Message-ID: <17588973.1075860964883.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:05:16 -0800 (PST) From: michelle.lokay@enron.com To: paul.y'barbo@enron.com Subject: FW: Transwestern Capacity Release - ENA/Burlington Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Lokay, Michelle X-To: Y'barbo, Paul X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Michelle_Lokay_Mar2002\Lokay, Michelle\Sent Items X-Origin: Lokay-M X-FileName: mlokay (Non-Privileged).pst FYI. -----Original Message----- From: Brown, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:02 PM To: Lokay, Michelle Subject: RE: Transwestern Capacity Release - ENA/Burlington looks accurate to me... -----Original Message----- From: Lokay, Michelle Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:01 PM To: Brown, Elizabeth Subject: Transwestern Capacity Release - ENA/Burlington Here is how I see the February release, with the 50/50 sharing mechanism: ENA's contract with TW is at a daily rate of $0.0600 (one-part) The release to Burlington is at a daily rate of $0.1020 (demand only plus applicable commodity and fuel based on usage) TW will bill Burlington through normal course of business (reservation of $71,400 [$0.1020 x 25,000 x 28 days] plus applicable commodity fees) ENA demand invoice will be adjusted for a capacity release credit of $56,700 [($0.1020 - $0.021) x 25,000 x 28 days] TW will need to book marketing fee revenues of $14,700 [$0.021 x 25,000 x 28 days] ENA will be looking for a payment of $14,700 for their portion of the shared upside I'd copied your format for January...what do you think of the February numbers?