|
|
Enron Mail |
Please let me know if you have any feedback to Jay's suggested approach to the
Generation Interconnection Procedures section of the tariff. I don't want to file this until I hear that you are in agreement. -----Original Message----- Date: 03/18/2001 03:10 pm (Sunday) From: JAY DUDLEY To: Christi Nicolay; Mary Hain CC: James Steffes; MICHELE FARRELL Subject: Re: Draft interconnection procedure Mary, Christi. Thanks for your good comments on the draft interconnection procedures. Attached is a memo addressing your comments. Michele Farrell will have the pen to make the changes and to supervise the filing while I'm out this week. Jay. -----Original Message----- Date: 03/16/2001 12:28 pm (Friday) From: Jim Eden To: Dave Lamb; Frank Afranji; Jack Todd; MICHELE FARRELL CC: Gary Lindland; JAY DUDLEY Subject: Re: Comments on Interconnection Procedures I agree with Dave. I'd agrue for 120 if I thought I could get away with it. <<< Dave Lamb 03/16/01 11:16AM <<< Frankly, I am more comfortable with 90 days. Its easier to complete a project early and send out the info prior to the due date, then to have to go back and ask for more time. Depending on the size of the plant and location, we may be faced with a lot of checking equipment records and field checks to verify ratings. I'll ask Gary Lindland how he feels about reducing the time line. <<< MICHELE FARRELL 03/16/01 11:02AM <<< Any feedback on Enron's comments on our draft interconnection procedures that Jay sent out last night? Jay and I are trying to get the DC attorneys on the phone to incorporate some changes. In particular, Enron wants us to put in a shorter time for completing the Interconnection Facilities study (60 rather than 90 days). Enron says we would still have the flexibility to take longer if we notify the customer that we need more time. How do Dave and Jim feel about that proposal?
|