|
|
Enron Mail |
---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 03/22/2001 02:30
PM --------------------------- Jim Schwieger 04/07/2000 01:58 PM To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brad Blevins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nathan L Hlavaty/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: RE: Interconnect Reimbursement Language Kevin agrees with leaving the language in the agreement's. ---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 04/07/2000 01:08 PM --------------------------- "Pilkington, Kevin" <Kevin_Pilkington@kne.com< on 04/07/2000 10:42:20 AM To: "'Jim Schwieger'" <Jim.Schwieger@enron.com< cc: Subject: RE: Interconnect Reimbursement Language I'm comfortable with the language. I will get it pushed through on this side. Let's get it done. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Schwieger [mailto:Jim.Schwieger@enron.com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:35 AM To: Pilkington, Kevin Cc: Brad Blevins; Gerald Nemec; Steve HPL Schneider; Nathan L Hlavaty Subject: Interconnect Reimbursement Language Even though we have changed the reimbursement from 50 / 50 on both interconnects to each entity paying 100% of one interconnect I still feel the language requiring either party to reimburse the other if operational circumstances constrain the physical intent of the interconnect is still needed. In this way both entities will be aligned in trying to insure both the receipt and delivery interconnects function as intended. Please let me know if you disagree. Jim Schwieger
|