Good point, but I'm comfortable we're covered because our bidders were all 
bidding on a chunk of capacity and primary points.  They are deemed to be on 
notice that they had alternate point rights (its in the tariff) and if they 
wanted to submit a bid that had a different rate for primaries and 
alternates, they could have done so.  None of them did, and most importantly, 
the winning bidders did not.  Our letter agreement simply memorializes that 
we will charge the same negotiated rate whether the gas flows on primaries or 
alternates.  I assume from your message you are OK with this and they can get 
it nailed down?  DF  


   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           01/11/2001 02:49 PM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle 
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, 
Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley 
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: revised language  

I just got done looking at the underlying contract language as set forth in 
the pro forma service agreement in the tariff and it specifically says that 
the max rate would apply unless a discount or negotiated rate has been agreed 
to.   My concern with adding the language below is,  could it be argued that 
not everyone knew the rate would or could apply at any point, since we just 
stated Topack and Needles and if they knew they might have bid a different 
rate?? 



Susan Scott
01/11/2001 02:42 PM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle 
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: revised language

After discussions with the commercial group I propose that that redlined 
language be added to the attached Dynegy agreement and to the 4 other 
negotiated rate agreements we've done.  If there are any objections you need 
to get back to me ASAP.