Message-ID: <21286079.1075846665729.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: glen.hass@enron.com
Subject: Re: PNM tech. conference
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Glen Hass
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

I would expect that Sarah Tomalty will attend anyway to make sure we make 
good on our promise.


   
	
	
	From:  Glen Hass                           06/14/2000 08:25 AM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: PNM tech. conference  

Assuming they are willing to withdraw their protest if we agree to this level 
of capacity, do they plan to attend the Tech. Conf.?


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           06/13/2000 02:50 PM
	

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

Subject: PNM tech. conference

Phil Richardson and Sarah Tomalty of Dynegy say that they would probably 
(i.e. subject to management approval) withdraw their protest if we would 
amend our proposed tariff language to limit the quantity of capacity we can 
acquire from PNM to 20,000/day.  Their chief concern is to prevent TW from 
becoming simply a broker for another pipeline's capacity (which has never 
been our intention).  Lorraine is discussing this with Steve to see whether 
this is something we could live with.  The Commission has expressed the same 
concern in the past, so this might make them more comfortable with our 
proposal too.  Comments?  let me know.