Message-ID: <23424581.1075853836670.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 05:20:00 -0700 (PDT) From: chris.germany@enron.com To: colleen.sullivan@enron.com, dan.junek@enron.com, judy.townsend@enron.com, scott.goodell@enron.com Subject: Re: Transport P&L Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Chris Germany X-To: Colleen Sullivan, Dan Junek, Judy Townsend, Scott Goodell X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Chris_Germany_Dec2000\Notes Folders\'sent mail X-Origin: Germany-C X-FileName: cgerman.nsf We can use it as far as I'm concerned. Have the reimbursements been addressed? From: Colleen Sullivan 05/16/2000 08:18 AM To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dan Junek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Judy Townsend/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Transport P&L I need to know WHY you all are still uncomfortable using the service p&l, at least for demand charges. Please advise. ---------------------- Forwarded by Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT on 05/16/2000 08:18 AM --------------------------- To: Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Transport P&L Colleen, The main reason I am uncomfortable about using the service p&l is because Chris, Dan, and Judy are uncomfortable with it. As soon as they are happy with it, we are ready to use it. David To: David Oliver/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Transport P&L David-- Why are you still not comfortable using the service p&l, at least for demand charges? What system resources are you talking about? To: Colleen Sullivan/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Transport P&L Colleen, I think the reason that they haven't moved has been one of timing. Chris has not had time to pull them out of their spreadsheets and put them onto another. This, of course, has led to the obvious point that we are still not comfortable using the service P&L from unify. When Scott gets back next week, we will together with him and Dick to verify what needs to be moved and take care of it manually until system resources can handle it. David From: Colleen Sullivan 05/03/2000 10:07 AM To: David Oliver/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Scott Neal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dick Jenkins/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Transport P&L David Is there some reason why we are not allocating demand charges for the market area pipes to the Market East p&l? If the only reason is that you're not sure which ones to do, this is my suggestion. It seems to me that there are only three pipelines where there is overlap and that would be Tennessee, Texas Eastern and Transco. For now, why don't we leave all the demand charges for those three pipes, plus all others not listed below, with the East p&l, and move the following pipe demand charges to the Market East book: Algonquin, Columbia Gas Transmission, Columbia Natural Resources, CNG, Cove Point, Equitrans, Gatherco, Iroquois, Marco, National Fuel. Obviously you need to confirm this with Dick and Scott, but this seems to make sense to me. Please advise.