![]() |
Enron Mail |
I added all of these demand charges as "Actual" expense items to the
2000ces03 worksheet. k#892722 - You De Woman!!! k#892069 - added to deal 143316 k#892066 - added to deal 143315 k#892084 - added to deal 143318 k#892085 - deal 143319 k#892590 - deal 245855 - added to CES worksheet. Brenda H Fletcher 04/14/2000 06:45 PM To: Chris Germany/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Alfonso Trabulsi/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Goodell/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Tetco Invoice - March Invoice # 000300389 Contract # 892722 TETCO invoiced for demand of $2211.86. Deal # 207137 did not have a demand fee so I added it per the invoice. If we should really not have a demand fee and pipe invoiced in error, please let me know. This contract is on the CES Retail spreadsheet for March but has zero estimated. Invoice #000300094 Contract 892069 TETCO invoiced for demand of $117.79. I don't think that there's a deal in Sitara. The contract is on CES spreadsheet with zero estimate and contract # is in Old contract column. Contract 892066 TETCO invoiced for demand of $3,382.59. No deal in Sitara: on CES spreadsheet with zero estimate. Contract 892084 TETCO invoiced for demand of $280.62. No deal in Sitara: on CES spreadsheet with zero estimate. Contract 892085 TETCO invoiced for demand of $3,108.20. No deal in Sitara: on CES spreadsheet with zero estimate. Contract 892590 TETCO invoiced for demand of $506.38 No deal in Sitara: Not on CES spreadsheet . If these are valid contracts and charges, please add deals in Sitara before April 19th so invoice can be paid. Thanks, Brenda
|