|
|
Enron Mail |
Christi -- I don't think it changes the requirement to file by October 1 e=
ither, and we are proceeding under the same schedule. Several rehearing re= quests were submitted, including one for ENA/EES. However, note the follow= ing which I sent out in an earlier message to the ENA/EES western commercia= l and government affairs folks (I noted you deleted your message without re= ading it.) I consider the tolling of the rehearing order along with this O= MB ruling a good sign. =20 As detailed in the attached FERC notice, the Office of Management and Budge= t (OMB) has approved FERC's Information Collection Request for "Reporting o= f Natural Gas Sales to the California Market" through the six-month emergen= cy period that will expire on 1/31/02. (Emergency reporting requirements a= re automatically approved for six months under the OMB regulations.) Howev= er, it gave FERC several conditions that would have to be met before the re= porting requirements could be extended. OMB has advised FERC that, if it decides to request renewal of the Informat= ion Collection Request after that date, it must address certain issues as p= art of its supporting statement (more specifically, "include an explicit di= scussion"). As you may remember, in addition to requesting rehearing of th= e FERC order, ENA and EES submitted comments to OMB regarding our problems = with FERC's estimate of the burden on affected companies of the proposed co= llection of information. We pointed out that we do not manage our business= in the manner contemplated by the reporting requirements, much less keep o= ur records in that manner. We manage our business on an aggregated basis, = and complying with the requirements will require us to implement significan= t manual review and analysis to arbitrarily define the components of a sale= . We stated that we might even have to hire full-time staff to dedicate to= the task. The issues that we raised in our comments are the same ones that OMB requir= es FERC to address if they submit a request for approval to extend the repo= rting requirements past 1/31/02. (FERC indicated in its July order that it= intended to extend the reporting requirement through 9/30/02 to coincide w= ith the end date of its mitigation plan.) OMB questioned the practical uti= lity of requiring disaggregated data when "commenters" reported that they d= id not maintain the data in a way that allowed them to report it that way. = OMB expressed concern that the data collection would require significant d= ata manipulation in order to respond, and the resulting disaggregation woul= d likely be artificial. OMB also required FERC to evaluate its burden esti= mates after "consulting with respondents", and it must provide a list of th= e names, affiliates, and phone numbers of the respondents it contacted. FERC has not yet issued an order on our rehearing request. While we would = not expect them to withdraw the reporting requirements entirely, it may be = that the OMB action will affect their final decision. At the least, it sen= ds a signal! =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Nicolay, Christi L. =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:58 AM To:=09Cantrell, Rebecca W. Subject:=09FW: Two proceeding changes -----Original Message----- From: =09Miller, Mary Kay =20 Sent:=09Monday, September 24, 2001 5:45 PM To:=09Butler, Janet; Alvarez, Ray; Bagot, Nancy; Benner, Martha; Benson, Er= ic; Blair, Lynn; Boatman, Jack; Bradley, Rob; Branney, Theresa; Brennan, Lo= rna; Briggs, Tom; Comnes, Alan; Cordes, Bill; Corman, Shelley; Culwell, Chr= isti; Daniel, Shonnie; Darveaux, Mary; Dietz, Rick; Dornan, Dari; Dushinske= , John; Farrell, Sharon; Fossum, Drew; Fulton, Donna; Goodpasture, John; Ha= mmond, Pearce; Harris, Steven; Hartsoe, Joe; Hass, Glen; Hayes, Robert; Hay= slett, Rod; Heckerman, Bambi; Hess, Theresa; Hill, Robert; Holmes, Bradley;= Holtzman, Staci; Hopkins, Tamara; Horton, Stanley; Huber, Lee; Janousek, M= artha; January, Steven; Kean, Steven J.; Kilmer III, Robert; King Jr., Fraz= ier; Kirk, Steve; Kissner, Tim; Lantefield, Laura; Lawrence, Linda L.; Lich= tenwalter, Blair; Linnell, Elizabeth; Loeffler, Michael; Lokey, Teb; Lowry,= Phil; Mann, Ruth; Mara, Susan; Martens, Donna; McCoppin, Dorothy; McGowan,= Mike W.; Miller, Terri; Nacey, Sheila; Nelson, Kimberly (ETS); Neppl, Ray;= Neubauer, Dave; Neufeld, Eva; Neustaedter, Robert; Nicolay, Christi L.; No= vosel, Sarah; Paladino, Ranelle; Palmer, Maureen; Paschal, Zelda; Patterson= , Geneva; Pavlou, Maria; Petersen, Keith; Place, Janet; Porter, Gregory J.;= Pribble, Dan; Pryor, Tony; Raker, Colleen; Rice, Randy; Ringblom, Kathy; R= obertson, Linda; Saunders, James; Sawyer, Lisa; Scott, Donna; Shafer, John;= Shapiro, Richard; 'Smith, Mike'; Soldano, Louis; Stanton, Lon; Steffes, Ja= mes D.; Sullivan, Kathleen; Talcott, Jim; Taylor, Gina; Tu, Denis; Van Nord= en, Mike; Veatch, Stephen; Vignaroli, Donald; Warner, Jody; Watson, Kimberl= y; Wilkie, Kim; Wilson, Rob; Winckowski, Michele; Wininger, James; Yoho, Li= sa; Atkisson, Margaret; Bianchi, Rita; Bourg, Naomi; Lehn, Terry; Puetz, Fr= ed Subject:=09RE: Two proceeding changes Does this result in any change to the requirements to comply on 9/30? I do= n't see any, but was curious?? Mary Kay -----Original Message----- From: =09Butler, Janet =20 Sent:=09Monday, September 24, 2001 5:11 PM To:=09Alvarez, Ray; Bagot, Nancy; Benner, Martha; Benson, Eric; Blair, Lynn= ; Boatman, Jack; Bradley, Rob; Branney, Theresa; Brennan, Lorna; Briggs, To= m; Butler, Janet; Comnes, Alan; Cordes, Bill; Corman, Shelley; Culwell, Chr= isti; Daniel, Shonnie; Darveaux, Mary; Dietz, Rick; Dornan, Dari; Dushinske= , John; Farrell, Sharon; Fossum, Drew; Fulton, Donna; Goodpasture, John; Ha= mmond, Pearce; Harris, Steven; Hartsoe, Joe; Hass, Glen; Hayes, Robert; Hay= slett, Rod; Heckerman, Bambi; Hess, Theresa; Hill, Robert; Holmes, Bradley;= Holtzman, Staci; Hopkins, Tamara; Horton, Stanley; Huber, Lee; Janousek, M= artha; January, Steven; Kean, Steven J.; Kilmer III, Robert; King Jr., Fraz= ier; Kirk, Steve; Kissner, Tim; Lantefield, Laura; Lawrence, Linda L.; Lich= tenwalter, Blair; Linnell, Elizabeth; Loeffler, Michael; Lokey, Teb; Lowry,= Phil; Mann, Ruth; Mara, Susan; Martens, Donna; McCoppin, Dorothy; McGowan,= Mike W.; Miller, Mary Kay; Miller, Terri; Nacey, Sheila; Nelson, Kimberly = (ETS); Neppl, Ray; Neubauer, Dave; Neufeld, Eva; Neustaedter, Robert; Nicol= ay, Christi L.; Novosel, Sarah; Paladino, Ranelle; Palmer, Maureen; Paschal= , Zelda; Patterson, Geneva; Pavlou, Maria; Petersen, Keith; Place, Janet; P= orter, Gregory J.; Pribble, Dan; Pryor, Tony; Raker, Colleen; Rice, Randy; = Ringblom, Kathy; Robertson, Linda; Saunders, James; Sawyer, Lisa; Scott, Do= nna; Shafer, John; Shapiro, Richard; Smith, Mike; Soldano, Louis; Stanton, = Lon; Steffes, James D.; Sullivan, Kathleen; Talcott, Jim; Taylor, Gina; Tu,= Denis; Van Norden, Mike; Veatch, Stephen; Vignaroli, Donald; Warner, Jody;= Watson, Kimberly; Wilkie, Kim; Wilson, Rob; Winckowski, Michele; Wininger,= James; Yoho, Lisa; Atkisson, Margaret; Bianchi, Rita; Bourg, Naomi; Lehn, = Terry; Puetz, Fred Subject:=09Two proceeding changes FERC issued this tolling order today on natural gas sales to California http://cips.ferc.fed.us/Q/CIPS/RULES/RM/RM01-9.001.TXT and issued a notice rescheduling the Sixth Interstate Facility Planning Sem= inar until October 26, 2001 http://cips.ferc.fed.us/Q/CIPS/MISC/M_MS/MS092401.000.TXT
|