|
|
Enron Mail |
I would recommend the following assumptions for capacity resubscription fro=
m now through Q3 2006: The historical average rates should be assumed for the resubscription of Ea= st and Ignacio to Blanco capacity rolling-off during this time period. The= forward curves that have been discussed represent the value of capacity to= California, not East to East or Ignacio to Blanco capacity. I don't think= that max rates for the capacity represented in these groups is appropriate= . The max rate at $.1020 is appropriate for the San Juan group. The appropriate max rate for the West group is $.2868. The volume of Ignacio to Blanco capacity available for resubscription shoul= d be reduced. Today, we have contracts from Ignacio to the Blanco Hub that= then continue on Transwestern on another contract. (These contracts exist= ed before Transwestern owned this line and were assigned to Transwestern wh= en we purchased the facilities from NWPL.) Because of this "artificial bre= ak" in the contracts, Transwestern is collecting the San Juan lateral rate = once on a contract from Ignacio to Blanco and then again on another contrac= t from Blanco to Thoreau (or to the CA border). In the future, when this c= apacity is resubscribed, the contracts will most likely not be split at the= Blanco Hub and Transwestern will only extract the San Juan lateral rate on= ce from Ignacio to Thoreau (or to the CA border). Jan and I will look at t= he Ignacio capacity that has historically continued on Transwestern south o= f the Blanco Hub (vs. delivering to El Paso at Blanco). We will come up wi= th a % to be applied to the Ignacio to Blanco capacity that should be resub= scribed at a zero rate (or the capacity to be resubscribed can be reduced -= whichever is easier to put in the model).
|