RE: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Donoho, Lindy </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LDONOHO<
X-To: Brown, Elizabeth </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ebrown1<, Watson, Kimberly </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Kwatson<, Blair, Lynn </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lblair<, Dietz, Rick </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rdietz<, Lindberg, Lorraine </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Llindbe<
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \KWATSON (Non-Privileged)\Watson, Kimberly\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Watson-K
X-FileName: KWATSON (Non-Privileged).pst

FYI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Elizabeth
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:58 PM
To: Watson, Kimberly; Blair, Lynn; Dietz, Rick; Donoho, Lindy
Subject: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points

FYI - In working to load rates for the FERC California reporting requirements, it appears that for the last four months Duke Energy T & M contract #27291 has not been billed the incremental fee of $0.06/dth for alternate deliveries to the Cal Border (over and above the base discount negotiated for the contracted primary points).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Elizabeth
x3-6928