I will revise the documents to reflect Flagstaff and the items we discussed 
at the meeting previously.  

Kevin's email indicates he wants to remove the language concerning a party 
obligations to refund the costs of the interconnect paid for by that party, 
if the other party is unable to maintain their pressure obligations. 

Does this need to stay or be removed?  If this needs to stay, should someone 
tell Kevin that it will remain in the agreement ?


---------------------- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 04/04/2000 03:07 
PM ---------------------------


Jim Schwieger
04/03/2000 05:00 PM
To: Brad Blevins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nick Cocavessis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve HPL 
Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fiona Ryan/LON/ECT@ECT, John 
Towles/OTS/Enron@ENRON
cc:  
Subject: RE: Second Interconnect between MidCon Texas and HPL

Sounds good to me!   Let's get it done!

 Thanks,   Swig
---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 04/03/2000 04:58 
PM ---------------------------
   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Brad Blevins                           04/03/2000 03:58 PM
	

To: Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nick Cocavessis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Steve -HPL- 
Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Fry/GCO/Enron@Enron, 
John Towles/OTS/Enron@Enron
cc:  
Subject: RE: Second Interconnect between MidCon Texas and HPL

MidCon has decided to move forward with Flagstaff.  We have until November to 
complete this project.  I suggest that we begin condemnation proceedings now 
against the landowners of the property that we need.  We have been in 
unfruitful discussions with this family up until now.  We need to get the ROW 
for this project moving so Tom can prepare a new cost estimate for the 
facilities.

---------------------- Forwarded by Brad Blevins/HOU/ECT on 04/03/2000 03:53 
PM ---------------------------


"Pilkington, Kevin" <Kevin_Pilkington@kne.com> on 03/30/2000 03:22:02 PM
To: "'Brad Blevins'" <Brad.Blevins@enron.com>
cc:  
Subject: RE: Second Interconnect between MidCon Texas and HPL


We want to leave it at Flagstaff.  Also, lets remove the penalty language in
the Facility Agreements.  Since we are both paying for our own facilities, I
don't think it is needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Blevins [mailto:Brad.Blevins@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:20 PM
To: Pilkington, Kevin
Subject: Second Interconnect between MidCon Texas and HPL




Have you reached an agreement within your shop about the location of the
second
interconnect between the two companies?