Subject: Re: Reply Comments RP00-249
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:40:00 -0700 (PDT)

At PNM's request we are not going to say anything about long-term having a 
higher priority than short-term, because their tariff simply does not reflect 
this.  Unfortunately it would have made our argument stronger if we could 
have said it, but ...

Anyway, I like what Steve has done here.  If there is no objection I'm going 
to have him make the change described above and file it tomorrow.

   

	From:  Glen Hass                           07/10/2000 01:39 PM

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, 
Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Reply Comments RP00-249  

Susan,  This looks fine to me but I want to confirm one statement.  In 
section 3 on page 3 we state that TW intends to contract for long-term 
capacity vs. short-term capacity and therefore we will have a higher priority 
and will not be the "lowest priority on PNM".  Please confirm that a contract 
for April to October is long term on PNM.  I initially understood we would 
contract for one month with an evergreen provision or rolling month to month 
type of contract therefore I just wanted to make sure this statement fits 
with our Marketing Depts intent.  Thanks.

Glen

   

	From:  Susan Scott                           07/10/2000 11:00 AM

To: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Reply Comments RP00-249

(I haven't reviewed this yet but will have a chance to this afternoon.)
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 07/10/2000 
11:00 AM ---------------------------

"Gallagher, Boland & Meiburger" <[email-masked]> on 07/10/2000 
11:01:27 AM
To: "Susan Scott" <[email-masked]>
cc:  

Subject: Reply Comments RP00-249

?
 - RP00-249 Reply Comments.doc