|
|
Enron Mail |
Good point, but I'm comfortable we're covered because our bidders were all
bidding on a chunk of capacity and primary points. They are deemed to be on notice that they had alternate point rights (its in the tariff) and if they wanted to submit a bid that had a different rate for primaries and alternates, they could have done so. None of them did, and most importantly, the winning bidders did not. Our letter agreement simply memorializes that we will charge the same negotiated rate whether the gas flows on primaries or alternates. I assume from your message you are OK with this and they can get it nailed down? DF From: Mary Kay Miller 01/11/2001 02:49 PM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: revised language I just got done looking at the underlying contract language as set forth in the pro forma service agreement in the tariff and it specifically says that the max rate would apply unless a discount or negotiated rate has been agreed to. My concern with adding the language below is, could it be argued that not everyone knew the rate would or could apply at any point, since we just stated Topack and Needles and if they knew they might have bid a different rate?? Susan Scott 01/11/2001 02:42 PM To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: revised language After discussions with the commercial group I propose that that redlined language be added to the attached Dynegy agreement and to the 4 other negotiated rate agreements we've done. If there are any objections you need to get back to me ASAP.
|