Message-ID: <30684769.1075846734521.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: christine.stokes@enron.com
Subject: Re: Draft Duke discount letter
Cc: kevin.hyatt@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: kevin.hyatt@enron.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Christine Stokes
X-cc: Kevin Hyatt
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

Christine, the "actual fuel usage" provision is probably a material deviation 
from the tariff, unless we cap the fuel rate at the maximum percentage stated 
in our tariff.  I have added language to this effect.

If we're using the "actual fuel" language because we anticipate that the fuel 
usage will exceed the maximum, and therefore we do not wish to cap the 
percentage at the maximum, we can certainly leave my additional language out 
and file a summary of the contract.  I do not think such a filing would 
generate too much unwanted attention from FERC or our shippers.  Let me know.







Christine Stokes
09/07/2000 09:36 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Draft Duke discount letter

Let me know if you have any revisions to the provided discount letter.

Note that this contract will only charge ACTUAL FUEL utilized if the Shipper 
transports along the primary path (Paragraph 2).  Also, Kevin - is $.09 a 
sufficient TOTAL RATE for alternate deliveries to the California Border?  I 
think by fixing the rate like this we are leaving a lot of money behind.  We 
could put wording in the contact that each month the alternate rate to 
California will be set by Transwestern.  We have, a long time ago, used this 
language and it forces the shipper to call TK for the appropriate montly rate 
quote.  If fact, Richardson Products has this arrangement.   Let me know your 
thoughts.