Message-ID: <28674518.1075842672315.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:45:00 -0800 (PST)
From: gerald.nemec@enron.com
To: arnold.eisenstein@enron.com
Subject: Re: Revised Comm Agreement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Gerald Nemec
X-To: Arnold L Eisenstein
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Gerald_Nemec_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: NEMEC-G
X-FileName: gnemec.nsf

Arnold,  Do you have a name and number of the Plains attorneys (or someone 
who has their number) so I can discuss the attached issues with them 
concering the Comm Agreement.


---------------------- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 11/29/99 04:43 PM 
---------------------------


Mark Courtney
11/29/99 04:37 PM
To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Revised Comm Agreement  

I think you should talk to their attorney directly.  Relevant points are:

1.  This is actually a 12 MW substation.  

3.  The communications are for their use only and don't really effect us 
except they might want to interrupt us when it is down.  That would of course 
be unacceptable.  


   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Gerald Nemec                           11/29/99 01:04 PM
	

To: Mark Courtney/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Revised Comm Agreement  

Three problems with this Draft.

1.  In Paragraph 1.1, they removed my requirement of installing a system to 
meet "all of Enron's electrical power requirements for the Driver".  My 
concern here is that they put in equipment that is not adequate to handle our 
load requirements.  At a minimum we should state a specific load requirement 
for this station.  E.g. 10,000 HP.

2.  In Paragraph 1.1, they inserted a requirement that Plain's approve any 
in-service date for the driver and that the Telecommunication Equipment would 
be in-service by such date.  My draft had a date established by Enron solely 
and Plains would have to meet such date.  I think we need control of our 
in-service date without Plains prior approval.  We will be reasonable in 
establishing such date.

3.  Plains disclaims all warranties with respect to the Telecommunication 
Equipment.  This was not in the first draft.  We need some assurance that 
this equipment will do the job we need it to.

I would be happy to discuss these directly with Plains' attorneys at their 
convenience.




Mark Courtney
11/24/99 01:50 PM
To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Revised Comm Agreement

How does this look to you?

Mark
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Courtney/HOU/ECT on 11/24/99 01:50 
PM ---------------------------
From: Arnold L Eisenstein@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 11/18/99 05:35 PM
To: Mark Courtney@ECT, Mark Knippa@ECT, Gerald Nemec@ECT
cc: Rich Plachy/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, James 
Pfeffer/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Revised Comm Agreement

just came in.   Rich and team will review concurrently with your review


---------------------- Forwarded by Arnold L Eisenstein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
11/18/99 05:36 PM ---------------------------


Mark Conner <mconner@plainsgt.org> on 11/18/99 05:16:25 PM

	
To:	"'Rich Plachy - ENRON'" <rplachy@ei.enron.com>, Arnold L 
Eisenstein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:	
	
Subject:	Revised Comm Agreement



Here is the latest edition - after Plains legal and managerial review of the
revised edition you sent us.  Plains is ready to sign pending your review.




 - enroncomm-rnc revision.doc