
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
From: joan.veselack@enron.com
To: mflewellyn@columbiaenergygroup.com
Subject: Re: TCO STOW Overage - 1/24 - UPDATE
Cc: kdestep@columbiaenergygroup.com, mstiles@columbiaenergygroup.com,
jswogge@columbiaenergygroup.com, dick.jenkins@enron.com,
scott.neal@enron.com, scott.hendrickson@enron.com,
katherine.kelly@enron.com, victor.lamadrid@enron.com,
robert.superty@enron.com, joann.collins@enron.com,
robert.allwein@enron.com, chris.germany@enron.com,
bperron@columbiaenergy.com, sgilles@columbiaenergygroup.com
Bcc: kdestep@columbiaenergygroup.com, mstiles@columbiaenergygroup.com,
jswogge@columbiaenergygroup.com, dick.jenkins@enron.com,
scott.neal@enron.com, scott.hendrickson@enron.com,
katherine.kelly@enron.com, victor.lamadrid@enron.com,
robert.superty@enron.com, joann.collins@enron.com,
robert.allwein@enron.com, chris.germany@enron.com,
bperron@columbiaenergy.com, sgilles@columbiaenergygroup.com

Sent a retro request to TCO last week with two options:

1) Inject into storage from CES IPP pool, which was long that day.
2) In ground storage transfer from Dayton's FSS storage to CES's FSS storage.
Dayton has given Enron the approval to move this storage.

I told TCO the second option would be the most viable option, and it should
not comprise TCO's position with its other shippers.

As of right now, TCO has put all retro requests on hold. The bills will
probably go out with these penalties on it. However, TCO will revisit the
penalty issue, once the dust has settled. We are not the only shipper that
incurred penalties, and TCO wants to treat everyone fairly. I did tell TCO to
remember that Enron is not an affiliate, and TCO needs to treat Enron as TCO
would its other shippers.






