|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Hanagriff, Richard </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RHANAGR< X-To: Blair, Lynn </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lblair< X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \LBLAIR (Non-Privileged)\Blair, Lynn\Inbox X-Origin: Blair-L X-FileName: LBLAIR (Non-Privileged).pst This adjustment will result in approximately $7800 in additional revenues. One way to prevent this situation in the future would be for the rep and or myself to ensure that Duke's rate has been increased when they have alternate deliveries to the border. If these alternate deliveries exist and the rate has not been increased then the rep needs to bring this situation to the attention of the marketer. -----Original Message----- From: Blair, Lynn Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 6:48 AM To: Hanagriff, Richard Cc: Kowalke, Terry; Buchanan, John; Blair, Lynn Subject: FW: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points Richard, can you check this out for me. Did the team drop the ball on this one? Thanks. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Brown, Elizabeth Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:58 PM To: Watson, Kimberly; Blair, Lynn; Dietz, Rick; Donoho, Lindy Subject: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points FYI - In working to load rates for the FERC California reporting requirements, it appears that for the last four months Duke Energy T & M contract #27291 has not been billed the incremental fee of $0.06/dth for alternate deliveries to the Cal Border (over and above the base discount negotiated for the contracted primary points). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Elizabeth x3-6928
|