| s-1
| Randy, this is the issue I left you the voice mail on. |
| s-2
| Article 6 of the Gallup Compression Services Agreement (which I am sending to you separately) with ECS obligates ECS to 'work in good faith with CDEC' to establish an automated system that would automatically have alerted us to peak loading conditions on CDEC's system. |
| s-3
| We had a pretty good idea when we signed the contract that ECS would not be able to complete that by the contract start date, so we negotiated a fall back plan under which ECS is obligated to 'assist [Transwestern] in developing a manual system to accomplish the same result and will hold harmless and keep [Transwestern] whole for all cost and expenses' associated with the manual system. |
| s-4
| We will fight with them about who owes the $200k that James mentions below based on their failure to 'assist' us in managing the cost. |
| s-5
| In the mean time, we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get a handle on the situation to mitigate future costs. |
| s-6
| Do we have someone who is watching this out there? |
| s-7
| We are running so full tilt on TW that we may not have as much flexibiltiy to manage this situation as we expected, but let me know what we can do. |
| s-8
| James had heard that one hold up was the absence of a confidentiality agreement--I guess between ECS and Transwestern--that would permit ECS to communicate to us the details on how to access teh key info. from CDEC. |
| s-9
| That sounds like a BS excuse from ECS, but it that's what they are saying, let me know and we can figure out a solution. |
| s-10
| Thanks. |
| s-11
| DF |
| s-12
| James Centilli |
| s-13
| 12/14/2000 02:49 PM |
| s-14
| Would you please contact Gerald Nemec and review the Gallup Compression Service Contract in respect to the Load Control Management. |
| s-15
| My understanding was that ECS was to provide a means to access CDEC's online profile in order for us to make a decision to avoid running the compressor during CDEC's peak load periods. |
| s-16
| We have not received access to this information which has resulted so far in additional electric cost of $200,987.33 for the period of July through September. |
| s-17
| Additional cost will be incurred for the remainder of this year, that I have not been able to review yet. |
| s-18
| This cost is averaging $79,000 per month if we continue to run the compressor as we have in August and September. |
| s-19
| Good point, but I'm comfortable we're covered because our bidders were all bidding on a chunk of capacity and primary points. |
| s-20
| They are deemed to be on notice that they had alternate point rights (its in the tariff) and if they wanted to submit a bid that had a different rate for primaries and alternates, they could have done so. |
| s-21
| None of them did, and most importantly, the winning bidders did not. |
| s-22
| Our letter agreement simply memorializes that we will charge the same negotiated rate whether the gas flows on primaries or alternates. |
| s-23
| I assume from your message you are OK with this and they can get it nailed down? |
| s-24
| DF |
| s-25
| I just got done looking at the underlying contract language as set forth in the pro forma service agreement in the tariff and it specifically says that the max rate would apply unless a discount or negotiated rate has been agreed to. |
| s-26
| My concern with adding the language below is, could it be argued that not everyone knew the rate would or could apply at any point, since we just stated Topack and Needles and if they knew they might have bid a different rate?? |
| s-27
| Susan Scott |
| s-28
| 01/11/2001 02:42 PM |
| s-29
| After discussions with the commercial group I propose that that redlined language be added to the attached Dynegy agreement and to the 4 other negotiated rate agreements we've done. |
| s-30
| If there are any objections you need to get back to me ASAP. |
| s-31
| pls print. |
| s-32
| df |
| s-33
| In discussion with Dave, we thought it would be good to put this together in a format of questions and answers. |
| s-34
| However, as you will see, the questions I thought of got kinda long- but I think we need answers for all of them. |
| s-35
| One thought is to have just the agenda as a couple topics and then lead in with the first two questions as I've listed. |
| s-36
| Please provide me your thoughts asap. |
| s-37
| MK |
| s-38
| whasssup? |
| s-39
| Here it is. |
| s-40
| Thanks. |
| s-41
| DF |
| s-42
| Here is the attachment... |
| s-43
| Attached is my draft of a request for rehearing. |
| s-44
| It incorporates Mr. Stojic's and Mr. Kelly's initial comments. |
| s-45
| Please review it and let me know if you have any comments on or before Tuesday afternoon (I will be out of the office Monday). |
| s-46
| Thank you! |
| s-47
| OK. |
| s-48
| DF |
| s-49
| DENISE LAGESSE |
| s-50
| 01/12/2001 10:34 AM |
| s-51
| Please approve Susan's attached expense report and forward to accounting with a cc: to me. |
| s-52
| Thanks! |
| s-53
| Forgot to cc you. |
| s-54
| df |
| s-55
| Drew Fossum |
| s-56
| 01/12/2001 04:37 PM |
| s-57
| OK. |
| s-58
| DF |
| s-59
| DENISE LAGESSE |
| s-60
| 01/12/2001 10:34 AM |
| s-61
| Please approve Susan's attached expense report and forward to accounting with a cc: to me. |
| s-62
| Thanks! |
| s-63
| Lou, do we have any sort of policy on requests like this? |
| s-64
| Lee Huber made the same request last year and we gave her the chair (she only wanted one, however). |
| s-65
| Norma, any thoughts? |
| s-66
| DENISE LAGESSE |
| s-67
| 01/12/2001 01:14 PM |
| s-68
| Susan Scott would like authorization to order an Aeron chair for each of her offices - on 47 and 41. |
| s-69
| This particular chair is designed to help with back problems, which she has. |
| s-70
| Many people at Enron already have this type of chair, but we rarely, if ever, have a surplus because they are so popular. |
| s-71
| The cost is $567.77 per chair plus tax. |
| s-72
| Please approve the purchase of two. |
| s-73
| Thanks! |
| s-74
| sorry, i left lou off of the message. |
| s-75
| Drew Fossum |
| s-76
| 01/13/2001 09:45 AM |
| s-77
| Lou, do we have any sort of policy on requests like this? |
| s-78
| Lee Huber made the same request last year and we gave her the chair (she only wanted one, however). |
| s-79
| Norma, any thoughts? |
| s-80
| DENISE LAGESSE |
| s-81
| 01/12/2001 01:14 PM |
| s-82
| Susan Scott would like authorization to order an Aeron chair for each of her offices - on 47 and 41. |
| s-83
| This particular chair is designed to help with back problems, which she has. |
| s-84
| Many people at Enron already have this type of chair, but we rarely, if ever, have a surplus because they are so popular. |
| s-85
| The cost is $567.77 per chair plus tax. |
| s-86
| Please approve the purchase of two. |
| s-87
| Thanks! |
| s-88
| I believe you got a copy of the John Sommer letter to producers dated Jan 6 that MKM's spies intercepted. |
| s-89
| She forwarded the Sommer letter to Stan and discussed it with him. |
| s-90
| Dari and I vented our aggravation by drafting the attached letter to Gibson and Kyle complaining of Sommer's duplicity, but after tempers cooled, MKM and I decided not to send it to Stan or urge him to send a written response. |
| s-91
| As it stands, MKM and I will probably bring it up with Sommer in OK City and strongly suggest the importance of coordinated communication to the producers. |
| s-92
| Stan may also bring the letter up orally next time he's on the phonne with Gibson or Kyle as an example of how not to handle this situation. |
| s-93
| Yea--it was outstanding news! |
| s-94
| What a hoss. |
| s-95
| Can't catch you this time but 14721 keep me posted on your next trip. |
| s-96
| DF |