eei.org]
To stop receiving these messages, send a
   blank message to the list administrator:
      kSeaman@eei.org
   with the subject as:
      UNSUBSCRIBE
You can reply to the EEI Contract List by using your email program's 
"ReplyTo" function, or by sending a message to the list administrator.