|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: fkelly@gbmdc.com, sstojic@gbmdc.com, bill.cordes@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: fkelly@gbmdc.com, sstojic@gbmdc.com, bill.cordes@enron.com X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Steven Harris, Mary Kay Miller, Michel Nelson, George Fastuca, Susan Scott X-cc: FKelly@GBMDC.com, SStojic@GBMDC.com, Bill Cordes X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf Now that the celebrating has died down, lets decide whether to seek rehearing or clarification of the order. If there is anything in it that disadvantages us, we should consider rehearing, particularly since it is a nearly certain that our friends at SoCal will file a nasty one. (It might be good for Steve H. or Bill or whoever has the best relationship with SoCal to make a high level courtesy call to extend the olive branch and tell them that we'll work with them to minimize their concerns blah blah blah. At minimum, we'll probably learn if they do intend to seek rehearing) I see two things that may be worth seeking rehearing on: 1. The requirement that we disclose our discount agreements in 15 days. FERC really punted this issue. They say that "since the expansion capacity is fully subscribed we see no reason why Transwestern should not publicly disclose the agreements. . . . " This is the first time I've heard of any rule that if your project is fully subscribed you therefore lose your right to confidential treatment of sensitive pricing info. At minimum, we could argue that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious because FERC didn't even mention its normal regulations and procedures governing filing of discount reports. It just cited the certificate regulation that requires an applicant to "file" its rate information with the Commission (which we did) and ignores the regulation (Sec. 284.7©(6)) that doesn't require a pipeline to publicly disclose its discounts until 15 days after the close of the billing period to which the discount pertained. The commercial people need to decide if we care about this issue--i.e., how upset will the customers with the high rates be when they learn about the low rates? Also, Frank and Steve and Susan--since the order imposes a 15 day deadline on this issue, do we need to file for a stay first and then rehearing? 2. The ECS issue. I think we can work around this for the Gallup project, by filing a report describing the operational control TW has under the O & M agreement. I've talked to Mark Knippa of ECS and he is running the idea by Courtney and will get back to me today. My real worry is what the "operational control" requirement does to our future outsourcing/ monetization projects. I think ECS and Hanover need to have operational control over the assets in our other deals (i.e., TW compressor monetization) in order for both of us to get the accounting treatment we need to monetize the forward revenue streams. If we agree that TW will keep absolute operational control on this deal, FERC will use it as precedent when we come in with the TW compression deal. Arthur Anderson will crap on the monetization part of that deal (which is, after all, the whole point of doing it) if TW retains too much control over the asset. I'm not sure how to solve this yet, but lets all put some thought into it. 3. Any others??? I'll turf to MKM the question of whether we need to set up a meeting on this and when to chat. DF
|