---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 03/22/2001 02:30 
PM ---------------------------


Jim Schwieger
04/07/2000 01:58 PM
To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brad Blevins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve HPL 
Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nathan L Hlavaty/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: RE: Interconnect Reimbursement Language

Kevin agrees with leaving the language in the agreement's.
---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 04/07/2000 01:08 
PM ---------------------------


"Pilkington, Kevin" <Kevin_Pilkington@kne.com> on 04/07/2000 10:42:20 AM
To: "'Jim Schwieger'" <Jim.Schwieger@enron.com>
cc:  
Subject: RE: Interconnect Reimbursement Language


I'm comfortable with the language.  I will get it pushed through on this
side.  Let's get it done.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schwieger [mailto:Jim.Schwieger@enron.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:35 AM
To: Pilkington, Kevin
Cc: Brad Blevins; Gerald Nemec; Steve HPL Schneider; Nathan L Hlavaty
Subject: Interconnect Reimbursement Language




Even though we have changed the reimbursement from 50 / 50 on both
interconnects
to each entity paying 100% of one interconnect I still feel the language
requiring either party to reimburse the other if operational circumstances
constrain the physical intent of the interconnect is still needed.  In this
way
both entities will be aligned in trying to insure both the receipt and
delivery
interconnects function as intended.  Please let me know if you disagree.

     Jim Schwieger