Message-ID: <19019056.1075860960226.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:02:05 -0800 (PST)
From: elizabeth.brown@enron.com
To: michelle.lokay@enron.com
Subject: RE: Transwestern Capacity Release - ENA/Burlington
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Brown, Elizabeth </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=EBROWN1>
X-To: Lokay, Michelle </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mlokay>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Michelle_Lokay_Mar2002\Lokay, Michelle\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Lokay-M
X-FileName: mlokay (Non-Privileged).pst

looks accurate to me...

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lokay, Michelle  
Sent:	Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:01 PM
To:	Brown, Elizabeth
Subject:	Transwestern Capacity Release - ENA/Burlington 

Here is how I see the February release, with the 50/50 sharing mechanism:

ENA's contract with TW is at a daily rate of $0.0600 (one-part)
The release to Burlington is at a daily rate of $0.1020 (demand only plus applicable commodity and fuel based on usage)
TW will bill Burlington through normal course of business (reservation of $71,400 [$0.1020 x 25,000 x 28 days] plus applicable commodity fees)
ENA demand invoice will be adjusted for a capacity release credit of $56,700  [($0.1020 - $0.021) x 25,000 x 28 days]
TW will need to book marketing fee revenues of $14,700 [$0.021 x 25,000 x 28 days]
ENA will be looking for a payment of $14,700 for their portion of the shared upside


I'd copied your format for January...what do you think of the February numbers?    

