fw : agreement - - - - - original message - - - - -
from : miller , mary kay
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 5 : 29 pm
to : scott , susan
cc : fossum , drew ; fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy ; pryor , tony ; hass , glen ; darveaux , mary ; kirk , steve
subject : re : agreement
in paragraph 4 b , please delete the phrase that starts with notwithstanding the applicable rate in tw ferc gas tariff . the next paragraph covers the fact that the stated rate and fuel does not change and this phrase in 4 b highlights it to the shipper .
in addition , i think the capacity release paragraph needs modification , since these are greater than max at this time , we tw do not have the right to collect in excess of max rates . except if we then refile these as negotiated rates ? ? not sure what exactly to do but i think this needs reworked .
notwithstanding drew ' s comment to file in support , we could make it that they agree that they will not file anything in oppostion if they file in the docket . i ' m not sure filing now does much for us . not a big deal .
since the transactions will be negotiated rate deals , it is understood that the shipper do not have rofr rights , correct ?
please make sure that steve kirk , glen and mary d . are included in any routing . thanks mk
from : susan scott / enron @ enronxgate on 04 / 24 / 2001 04 : 17 pm
to : drew fossum / enron @ enronxgate , jeffery fawcett / enron @ enronxgate , lorraine lindberg / enron @ enronxgate , kevin hyatt / enron @ enronxgate , steven harris / et & s / enron @ enron , lindy donoho / enron @ enronxgate
cc : tony pryor / et & s / enron @ enron , mary kay miller / et fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy
cc : pryor , tony ; miller , mary kay
subject : re : agreement
looks good - - with one suggested change . par . 6 on " support " required the counterparty to file a " timely " intervention in support of the project . its too late for that . lets delete the word " timely " and it should be ok . df
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : scott , susan
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 1 : 26 pm
to : fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy
cc : pryor , tony ; fossum , drew ; miller , mary kay
subject : agreement
here is a new version of the form red rock agreement . this version specifies a 5 % fuel rate notwithstanding the existing tariff fuel rates . it also contains the " sharing in the upside " language for capacity releases . lorraine , i ' ve not included a waiver of rofr rights since these shippers don ' t get rofr inthe first place . comments - - please let me know immediately .
>
fw : agreement
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : miller , mary kay
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 5 : 29 pm
to : scott , susan
cc : fossum , drew ; fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy ; pryor , tony ; hass , glen ; darveaux , mary ; kirk , steve
subject : re : agreement
in paragraph 4 b , please delete the phrase that starts with notwithstanding the applicable rate in tw ferc gas tariff . the next paragraph covers the fact that the stated rate and fuel does not change and this phrase in 4 b highlights it to the shipper .
in addition , i think the capacity release paragraph needs modification , since these are greater than max at this time , we tw do not have the right to collect in excess of max rates . except if we then refile these as negotiated rates ? ? not sure what exactly to do but i think this needs reworked .
notwithstanding drew ' s comment to file in support , we could make it that they agree that they will not file anything in oppostion if they file in the docket . i ' m not sure filing now does much for us . not a big deal .
since the transactions will be negotiated rate deals , it is understood that the shipper do not have rofr rights , correct ?
please make sure that steve kirk , glen and mary d . are included in any routing . thanks mk
from : susan scott / enron @ enronxgate on 04 / 24 / 2001 04 : 17 pm
to : drew fossum / enron @ enronxgate , jeffery fawcett / enron @ enronxgate , lorraine lindberg / enron @ enronxgate , kevin hyatt / enron @ enronxgate , steven harris / et & s / enron @ enron , lindy donoho / enron @ enronxgate
cc : tony pryor / et & s / enron @ enron , mary kay miller / et fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy
cc : pryor , tony ; miller , mary kay
subject : re : agreement
looks good - - with one suggested change . par . 6 on " support " required the counterparty to file a " timely " intervention in support of the project . its too late for that . lets delete the word " timely " and it should be ok . df
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : scott , susan
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 1 : 26 pm
to : fawcett , jeffery ; lindberg , lorraine ; hyatt , kevin ; harris , steven ; donoho , lindy
cc : pryor , tony ; fossum , drew ; miller , mary kay
subject : agreement
here is a new version of the form red rock agreement . this version specifies a 5 % fuel rate notwithstanding the existing tariff fuel rates . it also contains the " sharing in the upside " language for capacity releases . lorraine , i ' ve not included a waiver of rofr rights since these shippers don ' t get rofr inthe first place . comments - - please let me know immediately .
>