With PMA's, volumes can be adjusted through the system as usual and I can 
adjust the demand fee on the Sitara ticket.  I am not able to follow your ua4 
calculation.  However, there was imbalance payback that occurred throughout 
September and October.  (This should have been pathed to the Lone Star 
transport k in Unify).  Is this in that ua4 number?  Williams had been trying 
to make up volumes from prior periods, so that's probably why their volume 
came in greater than booked.  (Much of their gas is from El Paso and volumes 
vary each day from scheduled.)  The volumes that they were trying to make up 
would go toward the transport imbalance also.  I would think that Cleburne 
will carry an imbalance on Lone Star from month to month.  After Novemeber, 
the imbalance should be fairly small.  Our scheduler, Mark McCoy will have 
that number.  (When we took over this deal, the imbalance on Lone Star was 
very large.   When the plant went down in Sep, we decided to payback the 
imbalance then, so that we could take advantage of higher winter sales prices 
if the opportunity came up.)

The agreement does not specifically state anything about ua4.  But, I will 
discuss that with Legal.  The intent is for all costs, including ua4 and 
fuel, to be covered by Tenaska IV.

I will be leaving at 1pm today and will return on Tuesday 12/19.  We can get 
together then if you would like.

D


   
	
	
	From:  Jim Pond @ ENRON                           12/14/2000 08:56 AM
	

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Greg Whiting/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT, Troy Klussmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, James 
Armstrong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Megan Parker/Corp/Enron@ENRON@ECT 
Subject: Re: Tenaska IV 10/00  

Darren, 
The demand fee is probably the best solution.  We can use it to create a 
recieivable/payable with Tenaska, depending on which way the calculation goes 
each month.  How are PMA's to be handled once the fee been calculated and the 
deal put in the system?

Attatched is a schedule detailing what is on the GL for Cleburne as of 
today.  Some of this info will change by the end of the month.  As you can 
see, there are some discrepancies between Megan's calculations and what is on 
the general ledger.  UA4 is also on my schedule.  Unless the buys/sells are 
volumetrically balanced, we book an entry to balance the desk.  This will 
change the calculation of what is due from/to Tenaska.  Should we be 
recording a UA4 entry for Cleburne?  Is it addressed in the agreement with 
Tenaska?

  



Daren J Farmer@ECT
12/12/2000 04:48 PM
To: Greg Whiting/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Troy Klussmann/HOU/ECT@ECT, James 
Armstrong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Megan Parker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jim 
Pond/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Tenaska IV 10/00

In most cases, ENA will be a net buyer from Tenaska IV for activity related 
to the Cleburne plant.  However, for October 2000, the plant was down the 
majority of the month and ENA sold off the supply, resulting in ENA owing 
money to Tenaska IV.

I have created deal 529856 with a demand of $1,798,389.73, which is the 
calculated amount of income on the Cleburne desk. (Please see the attached 
schedule.)   We need to pass this income on to Tenaska IV.  Do we need to pay 
this amount (wire from ENA to Tenaska IV) or is there another way to do 
this?  This is the case for October 2000 and could possibly happen again in 
the future.

Greg, Troy, Jim - Please let me know what you think about settling this.

Megan - Don't pay the amount until we here from the Greg, Troy and Jim.  
Also, make sure that we have received dollars from the spot sales before we 
reimburse Tenaska IV.

D
---------------------- Forwarded by Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT on 12/12/2000 
04:37 PM ---------------------------
   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Megan Parker @ ENRON                           12/07/2000 09:18 AM
	

To: Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Tenaska IV 10/00

We have actuals.  The larger of the two volumes is 1,395,000, which is 
45,000/day, so the demand rate in deal 514353 is fine.  I am having a 
problem, though, with the way it is coming to settlements.  It is showing up 
with a Jan 2003 delivery date.  I think the demand fee needs to be on 10/1 
only.  Right now, it is on a line with a date of 10/1/00 to 12/31/36.   I 
think this is confusing the system some how.  Also, we still need the 
purchase deal for Tenaska IV.  It should be for a demand fee of $2,571,135.73 
booked to the Cleburne desk.  We actually owe $1,798,389.73, but I need to 
net the Tenaska IV sales with the purchase to clear those receivables.  James 
is calling me every day asking for an update.  Do you know when we will be 
able to get this in the system?  I have attached my spreadsheet so you can 
see the numbers.






Megan