I assume you didn't see this because of the fire wall, so I'm resending.
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Hain/HOU/ECT on 03/21/2001 09:51 PM 
---------------------------
To: MICHELE FARRELL/ENRON@enronxgate @ ENRON
cc: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, JAY DUDLEY/ENRON@enronxgate@ENRON 
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Draft interconnection procedure  


Jay--Couple notes:

FERC has stated in several orders what it considers "material changes".  You 
may want to look at Duke and Consumers procedures to make sure you are Ok 
with the interpretations.  Those are some of the orders that I would look to 
should a utility try to kick an Enron project out of the queue for a change.

Also, per your comments on No. 16.  I agree with you on "commenced 
construction."  What I mean by "commenced" includes the utility purchase of 
easements, etc.  I just want to make sure that the Customer is not agreeing 
to live with the FERC outcome, unless the Customer tells the utility to 
proceed and agrees to be bound by FERC's decision and agrees to pay the 
costs.  [[Customer may want to wait to proceed until it sees the FERC 
decision.]]  Thanks.



From: MICHELE FARRELL/ENRON@enronxgate on 03/21/2001 10:33 AM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: JAY DUDLEY/ENRON@enronxgate 

Subject: Fwd: Re: Draft interconnection procedure

Please let me know if you have any feedback to Jay's suggested approach to the
Generation Interconnection Procedures section of the tariff.  I don't want to
file this until I hear that you are in agreement.


-----Original Message----- 
Date:  03/18/2001  03:10 pm  (Sunday)  
From:  JAY DUDLEY
To:  Christi Nicolay;  Mary Hain
CC:  James Steffes;  MICHELE FARRELL
Subject:  Re: Draft interconnection procedure

Mary, Christi.

Thanks for your good comments on the draft interconnection procedures.
Attached is a memo addressing your comments.

Michele Farrell will have the pen to make the changes and to supervise the 
filing while I'm out this week.


Jay.

-----Original Message----- 
Date:  03/16/2001  12:28 pm  (Friday)  
From:  Jim Eden
To:  Dave Lamb;  Frank Afranji;  Jack Todd;  MICHELE FARRELL
CC:  Gary Lindland;  JAY DUDLEY
Subject:  Re: Comments on Interconnection Procedures

I agree with Dave.  I'd agrue for 120 if I thought I could get away with it.

>>> Dave Lamb 03/16/01 11:16AM >>>
Frankly, I am more comfortable with 90 days.  Its easier to complete a 
project early and send out the info prior to the due date, then to have to go 
back and ask for more time.  Depending on the size of the plant and location, 
we may be faced with a lot of checking equipment records and field checks to 
verify ratings.  I'll ask Gary Lindland how he feels about reducing the time 
line.

>>> MICHELE FARRELL 03/16/01 11:02AM >>>
Any feedback on Enron's comments on our draft interconnection procedures that 
Jay sent out last night?  Jay and I are trying to get the DC attorneys on the 
phone to incorporate some changes.  In particular, Enron wants us to put in a 
shorter time for completing the Interconnection Facilities study (60 rather 
than 90 days).  Enron says we would still have the flexibility to take longer 
if we notify the customer that we need more time.  How do Dave and Jim feel 
about that proposal?