|
|
Enron Mail |
Recently we approved a "based on utilization" rate in another contract -- the
rationale was that our minimum reservation charge is zero -- so on those days they don't use the point, the amount allocated to reservation component (using our discretion to allocate between reservation and commodity) is $0 and it's still within our minimum so it is not a negotiated rate. Does that make sense to you? From: Drew Fossum 02/25/2000 01:47 PM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Transwestern Contract Approval Request OK? Is the per unit rate for the Cal Border deliveries kosher on a firm contract? DF ---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 02/25/2000 01:46 PM --------------------------- Christine Stokes 02/25/2000 10:03 AM To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lorraine Lindberg cc: Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron Subject: Transwestern Contract Approval Request TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE CONTRACT APPROVAL REQUEST Please review the attached non-standard discount letter for Duke Energy Trading & Marketing. The one year contract for 10,000 Dth/d provides for primary EOT-EOT transportation. Duke is allowed to transport to SoCal/Needles at an incremental rate based upon actual utilization. Duke has retained ROFR rights and rights to capacity release revenues above the discounted rate. Please indicated approval via REPLY WITH HISTORY. If any questions arise please contact me at x35702.
|