FW: 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: Watson, Kimberly </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=KWATSON<
X-To: Lindberg, Lorraine </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Llindbe<
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \KWATSON (Non-Privileged)\Watson, Kimberly\Sent Items
X-Origin: Watson-K
X-FileName: KWATSON (Non-Privileged).pst

Lorraine,

Has this been corrected? Please keep Jan informed of any invoice changes.

Thanks, Kim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Donoho, Lindy
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Brown, Elizabeth; Watson, Kimberly; Blair, Lynn; Dietz, Rick; Lindberg, Lorraine
Subject: RE: K #27291 - Invoices not capturing incremental fees for alternate points

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