Message-ID: <28563371.1075851737617.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 06:30:00 -0800 (PST)
From: jim.schwieger@enron.com
To: jim.schwieger@enron.com
Subject: Interconnect Reimbursement Language
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Jim Schwieger
X-To: Jim Schwieger
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \James_Schwieger_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: SCHWIEGER-J
X-FileName: jschwie.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 03/22/2001 02:29 
PM ---------------------------


Jim Schwieger
04/07/2000 10:35 AM
To: kevin_pilkington@kne.com
cc: Brad Blevins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL 
Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nathan L Hlavaty/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Interconnect Reimbursement Language

Even though we have changed the reimbursement from 50 / 50 on both 
interconnects to each entity paying 100% of one interconnect I still feel the 
language requiring either party to reimburse the other if operational 
circumstances constrain the physical intent of the interconnect is still 
needed.  In this way both entities will be aligned in trying to insure both 
the receipt and delivery interconnects function as intended.  Please let me 
know if you disagree.

 Jim Schwieger