QUESTION: Doug, Here's the revised CA. I highlighted the changed terms. In addition, I deleted the prior paragraph 11 which said that the agreement supercedes a prior CA. I don't know if the InterGen indentity and signatory are the same, but obviously I left that for you to determine. I expect that the Enron entity which will bid will be EPMI, so I used that entity. I beefed up the definition of confidential information due to the complexity of the issues, and I added 6 months to the term since things won't get cranked up for a while. I look forward to talking to you at your convenience. Have a good weekend. Kay
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: CA re energy management services

QUESTION: Attached is the latest draft of the Transport Option Program filing. After our discussion last week I made a couple of significant changes from the last draft. One is that we're no longer stating that the option fee is going to be "market-based." Instead I have tried to portray the option fee as a built-in feature of the transport rate, which is simply being disaggregated into a separate option fee. The other significant change is that I've structured the tariff language and the agreement so that every shipper, regardless of whether they currently use transport on TW, will have to have a firm transportation agreement when they buy an option. In other words, a shipper that does not currently have a service agreement will simply execute an agreement with a MAXDTQ of zero. If you don't think I've explained this clearly enough, let me know. I'm meeting informally with the Commercial Group next week to discuss 1) some examples of options to make sure the tariff provisions and contract work from a logistical standpoint, 2) the bidding process, and how bids for options will be evaluated, and 3) further comments received from shippers. I'll circulate our ideas on bidding and awarding options, and any other new ideas or questions. As I've discussed with some of you, our shippers are asking to see the filing in its entirety before we file it, and would like to have a roundtable meeting prior to filing to discuss their concerns. I realize there is some concern about showing them our filing. What if we just show them our final tariff language and form agreement, and offer to host a meeting to discuss their questions? Let me know what you think. Our target filing date will depend on whether we have a customer meeting first, and when FERC staff is available to talk.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Transport Options on TW

QUESTION: SK - we will forward the necessary information to him (the claim form). It's just not the same here without you. Happy New Years. Mo Steve, Happy holidays. It is hard to know where to begin except to say that we certainly have followed the Enron story closely. Not for the obvious business reasons, of course, but because people, like you, that we came to know and like were going through such difficulty. Naturally, we all hope that as 2002 arrives with it will come easier and better times and that ultimately this all plays out in a way that is good for you. You know that we very much enjoyed working with Enron and spared no effort to do the best job we could. For this reason, we were delighted when we received, prior to the announcement of Enron's bankruptcy a check for the final payment of our truncated agreement. However, that check has now bounced twice. We are a small company and while the payment was not immense, only $120K, it is still meaningful. Do you have any advice for us as to how we can get this check honored? Clearly, it was the intent to pay us and we are now caught in the system. Among the many things you must have to do, I know this is small. But to us it is large and if there is a way that you can help we would be most grateful. Many thanks and best wishes for the New Year, David
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Greetings