IN: Jay, The billing contact is Beth Holland 406-497-4288. I checked with Beth to see if the account is current. It looks like October has not been paid yet. Payment terms are 14 days after the date of the bill, November is dated the 14th which makes the due date the 28th. For any transport questions regarding storage activity call Jim Griffin 406-497-2806 or myself at 406-497-2649. I also e-mail a daily statement to Jackie Adams if you need to check on month to date activity. Thanks, Connie

Generate a subject line.

OUT: 11/01 MPC Invoice

IN: Presentation: Great Lakes Transmission When: Monday, June 18 (3:00-4:30) Where: Troy, MI (Detroit) Who: Shiela Walby (Marketing); The main guy is Great Lakes is Art Edmunds [this is who I spoke to] and he will be out of town for several weeks but wants us to meet with Shiela, his rates/pricing manager; An IT person will be at the meeting as well. Comments: Art told me that they run daily auctions for both firm and IT; He also told me that they were unable to get rid of much of their firm capacity this past winter; Alliance, Panhandle Eastern and Vector have created a competitive environment for Great Lakes; Art also told me that they rarely sell at their max. rate due to new competition. Note: We are meeting with Vector on Tuesday.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Great Lakes Transmission Ltd.

IN: You had a question about the meaning of Section 4.3. Here's a brief explanation. Section 4.2 covers indemnification in case one party gets sued by a third party for damage caused by negligence of the other party. I'm OK with eliminating "stockholders" and the "...judgments of any nature..." clause you two spoke about on the phone as long as they come out of both subparagraphs a. and b. Section 4.3 needs to stay in because it covers any potential action by EPFS against TW for damage to EPFS's facilities during the term of the agreement. TW is already obligated elsewhere in the agreement to construct and operate the facilities in accordance with industry practice, tariff and DOT standards. Our policy in interconnect agreements is that if TW complies with these standards we should not then somehow be liable for damage to EPFS in case of explosion, etc. In other words, both parties bear the risk attached to something unforeseeable going wrong notwithstanding use of industry and DOT standards. (By the way, I believe the "notwithstanding anything in this Article 4 to the contrary" language should come out; I'm not sure why it's in the draft.) Any questions -- please e-mail or call (713-853-0596).

Generate a subject line.

OUT: TW/EPFS interconnect agreement

IN: Here's today's version. Michael is still running a fairly high fever, so it would be a big help if we can talk via phone. Kay

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
FuelCell Contract