|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached is my redline of your Sat. draft. In addition to the revisions in
the doc, I have a few questions and concerns: 1. On the segmenting section, I think it is a fine legal argument, but it lacks something. What is our "or else" position? Does the Global Settlement give us any FERC-out rights or colorable argument that the entire deal should be unwound if FERC screws up the segmenting issue? I'm not suggesting that we should trigger a FERC out if we have one, but if we arguably do, we should consider threatening to use it. I'm afraid we come across as whiny and FERC's position will likely be "so what, what are you going to do about it?" If we have no arguable "FERC-out" and the only "or else" we have is that we'll take them to Court and force them to adhere to the original deal, I'm for leaving the draft as-is. We can make our appeal threat more direct on rehearing if they hose us in the initial order. 2. On the arbitrage argument, I've taken out any reference to an example and softened the verbiage a bit. I want to leave in the references to the arbitrage issue, however, because FERC understands the problem and believes it is widespread. We don't need to prove exactly how big a problem it is on our system (although it would have been very effective if we had clear facts). 3. Do any of the OBA changes arguably conflict with the Global Settlement? If so, we'd better be prepared to eat our words from the segmenting section. Covering ourselves in the sanctity of that Settlement in section 1 and then fiddling around with it in section 2 won't play well. It is my understanding that the OBA system on TW was not part of the turnback resolution deal so I hope this won't be a problem. 4. On FN 20, I'd suggest we use Vig's data and chart for May of 2000. The arb opportunity is huge and clear. We reference in the FN that we use all six of the Gas Daily price points, and I think Vig used just 3. What's the right answer? Good work everyone--please give it one more careful look on Monday AM and it should be good to go. DF Maria Pavlou 08/12/2000 08:33 AM To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sheila Nacey/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, darveaux@tconl.com, jeffery fawcett@msn.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com cc: Subject: TW's 637 Filing I have tried to incorporate comments from our meeting last Thursday as well as written comments provided to me. There are still some areas that we need to decide on. For example, we need to determine if arbitrage argument works and finalize related Exhibits. Also, re: daily imbalance pricing at points that have EFM, are we keeping the 25,000 Dth?? Also, I'm not sure whether we confirmed that we have only called one Alert Day since 1994. Finally, we need to double check the tariff language on autobalancing per note on page 29 of draft. Please review and provide me with comments early on Monday. Thanks. Maria
|