Allyson,

Thank you for your prompt response.  

Can you describe the process and timing for filing a project update?

Thanks,

Kay




"Duncan, Allyson" <aduncan@kilstock.com> on 08/10/2000 09:45:11 AM
To: "'Kay.Mann@enron.com'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc: "Fine, Jonathan" <JFine@kilstock.com>, "'Jeffrey.M.Keenan@enron.com'" 
<Jeffrey.M.Keenan@enron.com>, "'Tom.Chapman@enron.com'" 
<Tom.Chapman@enron.com>, "'Heather.Kroll@enron.com'" 
<Heather.Kroll@enron.com>, "'Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com'" <Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com> 

Subject: RE: NCNG Delivery Points

I inadvertently ended the sentence with a comma.  The point I was making was
that if it were necessary to negotiate an additional delivery point, NCNG
would probably demand concessions such as an extension of the contract
period.  Hopefully, since we are only talking about a high pressure tap,
NCNG will have less leverage.

Jeffrey and I did talk about amending the application some time ago;  he
expressed the concern that the description of the generators might be
misleading unless either more or less data were supplied, and he suggested
describing them more generally.  I think he was confortable with the fact
that the CPCN will be reviewed by electrical engineers who understand the
generators described without the elaboration he thought necessary.

One of the problems with amending the application is that you run the risk
that the Commission will adjust the time frames for intervention, etc.,
accordingly.  If you want to revise the description of the equipment, it
would be less dangerous to file a project update.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:48 PM
To: Duncan, Allyson
Cc: Fine, Jonathan; Jeffrey.Keenan@enron.com; Tom.Chapman@enron.com;
Heather.Kroll@enron.com; Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com
Subject: Re: NCNG Delivery Points



Allyson,

Thank you for the email.  It seems to stop in mid sentence, so I was
wondering if maybe something got deleted?

We have an interest in having the application for the CPCN amended to be
less specific on the equipment we will be using.  I believe Jeffrey may
have mentioned this to you before.  We would like to follow up with that
now, unless there is some significant problem with it.

Thank you,

Kay




"Duncan, Allyson" <aduncan@kilstock.com> on 08/07/2000 02:27:23 PM

To:   "'Mann Kay'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:   "Fine, Jonathan" <JFine@kilstock.com>

Subject:  NCNG Delivery Points

There would seem to me to be two questions--the threshold one is whether
the
site is within Rocky Mount's service territory.  If it is, then what
obligation does NCNG have with respect to the construction of a delivery
point.  I haven't reviewed the annexation statutes yet, but based on my
initial reading of the Service Area Territory Agreement between Rocky Mount
and NCNG, once annexed the site would come within Rocky Mount's purview to
serve, and, although a "mutually agreeable" delivery point would have to be
negotiated, NCNG would at least have to negotiate that in good faith.

The January 13, 1992 Service Area Territory Agreement gives Rocky Mount the
right to distribute natural gas within the city's incorporated limits as
well as a specified area outside the incorporated limits.   The contract
goes on to provide that should any part of that perimeter be annexed into
the city, "the respective rights of the parties as to service in any such
portion shall be determined by applicable case law and the General Statutes
of North Carolina. . ."  The contract further provides that absent an order
of the NCUC to the contrary, NCNG agrees that Rocky Mount has the right to
serve all end users within the "aforementioned" area--presumably referring
to the annexed area, although the agreement is not a model of clarity.

So, at least based on this language, Rocky Mount's right to serve arguably
tracks its incorporated limits, whatever they might be.  (Jonathan and I
are
looking at annexation law to see what else might be lurking out there).

The 1992 Service agreement provides, In Article IV, provides that points of
devliery for all natural gas purchased or transported under the agreement
with NCNG shall be "at the following locations and other stations added at
mutually agreeable locations in the future. . ." In the Third Amendment to
the Natural Gas Service Agreement, dated March 10, 1997, new language and
delivery points are negotiated upon, but the principle is still included
that  other stations may be added at "mutually agreeable locations in the
future."  The question which then arises is what Rocky Mount would have to
give in exchange.  In the 1997 agreement, Rocky Mount agreed to an
extention
of terms of the of ten years, until December 6,