|
|
Enron Mail |
Maria, I wanted to follow up after discussions with you and Shelley, th=
e SoCal window is based on what SoCal=20 is willing to confirm into their system for the day. It does not neces= sarily have anything to do with physical capacity at Needles. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks. Lynn =20 -----Original Message----- From: Corman, Shelley=20 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:09 PM To: Blair, Lynn; January, Steven; Schoolcraft, Darrell Subject: FW: sid letter Please look at the insert below and let me know if you believe it to be a r= easonable description of the Socal windowing process from the customers' pe= rspective -----Original Message-----=20 From: Miller, Mary Kay=20 Sent: Thu 8/2/2001 2:11 PM=20 To: Fossum, Drew; Pavlou, Maria; Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Greg= ory J.; 'stojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'=20 Cc: Corman, Shelley; Hass, Glen=20 Subject: RE: sid letter Looks ok to me, but make sure that Shelley also reviews as her group deals = with the windowing issue. =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Fossum, Drew =20 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:59 PM=20 To: Pavlou, Maria; Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Gregory J.; 's= tojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'; Miller, Mary Kay Subject: RE: sid letter=20 I'll defer to you guys on getting the specific words right, but it would be= great if we can get something like this. Steve Harris needs to take a clo= se look to make sure we are describing the windowing impacts correctly. La= wyers: will a letter from Sid be admissable evidence under FERC evidence r= ules? We may need to ask them to have Scott sign it instead of their lawye= r to assure admissability. DF -----Original Message-----=20 From: Pavlou, Maria =20 Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:35 PM=20 To: Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Gregory J.; Fossum, Drew; 'st= ojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'; Miller, Mary Kay Subject: sid letter=20 Richardson has agreed to send us an additional writing regarding the other = justifications for the volumetric negotiated rate. Joe Koury asked me to = email the insert to the letter. Koury told me that he would reference the= July 26 order and the fact that the Commission has requested additional in= formation as to why the shipper entered into the subject negotiated rate tr= ansaction, with Scott Walker stating that in reviewing his previous respons= es he would clarify by adding the following: =20 Insert: =20 =20 Richardson Products proposed to share in a rate based on a daily spread as = a volumetric rate because under that rate arrangement if the gas did not fl= ow, Richardson was not obligated to pay Transwestern the rate. Richardson = desired to avoid the risk, under normal demand service, of having to pay th= e rate if the gas did not flow. The issue of whether the gas would flow w= as a very real one at the California border (Needles delivery point) given = the manner in which SoCalGas, the downstream party, confirms volumes for de= livery with Transwestern. Specifically, SoCalGas has a windowing procedur= e whereby it limits the amount of gas that Transwestern can deliver into Ne= edles based on SoCalGas' allocation procedures and the amount of available = takeaway capacity at the delivery point. [True?] Simply stated, if SoCalGa= s did not confirm Richardson's nomination at the Needles delivery point, th= e gas would not flow. The negotiated rate, as opposed to the rate for no= rmal demand service, allowed Richardson to avoid the risks associated with = Richardson's gas not flowing due to SoCalGas's windowing procedure. =20 Pls. review and comment asap. I promised Joe K. I would get it to him t= onight or first thing tomorrow because he will be out all next week and agr= eed to take care of this matter this week. Thanks, Maria
|