|
|
Enron Mail |
At PNM's request we are not going to say anything about long-term having a
higher priority than short-term, because their tariff simply does not reflect this. Unfortunately it would have made our argument stronger if we could have said it, but ... Anyway, I like what Steve has done here. If there is no objection I'm going to have him make the change described above and file it tomorrow. From: Glen Hass 07/10/2000 01:39 PM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Reply Comments RP00-249 Susan, This looks fine to me but I want to confirm one statement. In section 3 on page 3 we state that TW intends to contract for long-term capacity vs. short-term capacity and therefore we will have a higher priority and will not be the "lowest priority on PNM". Please confirm that a contract for April to October is long term on PNM. I initially understood we would contract for one month with an evergreen provision or rolling month to month type of contract therefore I just wanted to make sure this statement fits with our Marketing Depts intent. Thanks. Glen From: Susan Scott 07/10/2000 11:00 AM To: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Reply Comments RP00-249 (I haven't reviewed this yet but will have a chance to this afternoon.) ---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 07/10/2000 11:00 AM --------------------------- "Gallagher, Boland & Meiburger" <lwinpisinger@gbmdc.com< on 07/10/2000 11:01:27 AM To: "Susan Scott" <Susan_Scott@enron.com< cc: Subject: Reply Comments RP00-249 ? - RP00-249 Reply Comments.doc
|