input stringlengths 93 39k | output stringlengths 1 117 |
|---|---|
Susan, I mailed your tickets today.
They said that the fastest I could get them there is 7-10 days.
We should be able to make it, just keep checking your mail.
Your itenerary is as follows: Tuesday, August 14 IAH to SFO 9:20am - 11:15am on Continental 531 SFO to Korea 1:00pm - 4:50pm on Korean Air 24, you will arrive on Wednesday, August 15 Sunday, August 26 Korea to LAX 3:00pm - 10:30am on Korean Air LAX to IAH 12:20pm - 5:49pm on Continental, you will arrive back in Houston on Sunday, 26th Anyway, I think that's it.
I hope the itenerary is ok. As far as packing I would bring clothes for hot, humid weather (about like Houston).
Nothing we do is very dressy.
I would say a nice shorts outfit or skirt is about as dressy as it gets here.
Wear comfortable, and shoes you really don't care about.
The monsoon season may be ending soon, but the streets are disgusting year around.
Bring your running shoes and I will try to keep you training for the marathon.
There is an ATM on post here that we can use free of charge, so don't worry about cash too much.
You can always write us a check.
We can also cash a check for up to $300/day.
Definitely do not change any money.
There are some places around here that give pretty good rates.
I would pack light and bring an extra suitcase.
You may want to buy some pottery here, or some fragile items so make sure you have extra room on your carry on.&n!
bsp; Of course there's always mailing things, too.
There is a DMZ tour on the 18th, 21st, 23rd, and 25th.
Probably one of the Saturdays would be better for Chuck.
If we do go somewhere, we should plan on going the first weekend you are here.
That DMZ tour on the Saturday before you leave would be a long day, but you don't fly out until 3:00 the next day, so I think we could do it if you are game.
Can't wait to take you around here and you can see what we've been doing the past year here!
Have a good weekend!
| hey |
1.
What time is it?
9:43 AM 2.
Name that appears on your birth certificate?
Jennifer Kathleen Bowles 3.
Nicknames: Jen, Jenny Poo, Finfrom 4.
Parent's names: Jim & Kathy 5.
Number of candles that appeared on your last cake:5 6.
Date that you regularly blow them out: If I had candles it would be August 23rd 7.
Pets: none 8.
Height:5'4 3/4" 9.
Eye Color:hazel 10.
Piercing:just two little studs in my ears and second holes that I don't wear anymore 11.
Hair color: blondish brown 12.Tattoos:none 13.
How much do you love your job?
I really like it although the working environment is STRANGE -- things are alway shopping though and I love that!
| Good morning! |
My brother is getting married!!!!
Chas and Laura got engaged last week!!
They have not set an official date yet, but probably sometime at the beginning of next year!
Just wanted to share the good news with all of you!
| My Brother!! |
We are pleased to announce the upcoming schedule of Effective Communication in the American Workplace These courses are designed for those individuals whose first language is not English.
The courses are scheduled to begin in Mid-September.
Our past class was very successful and we have made some improvements in the program since that first offering.
If you are interested in one or more of the courses, you will need to schedule a meeting with the instructor to create a customized training plan.
In this meeting, he/she will visit with you individually to be sure that you enroll in the course(s) that is(are) most suitable for you.
This is a required step.
Please send an e-mail to: Ramona Perkins with 3 time slot requests you would like to schedule your interview.
Appointments are scheduled every half hour, starting at 9:30 and concluding at 2:30 each day.
The appointments will be made on a first come, first served basis, so send in your request as soon as possible.
Ramona will acknowledge via return e-mail which appointment time was available.
The dates and locations are listed below.
********************************************************************************************** Effective Communication in the American Workplace Effective Communication impacts each of us everyday.
This curriculum and its individual courses is specifically designed to boost the language and communication skills of employees who speak English as a Second Language.
The integrated course content is designed to complement an employee's technical and professional expertise while strengthening the effectiveness of multicultural teams.
Assessment & Personal Training Plan Sessions Pre-course preparation includes a one on one meeting with the instructor.
This meeting provides an opportunity to develop a coherent, individualized training plan designed to meet the unique linguistic, cultural and educational background of each participant.
Training enrollment is limited so early evaluation/registration is encouraged.
All interested participants in all or part of the Effective Communication in the American Workplace course offerings are required to meet the instructor for an individual consultation.
Each appointment will last approximately 15 minutes and is scheduled on the hour and half-hour.
(9:30, 10:00, 10:30, etc.)
Available dates are: August 22: EB3671 August 23: EB3663 August 30th: EB3663 September 6: EB3663 September 7th: EB3671 English as a Second Language Curriculum Speaking Naturally This course, a workshop in American Spoken English, is designed to deal with the interferences in spoken communication.
Exercises focus on pacing, pronunciation, and articulation.
The course includes individual participant analysis and interactive skill building activities designed to increase confidence, as well as, professional effectiveness.
Schedule: 6 meetings, half day each.
Starts mid-October.
Investment: $600 Speaking Grammatically This course focuses on English grammar through skill based writing, reading and speaking activities.
Participants are allowed to practice new structures in a variety of dynamic contexts allowing for internalized mastery and integration.
The training is designed to bridge the gap between knowing grammatical structures and using them effectively in the workplace.
Schedule: 5 meetings, half day each.
Starts mid-September Investment: $400 Effective E-writing Written communication is more important than ever.
This course focuses on the unique challenges professionals, whose first language is not English, face in developing their written communication skills.
Language skill topics include grammar, sentence structure, paragraphing, organization, and style.
Activities integrate these topics into workplace skills that improve performance.
Objectives include combating counterproductive e-mail habits, writing with a clear message, and writing with an appropriate style for the audience you are addressing.
Schedule: 6 meetings, half day each.
Starts mid-September.
Investment: $600 Effective Presentation & Meeting Skills This training is designed to help professionals, whose first language is not English, increase their presentation proficiency- while enhancing meeting communication skills.
The training combines language skills with the tools needed to be an effective communicator in the world of technology.
An experiential approach provides participants with an opportunity to practice their skills in multiple role-playing simulations.
Schedule: 5 meetings, half day each.
Starts mid-October Investment: $400 Effective Communication: Teamwork & Collaboration The goal of this course is to improve the performance of professionals, whose first language is not English, in team oriented work settings through enhanced English skills.
Participants develop the language and communication skills necessary for effective collaboration - while developing the strategies and confidence critical to full participation and contribution to the team.
Schedule: 2 full days.
Offered late September.
Investment: $400 Effective Communication: Working with Your Manager This training focuses on the importance of full communication between employees and managers.
ESL professionals learn the practical, everyday language and skills necessary to navigate a critical workplace relationship.
Objectives are designed to develop the language skills necessary for successful and effective work relations.
Schedule: 2 full days.
Offered mid-October.
Investment: $400 ************************************************************************************** If you need additional information, please contact:
| Career Development/Communication Training |
Morgan Stanley owns a power plant in Reno, off of Tuscarora.
The plant is a 360 MW peaker plant with an inefficient heat rate of 12500.
They reverse toll by selling Malin and buying either COB or NOB power.
Mike
| Morgan Stanley at Malin |
I swore I would be one of those people who said never and really meant it.
Well, I guess "they" are right .
.
.
Clay and I have some news.
(No, I am not pregnant.)
But, we are buying a house in Dallas.
We close on it two days after my arrival in London.
Thankfully, Clay will still be here.
We will rent it out over the next year while we are away.
Our move in date will be sometime next summer, depending on our tenants' situation.
So, about the never say never part.
The house is in south Highland Park.
Gasp!
We never expected to buy a house this soon.
And, I NEVER--I repeat
| so they say NEVER SAY NEVER. . . |
How well do you know our Code of Ethics?
"It is a condition of employment that each employee accept the responsibility of complying with the foregoing policies.
The Company will require each employee of the Company to complete and submit a statement in a form designated by the Company pertaining to such employee's compliance with the policies set forth in this booklet.
The Company reserves the right to request any employee to complete and submit such statement at any time or as frequently as the Company may deem advisable."
(Enron Code of Ethics, July 2000, page 62) What does that mean?
In layman's terms, everyone employed by Enron agrees to all the policies and standards listed in the current Code of Ethics (July 2000).
Who does it apply to?
The Code of Ethics applies to all employees, third party contractors, guests and licensees of Enron.
Additionally, employees are responsible for their family members and/or personal household who use, own, or have access to Enron's communication services and equipment -- including telephones, fax machines, computers, computer modems, long distance telephone services, cell phones, voice mail, pagers, e-mail, mail and delivery services.
| Code of Ethics -- What Exactly Did I Agree To? |
Hey girls!
I can't believe I missed seeing y'all this weekend!
I'm so sad............Farrell and I had to leave early the next morning cause he had work - it's football season!
I told y'all he got a new job, right??
He is the JV Defensive Coordinator at Highland Park!
He loves it!
I would love to get together with y'all soon.
I will be in Austin this weekend (and for all of the home games).
Are you going to Austin for the game this weekend, Susan?
Let's try and make plans to do something!
I can't believe that Elizabeth is engaged - I am so happy for her!
I called her yesterday and left a message.
Do y'all know any details about the wedding, etc.?
Chas and Laura have set their date - April 20, 2002!
We are all so excited!
Let me know what y'all's plans are for this weekend!
Miss you!
Steph
| Hey! |
Aurora, my changes appear on the attached.
I assume you or AA have updated the numbers for eligible transition costs (second paragraph of section 7).
(If you have not, I'm really not sure who would have those numbers) I updated the numbers for environmental costs in the footnotes.
Please call (x30596) if you have any questions.
| Browncover notes |
Here is a list of all the agreements related to the Gallup Compressor: 1.
Compression Services Agreement (10/18/99) 2.
O&M Agreement (10/18/99) 3.
Gas Conversion Agreement (10/18/99) 4.
Operational Control Agreement (2/11/00) (contains no provisions related to payment) 5.
Letter amendment to Gas Conversion Agreement (2/23/00) (regarding Lock Price) 6.
Amendment to Gas Conversion Agreement (3/24/00) (regarding Start Date and calculation of Estimated CSC Fuel Payment) If you do not have all of these agreements in your file, or if you know of anyone else who needs a full set of these documents, please let me know and I will send copies immediately.
Also, two letters have been sent pursuant to the terms of the agreements: 1.
Notification by TW to ECS that ECS should pursue an alternative electric supply arrangement (2/29/00) 2.
Approval by TW of interim rate schedule (3/15/00) (w/copy of rate schedule attached) If you need copies of these letters, let me know and I'll send them to you also.
SS x0596
| Gallup Compressor Agreements |
See the attached.
Enron Corp. has already authorized Brian Cherry to add Enron to the list of parties at the end of the document.
I recommend TW do the same.
I propose that we ask Brian to add TW to the list, with a footnote that we support the transmission proposal only and do not oppose the other parts of the term sheet.
(I propose this out of an abundance of caution because in one part of the document Brian states the parties have agreed on comprehensive settlement, but later in the document he states that the parties aren't fully committed yet.)
If he will not agree to do this, then I would suggest we leave TW off the list and file a letter with the CPUC along the lines of what I circulated yesterday, with additional language supporting the motion for extension of time.
Let me know what you think.
| SoCal motion |
Hi there!
How's the little buglet doing?
It was good to see you last week, and I feel honored that I got to accompany Grayson on her first restaurant mission.
Hopefully the french-fry smell did not throw her off her feeding schedule to badly.
Got a message from Mema wanting to discuss the baby's bottle habits.
Pu-lease!
If it's OK with everyone I will try to bring Bill at Easter as a distraction.
This weekend I am supposed to drive to Austin to pick up Bill and his friends (aka Team Slacker) at the end of the MS 150.
I'll be driving someone's SUV.
If manners and general treatment of the trainer/driver (by Bill and the owner of the SUV) do not improve, however, Team Slacker will be taking the bus home.
Do you remember Rob Carty from high school?
I just saw him at a seminar given by Akin Gump for in-house lawyers.
He works for Exxon/Mobil now.
I barely recognized him because he has gotten so hefty!
Thought you would enjoy the following brief excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal: *** Big Boy's Adventures in Thailand With his checkered overalls, cowlick curl and penchant for double-burgers, Big Boy seemed an unlikely fit for Bangkok.
"People thought he was a little, well, creepy," says Peter Smythe, the head franchiser for Big Boy restaurants in Thailand, dusting off his giant Big Boy statue on Bangkok's main thoroughfare.
"They kept asking me, 'Is he a Chinese Ronald McDonald?'"
Eventually, a few Thai visitors decided Big Boy was a religious icon and laid bowls of rice and incense at his feet.
*** Take care and drop me a line when you can.
Love,
| Hi |
Rob, Look at the conforming languange in the Appendix "A" last page, last paragraph.
You know that this language was negotiated by and between SoCalGas and Edison.
My main concern is that its very, very open ended... almost a contingent liability for all settlement parties.
Jeff
| more Edison/SDGE stuff |
Vanessa, I checked with Bill, and the very unsatisfying answer to your question is that it totally depends on how Greg divided the community property with his ex.
He agreed with me that a will is a good idea in any case because you can arrange things so that you avoid legal proceedings and save a lot in taxes!
Our friend Tony Maluski does probate work: I believe his number is 713-228-7401.
He's a nice guy and I believe him to be competent; however, I think it is a good idea to shop around when you're doing something routine like a will or an uncontested divorce, so I'd advise calling several lawyers and see who you like best and who will give you the best deal.
If I can find some other names/numbers for you, I will.
Hope this helps!
| will question |
See the attached.
The proceeding certainly isn't over, but I think the parties have done a great job of submitting a settlement that the Commission will eventually approve, provided the parties present sufficient evidence to support such a decision.
(Unfortunately, we expect the settlement to be protested.)
Direct testimony is due May 5.
To streamline things, the parties are going to consolidate efforts and have divided up the testimony by topic.
Of course Transwestern got the Hector Road issue.
I plan to put Mr. Fawcett on as a witness.
Our issue is not particularly controversial anymore, so I do not anticipate rigorous cross-examination; nevertheless, I will probably ask your assistance in preparing the witness for the hearing, which begins May 30.
| GIR settlement update |
Lia Hernandez, currently of ET&S, has accepted a position at ENA effective August 2, 2000.
To ensure that ET&S continues to be in compliance with the marketing affiliate rules, Lia's access to any ET&S or GPG-related LANs or applications should be removed at the close of business on August 1.
In addition, Lia's email profile should be changed and any GPG or ET&S mass distribution lists should be changed.
Please send a reply email to me after these changes have been completed, verifying and indicating the date that employee was: - removed from the LAN - EBB password was changed/canceled (if applicable) - removed from ET&S or GPG-related applications - email post office box was transfered.
If you have questions, or if you believe there is someone else I need to contact in order to accomplish the above, please let me know.
| Transfer |
Drew, here's an excerpt from a FERC letter order accepting for filing a nonconforming agreement filed by Dynegy Midstream...sounds a little bit like what the TW guys are trying to do, if I understand the concept of volumetric rates correctly.
Left a message for my friend at DMP but he (like everyone else) is out 'til next year.
But since there were no subsequent orders issued in the docket I assume there were no problems with the filing.
I'm still leaning towards recommending the $0 demand/ $0.02 commodity + file as nego.
rate approach.
If Steve Harris is OK with the idea of doing a deal that requires filing, I will draft something and send it your way.
* * * The referenced negotiated transaction provides for a transportation service under DMP's Rate Schedule FTS.
Rather than paying a reservation charge, the negotiated agreement specifies that KGS will pay a volumetric rate.
The volumetric rate will equal DMP's maximum interruptible transportation service rate as set forth in DMP's tariff.
.
.The contract also (a) specifies five Dth/d as KGS' maximum daily reservation quantity, (b) lists KGS' primary receipt as Meter # 9999999 and (c) identifies five primary delivery points for KGS.
.
.
Upon filing Docket No.
RP99-240-000, DMP stated that it agreed to the above negotiated rate so that KGS could serve small residential customers on DMP's system under a firm rate schedule.
| TW/Red Cedar deal |
Last month Lindy and I began looking into adding a provision to TW's tariff allowing shippers to elect to purchase fuel gas from TW.
There is good precedent for this and I think it would be fairly easy to accomplish as long as we don't try to make the purchase of fuel from TW mandatory (see the attached memo).
Mary Kay, as you and I discussed, we will need to address the fuel overrecovery issue before moving forward with this.
| Fuel Charge on TW |
You asked whether current contract approval procedures require the marketers to get Legal's approval on all transportation contracts.
The answer is no.
If you look at the ET&S policy on authority to grant transportation and storage discounts (I can fax it to you if you don' t have it), there is a column for "Pre-approved Terms" and one for "Non Pre-Approved Terms".
Contracts that are not on a pre-approved form always have to have the Legal Dept's approval.
Contracts on pre-approved forms with a total discount (for the entire contract term) of less than $1.2 million do not need Legal's approval; those above the threshold do.
Does that make sense?
As far as I know our marketers have been following this.
I spoke with TK and she is aware of the policy, and she is also aware that she needs to show me any contract that deviates from our standard language.
She has also discussed this with Steve Harris recently to make sure he's comfortable with the policy.
If we need to discuss this further please let me know.
| contract approvals |
Drew, I wanted you to be aware of a potential dispute with regard to our consultant, Mark Baldwin of IGS.
Our consulting agreement with IGS (which has now terminated) provided for a flat fee, plus an incentive fee calculated using the net present value of any contract "identified by IGS" and entered into during the term of the consulting agreement.
During the term of the agreement, TW entered into its Gallup Expansion agreement with Southern.
IGS is now claiming it brought in the deal and so is entitled to an incentive fee.
While it is undisputed that Mark discussed the deal with Southern, Southern was also on Lorraine's list of shippers to contact for Gallup Expansion capacity.
Also, the capacity was posted for all to see.
So, while Mark can certainly claim he "identified" the deal, he was not alone in doing so.
Steve is going to call Mark in response to his letter (after he talks to Lorraine to verify facts).
Our thinking is that if we offer IGS some money they will be happy.
We would really like to preserve what has been a good working relationship with this consultant.
On the other hand, I think we could probably take the position that they are not entitled to any incentive fee.
However, since the contract is silent as to whether IGS has to be the only party bringing in the deal in order to qualify for the incentive fee, this position is not as strong as I'd like it to be, and IGS might sue TW.
The amount in dispute could be as much as $200,000, depending on what rate we use in calculating net present value.
If you have any problem with our offering to pay part of the incentive fee to IGS, let me know.
I think it will be very important for Steve not to admit that Mark helped in any way in getting the deal -- just in case they do
| contract issue |
Keith, last week you and I discussed briefly Facilities Planning's proposal to change the service factor on the Gallup compressor in order to increase capacity.
I believe you had concluded that a certificate application would be necessary.
Now Arnold Eisenstein is asking me (thru our commercial people) whether we would still have to make a filing if our certificated capacity could be increased without any physical modification to the compressor -- in other words, through a pressure commitment.
My initial
| certificate questions |
Drew, I've attached my proposed changes to the Red Cedar contract.
Our beloved Min/Max Language became a bit problematic, as you can see.
I'd welcome your comments on this.
| more Red Cedar |
Here is the quick & dirty.
None of the Gallup contracts contain a shipper out if the facilities are not placed in service by a certain date.
The respective obligations of the parties do not commence until the facilities are "tested and placed in service."
We notified our shippers by telephone yesterday that the facilities were in service.
The compressor has since been taken down because of excessive vibration and an unusual whining noise of undetermined origin.
EE&CC does not know how long it will take to correct the problems; they do not have enough information yet to even give an estimate.
Based on our experience with Hubbard, it could take months to correct the problem.
Today, we've been able to deliver all nominated gas simply because noms did not exceed our existing capacity.
Nominations are expected to exceed existing capacity this week, in which case we will have to allocate.
Given the uncertainty involved, from a PR standpoint I believe it would be best to tell the customers that because of unforeseen circumstances we are not in service after all, that we apologize for the mistake and will do our best to provide service on a daily or interruptible basis.
When the compressor is actually tested and really in service, we'll let them know.
The downside: we get no reservation charge at all.
(estimated loss: $25,000/month) The upside: in the long run we probably save face with our customers.
From a short-term economic standpoint, the better choice appears to be not to revoke our "in-service" announcement.
When summer weather kicks in, we'll probably have to allocate every day.
On our EBB we will have to give some reason for the allocation (or if we don't, shippers will demand an explanation anyway).
Shippers' rights to a reservation refund will be triggered.
The downside: shippers will never trust us again.
Also, we could be subject to fraud or related causes of action for representing the compressor was "in service" when we knew it was not.
The upside: on the off chance no one files a lawsuit and wins, we might at least get to keep some of the reservation charges owed us, to the extent deliveries don't fall below 75% of nominated quantities for a period of longer than 75 days in months other than July and August this summer.
(In July and August, we don't get any reservation charge for amounts not delivered).
We just need to keep in mind that normally the pipeline runs full in the summer months, and Gallup capacity was sold with that assumption in mind.
Haven't had time to do a formal write-up; if you want me to turn this into a memo for wider distribution, let me know.
For now, I think it's important to get a decision on one of the above options.
The longer we wait to get information to our shippers, the bigger our customer relations problem will be.
| Gallup answers |
Lorraine: here's Keith's brief response to your question about increasing capacity without changing the service factor or making other mods to the Gallup compressor.
Let me know where we need to go from here.
*** Susan, my understanding is that the capacity west to the California border is a certificated amount (1090 MMcf/d).
If in any way we try to change the certificated amount of capacity (firm capacity), we will need to file.
TW is different than NNG, in that TW certificates capacity rather than facilities.
Arnold's idea of using a pressure commitment would still require a filing.
Please let me know, if we need to discuss further.
Keith
| Gallup certificate question |
Dear Judge Biren: Attached is the Prepared Direct Testimony of Jeffery C. Fawcett on Behalf of Transwestern Pipeline Company in Support of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement that has been designated as Exhibit 12.
Hard copies of these documents were delivered to you on Friday, May 5.
Please contact me if there is any problem opening the electronic version.
| Prepared Testimony in I.99-07-003 |
We need to start a new "bucket" file called Direct Testimony.
Then please watch the mail and do a folder for each prepared testimony as they come in.
Thank you!
| Cali. proceeding files |
Rich and Dave, attached are my suggested revisions to Mike McLeod's draft of an amendment to the original electric service agreement.
Dave, I'll bring you a copy of that agreement.
Rich, if Mike did not send you one, let me know and I will fax it to you.
In my revisions, I've attempted to reflect the least cost billing you described to me, using terminology I read in the tariff.
Please let me know if it looks alright to you.
I'm available to discuss this whenever you are, then I will make sending this to Mike top priority.
My sincerest apologies for the delay; there has been more chaos around here than I am accustomed to handling, and I appreciate your patience.
Susan x30596
| WT-1 Electric Service Agreement |
Here are my standard rules for my witnesses on examination by opposing counsel.
They are worth learning well ahead of time because they can be very difficult to follow.
Memorize these and we'll do fine on cross (assuming we even get any questions).
1.
Listen carefully to the question.
2.
Answer only that question; do not volunteer more.
3.
If you don't know for sure what the answer is, just say so.
4.
If you cannot answer a "yes" or "no" question with "yes" or "no," say so and explain why.
| GIR cross-examination |
Here's a draft of a research memo on options.
While I am hopeful that we can overcome FERC's policy on reservation of capacity, our arguments obviously need to be developed a little more before we can do that.
I know the business folks are anxious to hear our strategy.
I would appreciate your comments on the attached.
| Options for TW Capacity |
I have been working with Ramona and Lorraine to make system adjustments to TW's LFT arising from conclusions made at a Northern LFT meeting a few weeks ago.
One change that has been called for is that if a Limited Day is called (for now let's say a total Limited Day, without notifying shippers of any percentages), no LFT can flow at any time during that day but the LFT shipper would have the option to flow IT to the extent space is available.
If a Limited Day were called notifying shippers that only a certain percentage would flow, LFT shippers would be able to flow that percentage, and the rest could be scheduled IT.
Drew latched onto this when I mentioned it to him and wanted to debate this change with me.
As currently configured, TW's system would allow LFT shippers to put in nominations on a Limited Day, and if any LFT capacity were in fact available that LFT would be scheduled.
Similarly, if TW were to notify shippers of a partial Limited Day (say 50%), and 60% of the capacity in fact became available, TW's system (today) would allow LFT shippers to put their nominations in and flow 60%, not limit them to 50%.
TW's tariff language appears suitably vague to allow this -- a Limited Day is defined as
| TW LFT |
Edd, looks like the gas industry restructuring thing is going to bring me to SF next Tues. thru Thurs., then May 29 thru June 2.
I had thought about going for the whole Memorial Day weekend, but Bill's going to be in Boston the following weekend, so I now think that June 3 - 4 would be the better weekend for me to hang out in Cali.
It's all sort of loosey-goosey anyway because the judge has not announced the order in which witnesses will be presented.
I think she forgets some of us are from out of town!
Makes it really hard to plan.
I'll know for sure by the 25th.
Thank goodness for refundable airline tickets.
Anyway, are going to be around that 1st weekend of June?
And -- might you be available for dinner next Tuesday or
| travel update |
On Friday the Commission issued an order suspending (until October 15, 2000) TW's tariff sheets for acquiring PNM capacity, and calling for a technical conference.
The Commission stated that while TW's proposal may be in the public interest, further investigation of the issues, including those raised by Dynegy in its protest, is necessary prior to authorization.
The order does not make clear what issues are to be investigated, but they seem to include: whether TW will, in effect, become a marketer for PNM's services, whether the rates are just and reasonable and whether there is any expansion of monopoly power.
Additionally, the Commission noted that while PNM has certificate (i.e., public convenience & necessity) authority to transport gas in interstate commerce, PNM will "have to either explain how it has appropriate rate authority for transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, or seek appropriate rate authority from the Commission."
Lorraine has forwarded a copy of the order to PNM so that they can begin taking the appropriate steps.
I will talk with regulatory about technical conference dates and will tell you when I have further information.
If you would like a copy of the order, let me know.
| PNM filing |
Since the 311 belt/suspenders approach didn't quite fit, I've had to try to convince Mr. Hertzberg that he ought to rely on the NGA Sec.
1 exemption for gatherers (Frank Kelly and Frazier concur with us on this, by the way).
He is not convinced yet, although he is unable to cite any authority for his proposition that being a shipper on TW would subject a gathering company to FERC jurisdiction.
I pointed out that Agave, the owner and operator of an extensive gathering system that interconnects with TW's system, has for many years been a shipper on TW.
Also, Lindy has found that Red Cedar already has a long-term transportation contract on another interstate system, Transcolorado, so if Hertzberg's theory is right they are going to jail anyway!
Red Cedar also seems to be hung up on our requirement that shippers have title to the gas they ship.
At this point Lorraine and I believe they might just be looking for any excuse to get out of the deal.
If anything interesting happens I'll let you know.
| Red Cedar update |
Dear Judge Biren: Attached is the Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of Jeffery C. Fawcett on Behalf of Transwestern Pipeline Company in Support of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement that has been designated as Exhibit 17.
Hard copies of this document are being delivered to you today.
Please contact me if there is any problem opening the electronic version.
| Prepared Rebuttal Testimony in I.99-07-003 |
Mike, please see the attached.
The first document has Transwestern's revisions highlighted.
If this meets with your approval, please execute two originals and send them to me.
Please call me if you have any questions.
| WT-1 Service Contract amendment |
Dear Judge Biren: Transwestern Pipeline Company will be offering the following exhibits: 1.
Prepared Direct Testimony of Jeffery C. Fawcett on Behalf of Transwestern Pipeline Company in Support of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 12, incorporating Exhibit JCF-1) and 2.
Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of Jeffery C. Fawcett on Behalf of Transwestern Pipeline Company in Support of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 17).
Transwestern estimates it will need less than 10 minutes for direct testimony.
Transwestern does not at this time intend to cross-examine any witnesses; however, it reserves the right to request a reasonable amount of time to examine witnesses on issues affecting Transwestern to the extent that any party's live testimony differs from or conflicts with its prepared testimony.
| I.99-07-003 |
I was successful shopping for Jim on-line at B&N and Territory Ahead.
Mum, only the book will be shipped to your house; I was on autopilot and typed in my work address for the other.
(Really missed the boat on tennis clothes.
You have to act early.
Today I saw one of the Met pros leaving with his catalog to order FALL 2000 Nike stuff!)
Karin, I am probably going to make a stop at Macy's or Neiman's makeup counter at some point so I could pick up the Estee Lauder for MeeMaw* if you know the shade.
Bill's b-day is today; if you want to send a message his e-mail is 75261.151@compuserve.com.
That's all this elf knows.
* new trendy spelling with capital letter within the word
| elf update |
Anyway, Ann isn't coming on Friday because she can't stand it that everyone is a couple, so she is going instead with her ex boyfriend to a dinner party given by some people she doesn't even know.
Although I am trying very hard to be understanding, I'm not doing a very good job.
When I was in her situation, I seem to remember enjoying my best friends' company whether I had a date or not!
But that's just me.
Hope you are still having tanning weather in Austin.
We certainly are here.
If you feel you are not getting enough color for your trip to Cabo, I'll come before you leave and help you with the Clinique Tan-In-A-Tube!
(You will still have to wear sunscreen).
What are your trip dates again?
Have a good day!
Love,
| message part II |
Mike, please see the attached, which incorporates the changes we discussed yesterday.
If this looks acceptable to you, please sign two originals and forward them to me.
Thanks.
| WT-1 Service Contract amendment |
Brian, Transwestern has reviewed your draft exhibit responsive to Judge Biren's inquiry on June 7.
We appreciate your work on it and generally agree with the exhibit and the approach taken by SoCalGas.
However, we think it appropriate to balance simplicity with the need to be responsive to Judge Biren's questions.
See the attached marked-up version of the exhibit.
We've attempted to streamline the data provided for "non-Wheeler" points, and to clarify the footnotes regarding Wheeler Ridge.
Also, we've modified the numbers regarding the TW Topock lateral to accurately reflect the lateral's 400 MMcf/d physical capability.
We've also made some minor formatting changes.
Let us know what you think.
Jeff Fawcett Susan Scott Transwestern Pipeline Company
| Late-Filed Exhibit |
In response to your inquiry, Transwestern would first like to clear up the terminology being used here.
As you know, currently SoCalGas doesn't assign "primary rights" to deliveries off of any interconnecting pipeline.
The establishment of tradeable rights for intrastate capacity is among the issues currently under consideration in the GIR proceeding.
However, if what you are asking about is what has been the historical or otherwise available receipt capacity for Transwestern deliveries at North Needles, then let me offer the following.
Transwestern has always operated on the premise that SoCalGas could physically accept up to a maximum of 750 MMcf/d at its North Needles receipt point.
Consequently, Transwestern has sold firm transportation to its interstate customers for west flow deliveries to North Needles not to exceed the 750 MMcf/d limitation.
Our west flow mainline capacity is 1.09 Bcf/d.
"Norman A. Pedersen" <napedersen@JonesDay.com> on 06/14/2000 08:12:05 PM
| Late-Filed Exhibit |
So far I have not received comments from anyone on the attached.
If you think it would be productive to get everyone together (possibly as early as Friday?)
for about an hour to discuss capacity options, I will set up a meeting.
Please let me know one way or the other.
Thank you.
| Capacity Options on TW |
Here is a quick summary of our meeting on capacity options on TW.
Bill Cordes, Steve Harris, Shelley Corman, John Buchanan, Tony Pryor, and members of the TW Commercial Group (including Jeff Fawcett) were present.
1.
The group all agreed that while it is probably a good idea to mention that the options could be sold in an online format, we do not want to limit ourselves at this point and should probably just state that a notice will be posted on the TW website whenever we have options for sale.
2.
Price: the filing needs to include a discussion of how price will be determined, and how capacity will be awarded.
We might also need to include an estimate of how much revenue options will generate in the first year.
3.
Need to add a short explanation of where TW will get the capacity if a shipper exercises its call option.
4.
Should frame the service as requiring an exception to current Commission policy on reserving capacity...not asking Commission to abandon its policy altogether.
5.
May need to address: assignability of options; limitation on damages for nonperformance.
6.
Timeline: - Turn around a new draft and get further comments (July 3 week) - Get Market Services started on its analysis of the new service - Begin contacting customers to get their buy-in (Lorraine already has a producer/customer very interested in supporting our filing) - Start the process of getting Board approval (sales of options require Board approval at Enron) - Meet informally with FERC to discuss (Shelley is working on) - Make the filing at FERC (we did not try to specify a date yet) If you have any further comments please let me know.
I am going to try to get a new draft out by next Friday a.m.
| TW Capacity Options meeting |
Hi Mum!
Ann and I saw "Mr. Ripley" and I lay awake last night wondering how else the main character could have dealt with his dilemma on the boat!
I think I need to go to the movies more often; perhaps it will help me avoid this blurring of film and reality.
My tendency is to really get involved when I see them on the big screen!
Might be going to San Francisco next week.
I'd really like to go.
We'll see.
Probably I will come to Austin on Saturday but I've not heard from the landscaper yet.
I doubt they will be working on the weekend though.
Hope you're having pretty weather as we have in Houston today.
Love,
| Day after Ripley |
Attached for your review is a draft of Transport Options filing that incorporates the comments and suggestions I've received since last week.
Please provide any further suggestions/changes to me as soon as possible, but in no case later than close of business, Friday, July 14.
The timeline I've discussed with TW Commercial for this project is as follows: Final draft comments Friday, July 14 Circulate draft to customers, customer meetings, time for customers to respond, informal discussion with FERC Mon.
July 17 - Wed. July 26 Final internal review/edit of filing Thursday, July 27 FERC filing Monday, July 31 Please let me know your comments on this proposed timeline as well.
Thank you.
| TW Capacity Options |
I've reviewed the IGS market development agreement pursuant to your request.
It expires 2/29/00.
The agreement requires the parties to meet 90 days prior to that date for the purpose of discussing an extension but does not obligate us to agree to any such extension.
As you know, I have a conflict tomorrow at 10, but would be happy to provide any other information you need for the meeting.
| IGS agreements |
According to my research, this project (which involves construction by TW of a lateral consisting of about 40 miles of at least 16" pipe to provide service to a power plant) would require a 7(c) certificate.
Do you concur?
Any comments?
| Caithness Big Sandy LLC |
After our IOS adventure last week, I put together the following questions= =20 that need to be resolved.
Some of them have needed to be resolved for quit= e=20 some time.
Tony, let's talk since I think some of these have already been= =20 discussed and maybe resolved in the context of developing TW's EnronOnline= =20 site, and I just need to get up to speed.
To the extent there aren't answe= rs=20 yet, I'll get busy researching.
Drew -- comments?
Shall we all get on the=
| TW questions |
Tony, the idea we had discussed at our meeting with Drew was somehow acquiring capacity on El Paso in order to access the South Needles interconnect with SoCal.
Currently SoCal lets El Paso deliver to S. Needles but does not extend the same privilege to TW.
I'm unsure how it would work.
TW does have a couple of interconnects with El Paso's system.
I would simply say in the memo that one solution to the constraint at Topock might be to get some shippers to switch to South Needles, and deliver gas to South Needles after twisting SoCal's arm and letting us in, or somehow acquiring capacity on El Paso (or otherwise using their system) to access South Needles.
Obviously we will need to flesh this out from an economic, regulatory and legal standpoint.
I will discuss it with Jeff when he returns.
My apologies for the delay.
Call if you have any questions or comments to discuss!
S.
| PG&E question |
Ken, here are the confidentiality agreements that should be signed prior to our providing information to our vendors.
Each agreement should be printed as duplicate originals on TW letterhead, and signed by an officer of TW.
I understand that Mike Nelson is out due to a death in the family; Steve Harris is out this week also.
Perhaps Julia White would be willing to sign in order to expedite things.
If you have any questions or need further assistance with any aspect of these agreements please do not hesitate to call (x30596) or come by.
| Confidentiality Agreements |
Here is the latest draft of the filing for transport options.
Significant changes include: - added definition of Counterparty - added captions and reorganized the filing to more clearly reflect compliance with 154.202 - included an explanation of how the option fee will be part of a negotiated rate - added an example of how options will work I think we need to decide whether we are better off with the type of option fee explanation I have in this draft, or whether we should instead state the fee will be market based, and include an explanation that, pursuant to the Commission's discussion in Order 637, market based rates are appropriate because we are going to commit to an open season process that will be nondiscriminatory and that will ensure we aren't withholding capacity from the market.
Can we have a conference call to discuss your comments this week?
I will have Janet call to determine your availability.
| TW Options |
You have just received the "Aggie Virus"!!!
Since Aggies arn't very smart and don't have any programming experience, this Virus works on the honor system.
Please delete all the files on your hard drive, and manually forward this Virus to everyone on your mailing list.
| BEWARE: AGGIE VIRUS |
Rich, would you please add Tim Aron to your distribution list for the Gallup Weekly Updates, and also forward him your latest?
He is working on New Mexico regulatory and legislative issues pertaining to our compression contract, and I thought your updates would help keep him in the loop.
Thank you.
| Gallup |
Lorraine, here are a few notes from my review of the Val Verde contract, and my initial impressions.
Let's talk more about how to approach the issue after we meet with Ron tomorrow about MAOP.
12/31/92 Interconnect Agreement: Sec.
1.3 specifies pressures and states that unless there is an agreement to provide firm compression service TW will accept up to 200,000 on an interruptible basis.
Sec.
2 states that the Blanco Hub MAOP shall not be exceeded.
Sec.
4.2 limits damages (no consequential damages).
The contract also has a fairly standard force majeure clause.
2/18/93 letter amendment: Sec.
3 obligates TW to provide firm compression service in order to accept 200,000 into TW's system (provided MOGI has pressure of at least 650 and quantity of at least 140).
Acknowledges that this is an agreement to provide firm compression in accordance with Sec.
1.3 of 12/92 agreement.
9/25/95 letter amendment: Increases quantity to be received at the interconnect to 250,000 once the San Juan expansion is effective.
My initial conclusions: It is pretty clear we have an obligation to accept 250,000 on a firm basis, provided that Burlington complies with the pressure requirements.
Probably the only way we can avoid this obligation is if accepting 250,000 would cause us to exceed the hub MAOP.
In that case we can argue impossibility of performance.
Also, we could avoid the obligation because the summer heat above certain temperatures constitutes force majeure.
This argument is strengthened by the fact that temperatures seem to have gotten hotter over the years.
The fact that we entered into our most recent agreement with Burlington in January of this year weakens the credibility of our arguments (they will say we should have known by now).
Burlington might try to argue that we have an absolute obligation to comply with the agreement, even if it means expensive system modifications.
That argument is not a very strong one because the agreement contains no such affirmative obligation and in fact quite clearly describes the facilities that are the subject of the agreement.
| Burlington: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION |
In Mark Baldwin's June 19 letter, he proposed the following fee schedule for project development: Retainer: $1000/month plus expenses Accepted project (meets TW's predetermined financial hurdles): Proposal $5000 Each month TW actively negotiating project: $1500/month (each project) Letter of Intent: $5000 Signed Agreement: $10,000 Incentive Fee: To be determined When I spoke with Mark, he explained that this schedule was based on reaching certain milestones in the development of individual projects.
In his letter he also proposed monthly fees for regulatory services ($5000/mo.)
and market development services (including SoCal OIR related services --
| IGS |
Attached is the latest draft of the Transport Option Program filing.
There are a couple of important changes from the last draft.
One is that we're no longer stating that the option fee is going to be "market-based."
At FERC, the term "market-based" has connotations of having to prove to FERC that a non-cost-based rate is appropriate because we lack market power.
While we probably do lack market power, the consensus of the legal/regulatory team was to try to portray the option fee as a built-in feature of the transport rate, which is simply being disaggregated into a separate option fee.
If this theory is not clear to you after you read the filing letter, let's discuss how it should be improved.
The other significant change (also based on my meeting with legal/regulatory) is that I've structured the tariff language and the agreement so that every shipper, regardless of whether they currently use transport on TW, will have to have a firm transportation agreement when they buy an option.
In other words, a shipper that does not currently have a service agreement will simply execute an agreement with a MAXDTQ of zero.
This structure has two advantages: 1) it's consistent with our option-fee-as-part-of-transport-rate theory, and 2) it will help support that theory in our next rate case.
I'd like to meet next week, either Wednesday afternoon or Thursday, to discuss the following topics: 1) Your comments and questions on this draft, 2) Some examples of options, to make sure the tariff provisions and contract work from a logistical standpoint, 3) The bidding process, and how bids for options will be evaluated, and 4) Comments received from shippers thus far.
I'll be working on 41 tomorrow; let's talk about what would be a good meeting time.
I will be out Mon.
and Tues.
| Transport Options Program |
Attached is the latest draft of the Transport Option Program filing.
After our discussion last week I made a couple of significant changes from the last draft.
One is that we're no longer stating that the option fee is going to be "market-based."
Instead I have tried to portray the option fee as a built-in feature of the transport rate, which is simply being disaggregated into a separate option fee.
The other significant change is that I've structured the tariff language and the agreement so that every shipper, regardless of whether they currently use transport on TW, will have to have a firm transportation agreement when they buy an option.
In other words, a shipper that does not currently have a service agreement will simply execute an agreement with a MAXDTQ of zero.
If you don't think I've explained this clearly enough, let me know.
I'm meeting informally with the Commercial Group next week to discuss 1) some examples of options to make sure the tariff provisions and contract work from a logistical standpoint, 2) the bidding process, and how bids for options will be evaluated, and 3) further comments received from shippers.
I'll circulate our ideas on bidding and awarding options, and any other new ideas or questions.
As I've discussed with some of you, our shippers are asking to see the filing in its entirety before we file it, and would like to have a roundtable meeting prior to filing to discuss their concerns.
I realize there is some concern about showing them our filing.
What if we just show them our final tariff language and form agreement, and offer to host a meeting to discuss their questions?
Let me know what you think.
Our target filing date will depend on whether we have a customer meeting first, and when FERC staff is available to talk.
| Transport Options on TW |
Yesterday Jeff Fawcett, Lee Ferrell and I met with Dynegy marketing and legal/regulatory representatives regarding TW Transport Options.
Overall the meeting was very positive.
We had nothing but encouraging remarks from the marketing representatives.
However, the regulatory people (Sarah Tomalty, Ed Ross) had a couple of issues.
The biggest issue is a marketing affiliate concern.
Apparently Dynegy is on a crusade at FERC to place further limits on deals pipelines can do with their marketing affiliates.
They have run into situations in which pipelines (examples: Koch, El Paso) have blatantly favored their marketing affiliates to the extent that Dynegy cannot even do deals with them.
(In fact, one of the problems with Koch has been Koch's price option deals with its affiliate.)
The perception is that the affiliates, by using "funny money," can always make themselves the highest bidder, with a net benefit to the entire organization (pipeline + affiliate).
The remedy Dynegy is proposing is to require a marketing affiliate, if it is the highest bidder, to credit back the difference between the price it pays and the price offered by the next highest bidder.
The presumption is that the affiliate has an unfair advantage because it is able to pay above market value in order to get the capacity.
Dynegy's proposal would encourage affiliates to pay "real" dollars.
While it emphasized its belief that TW does not favor its marketing affiliates, Dynegy would like for us to include in our filing some limitation on options transactions with marketing affiliates.
It is likely that other pipelines will file for the ability to sell options once FERC approves our filing, and Dynegy would like for this type of protection to be part of the precedent set by our filing.
Ed hinted that FERC may be considering a divestiture requirement for marketing affiliates, and that pipelines can avoid this extreme result by voluntarily limiting their transactions with affiliates.
Shelley, I know you've discussed this issue with Ed already and our reactions were the same.
Basically we politely told Dynegy that we don't believe we're part of the problem and that we are therefore not inclined to unnecessarily disadvantage our company by further limiting ENA's ability to do business with TW.
We can probably expect an intervention with comments or a limited protest addressing the issue.
The other regulatory question was whether we intend to file each option deal as a negotiated rate.
My analysis of this issue is that since we're proposing the option fee as part of the transport rate, options would always be a type of negotiated rate and would need to be filed.
If you think this is not the right answer, please let me know because we need to decide it before we file the tariff sheets.
Sarah's question seemed to be more one of curiosity rather than a basis for protest.
Like the Indicated Shippers, Dynegy appeared interested in an all-customer meeting to discuss the service.
Jeff and the rest of the commercial group are looking further into whether and when we would have such a meeting.
If you have any questions or concerns please let me know.
| TW Options Update: Dynegy meeting |
I've looked into whether we can terminate our Val Verde interconnect agreement with Burlington, and have determined we may do so only if we take the following steps: 1.
Terminate the OBA by giving 30 days notice to Burlington.
Paragraph 13 of the 6/1/94 OBA with Burlington (as successor in interest to Meridian) provides that either party may terminate the OBA "at the end of the primary term, or thereafter by providing thirty (30) days prior written notice" to Burlington.
(The one-month primary term ended June 30, 1994 and has since gone month-to-month.)
2.
On the effective termination date of the OBA, terminate the interconnect agreement by giving 30 days notice to Burlington.
The 12/31/92 Interconnect Point Operating Agreement, Paragraph 6, provides that either party may terminate on 180 prior notice after expiration of the primary term.
This is of limited use to us since the primary term does not expire until 12/31/02.
However, the paragraph also provides that the agreement "may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice in the event the OBA between the parties is terminated."
As we've already discussed, termination of the agreement is an extreme measure from a customer relations standpoint and we probably need to weigh our other options first.
Let me know if you have further questions.
| PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION Terminability of Val Verde interconnect agreement |
The Mark Morris group performance is the last weekend of this month, the 27th - 29th.
See the website www.spahouston.org and click on "Program Notes" for a detailed description.
Bill and I will leave for Austin tomorrow a.m. as early as we can manage.
I'm not picky about where we go for dinner, but was thinking Bill might enjoy going to the Bitter End brew pub -- I'm sure they don't take reservations but
| cultural notes |
Janet, please meet with Denise (tomorrow if possible) to: - explain filing system - hand off filing projects you are working on (anytime between tomorrow and next week is fine) - explain how you do service lists for FERC filings.
Also, one of you will need to contact the appropriate person to get Denise access to my Lotus Organizer.
Don't know how to notify the mailroom people to deliver my mail to Denise's station but see if you can do this also.
I spoke with Mike, and Emily is going to handle moving the phones.
Merci beaucoup!
| Transition To Do List |
Denise, here are a few things off the top of my head.
1.
I mostly work for the Transwestern Commercial Group, which is the following cast of characters: Steve Harris Kevin Hyatt Lindy Donoho Jeff Fawcett TK Lohman Christine Stokes Michelle Lokay Lorraine Lindberg When I am not on 47, I sit near their work area on 41 (and forward my phone to x34516).
These are the people I'm most likely to have you organize meetings with, distribute things to, etc.
Their assistant is Audrey Robertson.
I lost our most recent phone list but please get one from her (x35849).
2.
Usually I get in around 8:30 and leave around 6.
I'm not picky about when you're in the office; it is very rare that I will need you to come in early or stay late.
I think I asked Janet only twice.
3.
Major projects I'm working on right now that you'll hear me mention a lot: - TW Options (a tariff filing) - Order 637 compliance - Caithness/Big Sandy (potential pipeline interconnect) 4.
Standing meetings: - TW Commercial Group staff meeting: Monday at 9:30 - Omaha regulatory staff meeting: Tues. at 8:15.
- Therapist: every few weeks Thurs.
9:00 (if anyone asks, I'm in a meeting; but if they knew where I really was I'm sure they would understand!)
5.
Faxes: I get faxes from Regulatory a lot and they generally don't call first.
Please check the fax machine once a day (and my chair, if I'm not on 47 that day, in case someone got a fax for me and put it there).
6.
Mail: Please open my mail, and I'll try to come pick it up every day.
7.
Filing: I generally avoid keeping files of useless information.
However, since I'm a regulatory lawyer it is inevitable that I will have a ton of paper to stash away where I can find it later.
Filing is pretty important to me.
I promise to try to let you know what files are more important than others so you can prioritize.
The good news: I rarely ever go to the extent where I would have you index a file.
Just putting things in the right folder is enough.
8.
Computer files: At the beginning of each quarter, please create a new Word file folder (if you look under sscott you'll see I have 2ndqtr00, 3rdqtr00, etc.)
9.
Calendar: Please obtain access to my Lotus Organizer, and if you get e-mails of meetings I'm supposed to attend go ahead and put them in the calendar.
10.
Friends you're likely to hear from a lot: Ann, Bill, my grandmother ("Ms. Savoy"), Dianna 11.
The Other Susan Scott: There is a Susan M Scott who works for ENA.
I get her mail and phone calls all the time!
Her extension is 31445.
Not sure of her location as it seems to change a lot.
I look forward very much to working with you!
!
| my work |
Here is the draft for distribution.
In addition to the customer-friendly "looking forward to meeting with our business partners" language I know you'll include, I'd suggest including something like the following: Attached are drafts of the proposed tariff provisions (including the form of Transport Option Amendment) and a filing letter.
We are providing these draft documents to you in advance of filing them with FERC as part of a good-faith effort to resolve any remaining issues with our shippers prior to filing.
The drafts are for purposes of discussion by workshop attendees only, and we ask that you not distribute them to persons outside your company.
Additionally, while we hope that these drafts are close to being in final form, they are of course subject to revision and final management approval prior to filing with the Commission.
| TW Options |
Attached is the proposed contract with Oneok.
Since it is a maximum rate deal, there is no discount letter.
However, I am circulating this for approval because it contains a special provision (found in the "Other" section) regarding marketing of capacity for release, as allowed by Section 30.8 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transwestern's tariff.
Christine, you and Michele will need to fill in the address and account information.
My sincerest apologies for operating outside the usual contracting procedure but since time is even more of the essence that usual here, I felt it was best to get a pro forma version of this out for approval as soon as possible.
Please e-mail your approval to Christine and me by noon tomorrow if possible.
Thank you.
| Oneok Contract |
Lorraine, here is the new language for the discount letter.
You might want to compare the other language in the agreement to that of the existing one to make sure I got the right version (or I'll do it on Monday).
Let me know if you have questions.
I just ran it by Drew and he is OK with it.
| New red cedar contract |
Transwestern held its Transport Options Workshop on August 31.
Commercial and regulatory representatives of BP-Amoco, Burlington, Conoco, Coral, Dynegy, Phillips and Reliant attended.
After a brief overview of the proposed filing, TW opened the floor for questions and comments.
Here is a summary of the comments.
Marketing affiliate concerns.
BP's regulatory representative expressed concern that TW's marketing affiliates would be able to use options to game the system.
In BP's example, since TW and ENA are both Enron companies, ENA could purchase an "out of the money" call option essentially cost free, since its affiliate (TW) would have the ability to buy the option back.
Proceeds from ENA's ability to then "move the market" through the establishment of the long basis position would go directly to Enron's bottom line.
BP suggested that TW's marketing affiliates be banned from purchasing options, or that the marketing affiliate be required to credit 100% of the option proceeds to other shippers.
Although BP admits that Transwestern's prior dealings with ENA have not been suspect, BP fears that TW's filing will set a precedent for other pipelines to offer a similar service.
Since TW will be the first pipeline to offer such services, BP wants TW's program to be as restricted as possible.
Dynegy echoed BP's concern regarding possible affiliate abuse, but rather than shelve the program entirely, Dynegy reiterated an earlier suggestion that Transwestern be required to credit back the difference between the option fee paid by an affiliate and the next highest bidder, if the affiliate's bid exceeds the next highest by a certain percentage.
TW's response was that while actual abuse of an options program by a marketing affiliate may be a legitimate concern, owing to its unassailable record in this area, TW should be entitled to a presumption that it has complied and will continue to comply with Commission policy covering the sale of capacity to marketing affiliates, and was not inclined to voluntarily include any limitations on the options program.
If BP and others have serious concerns regarding the Commission's overall policy on marketing affiliates, those issues should be raised in a separate proceeding that applies to all interstate pipelines.
Right of first refusal.
Burlington asked whether options would replace the right of first refusal.
TW's response was that ROFR will still be available pursuant to the terms and conditions of our tariff.
Negotiated rate.
BP's representative claimed that option contracts will constitute a negotiated rate and that each deal will need to be filed as such.
TW did not respond to this or discuss it further.
However, TW's position at this point is that since the option fee is part of the transportation rate, transportation deals that include the option amendment will only be considered negotiated rate deals if the total rate including the option fee exceeds the maximum transport rate.
Hoarding capacity.
Using the recent large block sale of capacity on El Paso as an example, several customers expressed concern that the options program would make it easier for a shipper to hoard capacity.
It was not clear why some of the workshop participants thought that the sale of options would create more opportunity for hoarding capacity than already exists.
Perhaps because the option fee is a lesser cost than the transport rate for the underlying capacity, their perception was that options would simply make hoarding cheaper and easier.
TW acknowledged that the potential for withholding capacity from the market is one reason for FERC's current policy against reserving capacity for shippers.
Although TW did not commit to placing any limits on the either the quantity of capacity or options for capacity that any one shipper may own, it is possible that FERC may require TW to do so in a final order.
Our plan is to meet with PG&E and SoCalGas in California the week of September 11 to go over details of the program, and to finalize the FERC filing by mid-September.
| TW Options update |
Elizabeth, Jeff forwarded me your questions about capacity options.
I've answered them to the extent they involve legal/regulatory issues.
If you need anything further please don't hesitate to call.
?
Can a new shipper who enters into an FTS-1 contract with zero MDQ in order to purchase a shipper call option or sell a transporter put option be allowed, prior to the exercise date, to transfer the underlying option rights by permanently releasing this contract?
YES.
?
Will we be required to report these contracts with zero MDQ on the Index of Customers and/or the Transactional Report?
YES.
?
Can the releasing shipper permanently release a portion of his existing MDQ and choose to keep or transfer the option rights?
YES.
The shipper could even release all of its MDQ (reducing it to zero) and keep its option rights.
?
How is it determined whether a contract with an option amendment is within the min/max tariff rate or needs to be filed as a negotiated rate?
The option fee is converted to a per-Dth, per day rate and added to the transport rate.
If the total exceeds the maximum tariff rate, it's "negotiated".
Otherwise, our position is that it's not negotiated.
We are not 100% positive that FERC will agree with us on this issue.
| PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Attorney/Client Communication: Your TW Capacity Options questions |
Hi Mum!
What an eventful few days it has been.
Sorry I didn't call over the weekend.
I had my hands full painting my bedroom!
It took forever!
Luckily I got the color right on the first try: the Happy Yellow looks pretty good.
Saturday I hauled my paint-covered self to the Met for a pro-am tennis tournament, which was fun.
It was a benefit for DiverseWorks, the theater/art group I've been interested in joining.
In fact, yesterday I got a call from their executive director asking if I was still interested in board membership, and that they would be voting on me tonight!
I'm really excited and am expecting good news.
This could be an auspicious start to life after law for me!
Sure enjoyed my visit to Austin.
It went by too quickly!
I hope you're having a good week; let me hear from you!
Love,
| stuff |
Ashley, the oven/stove problem should be fixed before the weekend.
If you have any further problems with it please let me know; I realize it's pretty old.
I never noticed the control for the oven doesn't even have temperatures marked on it...the repairman is definitely taking care of that too!
The handy dudes are coming over to give me an estimate on the kitchen and bathroom floors and I'm going to also ask them to replace the wood around the A/C in the second bedroom.
If there's anything else you've noticed that needs fixing let me know.
| apt. update |
Please see the attached and let me know if you have questions.
If it looks OK to you and the 1/2 reimbursement arrangement is OK with EPFS, please forward to James Centilli for his review.
Thanks.
| draft I&O |
Just so you know, I spoke with the group this morning about contracting practices and they agreed to do the Christine/Susan/dealmaker huddle prior to sending any contracts out.
It helps that I have Kevin's support on this.
I think it will work fine.
TK is going make sure Tenaska gets credited.
The difference between actual and billed amounts is very little.
Thanks for your attention to this last week.
| Tenaska |
Hi Misty!
How's everything?
Are we on for this weekend?
Let me know.
Since I have plans to see Lyle Lovett on Fri. night, I was thinking of flying in rather than driving Sat.
a.m. to save on time & energy, especially since you live so close to the airport!
Painted my bedroom Happy Yellow while listening to the U.S. Open weekend before last...drank a lot of beer also.
Am amazed it turned out as well as it did.
You said you work with someone named Hamlet, right?
Apparently he used to live across the street from Karin and Jim, on Evans!
I didn't think there could possibly be 2 Hamlets.
Small world.
w/b Susan
| Hi |
You had a question about the meaning of Section 4.3.
Here's a brief explanation.
Section 4.2 covers indemnification in case one party gets sued by a third party for damage caused by negligence of the other party.
I'm OK with eliminating "stockholders" and the "...judgments of any nature..." clause you two spoke about on the phone as long as they come out of both subparagraphs a. and b.
Section 4.3 needs to stay in because it covers any potential action by EPFS against TW for damage to EPFS's facilities during the term of the agreement.
TW is already obligated elsewhere in the agreement to construct and operate the facilities in accordance with industry practice, tariff and DOT standards.
Our policy in interconnect agreements is that if TW complies with these standards we should not then somehow be liable for damage to EPFS in case of explosion, etc.
In other words, both parties bear the risk attached to something unforeseeable going wrong notwithstanding use of industry and DOT standards.
(By the way, I believe the "notwithstanding anything in this Article 4 to the contrary" language should come out; I'm not sure why it's in the draft.)
Any questions -- please e-mail or call (713-853-0596).
| TW/EPFS interconnect agreement |
Nancy, I've prepared the attached outline in response to FERC Staff's request that we provide "something in writing."
This is basically just a description of our proposal.
I've tried to keep it brief so that staff members are not reading while we're trying to talk to them.
It should be enough information to raise a lot of questions.
Please wait until Shelley or I give you the go-ahead to pass this along to the relevant Commission people; I'd like to give the other addressees the opportunity to comment on this to the extent possible.
Everyone else: please give me your comments ASAP as Nancy has been asked to provide something to them tomorrow.
| Outline of TW Options Program |
Drew, here's my first stab at a rehearing argument.
I did not go as far as I could have because I really think we should argue that there should be no limitation at all and that TW should be able to decide for itself what capacity it can sell as firm.
Instead, I've proposed a solution that will be less controversial, as we discussed earlier this week.
If you think this passes the laugh test I can do some rewriting and circulate it.
My biggest concern is portraying PNM's capacity as "firm" or "interruptible" since PNM does not use that terminology, in its tariff or otherwise, except to assure us over the phone that it is firm!
I'd like to check to see if PNM is comfortable with all this before we file anything.
Call when you can; this is not due 'til Oct. 15.
| PNM |
Drew, here is the memo.
I know you will add your own spin before sending it on to Cordes.
However, if there is anything you want me to fix, please do not hesitate to call.
| PG&E |
Attached is the final version of the Interconnect Agreement.
I've changed Section 4.2 in accordance with our e-mail discussion.
Additionally, I've filled in the blanks for POI# and date of commencement of construction, and added an Exhibit A (and a reference to Exhibit A in the definition of "Facilities") listing what will be installed.
Darin, kindly fill in the appropriate contact information on page 11, have the agreement executed by EPFS in duplicate originals, and return both originals to me.
I will return a fully executed original to you.
Lorraine Lindberg will be forwarding you wire transfer information for the payments that are due from EPFS upon execution.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Lorraine will be on vacation as of tomorrow.
Thank you,
| EPFS/TW Interconnect Agreement |
Maria reminded me that we are required to file a rate case to be effective Nov. 1, 2006.
We could file one before then as to non-Current Firm Shippers, but I doubt we will.
Any other questions -- let me know.
| Glob. Settlement question |
I just received a copy of a Section 5 complaint filed by SoCal requesting a FERC order 1) determining that the SoCalGas/Topock delivery point is fully subscribed on a firm primary basis, 2) directing El Paso to comply with previous Commission orders that preclude the selling of firm primary capacity at points where none is available and 3) directing El Paso to schedule capacity acquired during an open season (effective Jan. 1, 2000) into SoCal/Topock on a secondary basis only.
SoCal states that it has experienced daily cuts of up to 57% and averaging 25%.
If you would like a copy of the complaint, let me know.
| SoCal complaint against El Paso |
In response to your question of whether Transwestern Pipeline needs to renew its bond (Bond No.
22000455) to the State of Oklahoma, the answer is yes.
If you have any questions, please call me at x30596.
| bond renewal |
Jeff, attached is our summary of the Transwestern receipt point proposal for inclusion in CAC's settlement proposal.
I hope that this is helpful.
If you have any comments, please let me know.
| Transwestern proposal summary |
Barbara, here is my draft of a rehearing request.
As I mentioned, our outside counsel is going to try to add a few sentences; I haven't heard back from them, but will send you the revised draft when I do.
I'd be happy to copy Jay Golub too; please send me his e-mail address.
In the meantime, let me know if you have any comments.
We plan to file on Monday, Oct. 16.
Thanks,
| draft |
Attached is the cover letter.
This version incorporates the changes we discussed over the phone on Friday, Stojic & Kelly's suggestions, and further revisions by Shelley.
(I've attached redlined and nonredlined versions.)
Shelley and I might have a further revision or two with respect to footnote 9.
On Monday I'll be in meetings 9:30 - 10:30 and 2:00 - 4:00; otherwise I'll be at my desk.
Please fax me the final version of the tariff sheets when you have them (to 713-646-4095).
And, please call if there are any remaining questions.
Many thanks, Susan
| TW options filing |
Lorraine, here is the letter.
You will need to fill in the address; otherwise it's ready to go.
Let me know if you need anything else (including initialling).
| Red Cedar letter |
Southern Trails proposed, at an estimated cost of $155,000,000, a pipeline project consisting mostly of 693 miles of crude oil pipeline acquired from ARCO.
Ten percent of the project would be new construction and the remainder would be conversion of the crude oil line to gas service.
The pipeline system would be divided into an East Zone and a West Zone.
The East Zone, which will begin in the San Juan Basin and end at the California border, will have 87,500 Dth/d of available capacity.
The West Zone, wholly within California, will have 120,000 Dth/d.
Southern Trails received certificate authority for the project on July 28,2000.
An optional certificate application does not require any showing of market need; however, Southern Trails did hold an open season from Sept. to Oct. 1998 during which it received 22 bids totalling 810,000 Dth/d of demand.
The order issuing the certificate did not say how much of the capacity had been subscribed, only that Southern Trails had contracted with its affiliate, Questar Energy, for 30,000 Dth/d of firm capacity in theh East Zone for 5 years and one month, and taht firm transportation service agreements of 5 and 10 year terms are "being negotiated" with prospective shippers which, if executed, would subscribe the balance of the capacity in both the East and West zones.
TW is an intervenor in this docket so I have received everything that has been filed.
I have no further information about any further subscription of capacity.
I also have no information regarding any progress that has been made on construction.
If you need a more detailed summary of the proposal that was filed at FERC, or if you have any other questions, please let me know and I'll see what I can find.
I've got the entire environmental report in my office if we need that for any reason!
| Questar Southern Trails |
I just received word that I'm losing my garage apt.
renter as of Nov. 30...
If any of you know someone who is looking for a place, have them call me!!
(I found my current renter through a friend and it has worked out great.)
Here are the specifics:
| apt. for rent |
Attached pursuant to TK Lohman's request is an electronic copy of Transwestern's October 17, 2000 FERC filing proposing a transport options program.
This copy does not include the tariff sheets as they are not available in electronic format.
If you would like to see the proposed tariff sheets, please let me know and I will be happy to fax them to you.
If you have questions or comments about transport options, please contact either TK or me.
| Transwestern Options filing |
Sugarbooger, Looks like Continental is our best bet at $620 per ticket, which I'm assuming reflects the beginning of the official high season in C.R.
American is slightly lower but you have to go THRU MIAMI!
Ick!
There is a 9:30 a.m. out of Houston on 12/9 and the return trip from San Jose is at 8:10 a.m. (a 3 p.m. was also available).
They're holding the tickets for us; if we want them, we have to decide before COB tomorrow.
Muchos besos!
S.
| vamos a... |
Attached is a draft of an answer to protests received in Docket No.
RP01-56.
Please let me know your comments before noon tomorrow if possible.
Thanks.
| TW Options: Answer to protests |
Here's what I've added to my answer to address Ni's question.
Let me know if you have comments.
I'll have a final draft out shortly.
Prior to the deadline for filing interventions, Transwestern received a request from Commission staff for clarification of the criteria for awarding of Shipper call options.
The procedure will be as follows: an advance posting will specify the term of the available option, term of transportation service, transportation volume, and instructions for bidding.
Shipper call options will be awarded based upon the highest rate payable for the option component.
| addition to Options answer |
"Kitty Fun Barbie" Complete with Marshmallow the cat (with long, brushable fur), cat toys, little cans of Fancy Feast, and, get this: a carrier thaqt becomes a litter box!
"Marshmallow drinks and wets in the litter box.
Scoop up the clumps after she goes.
So real!"
| Christmas wish list |
L O V E H O R O S C O P E + Sagittarius Sagittarius + Since every Saj is equal parts idealist and gambler, your relationship should be very interesting.
You're great pals, marvelous traveling companions, a pair of high-flying, high-rolling activist/adventurers.
Just come down to earth once in awhile -- or find
| a word from Cosmo |
I regret to report that I just ended a very unproductive phone conversation with Mr. Hertzberg.
He thanked us for all our cooperation but politely declined to give me any information on what authority he was relying on to conclude that there is a jurisdictional problem.
However, it sounded to me like whatever authority he does have is shaky at best.
He also sounded interested in the possibility of our making some sort of anonymous inquiry at FERC (if such a thing is possible) on the issue.
Obviously they are very leery of making that phone call themselves and risking revealing their identity.
He said he would discuss it with Ed Meaders.
Also, he mentioned that after tomorrow he will be on vacation for a month, and another attorney will be taking over in his absence.
That could be good, or it could be bad.
Maybe Lorraine can sweet talk Meaders into at least citing us some cases from Hertzberg's memo.
At the very least, I hope he will show it to the Kinder Morgan lawyers.
| Red Cedar |
Today the Commission issued a tolling order on our request for rehearing in the PNM capacity docket.
As you recall, we asked for rehearing of the Commission's requirement that TW's acquisition of capacity be limited to the summer months.
The tolling order is simply FERC's way of buying time to consider our request.
In the absence of Commission action within 30 days of our rehearing request, our request would have been deemed denied...so we're doing well so far.
There is no deadline for the Commission to act on our request.
I'll watch to see whether it appears on the Commission's agenda.
| PNM capacity: rehearing request |
Hi Mum!
So good to see you this weekend!
It was great to meet Eric; what = a=20 sweet man.
Fun too!
I can see why you are so crazy about him!
Craig real= ly=20 enjoyed meeting you also.
Our trip home was somewhat hair-raising but we made it back safely.
I can't believe I am still here at work!
Took a break to make my list for= =20 you.
It is somewhat random.
Feel free to collaborate with K&J... Love, Sooz
| list |
Here is a draft that incorporates Drew's, Steve Stojic's, Maria's and some of Shelley's comments (Shelley hasn't gotten all the way thru the draft yet).
Please take a look at the draft and let me know if you have comments today.
Still working on justifying transporter options, as you can see on page 5.
If possible I'd like to send it to Nancy to file today.
Thanks,
| Options answer |
Nancy and Mike, please sign the attached and file it today, and deliver copies to those staff members who got copies of our initial filing.
Please fax a signed copy to Denise LaGesse at 713-853-5425 and she'll do the service list mailout.
Any questions -- give me a call at 713-853-0596 (fyi - I have a meeting from
| TW Options -- answer |
Glen, as we discussed, here is the negotiated rate TW deal which TK did today under Rate Schedule ITS-1.
The term is ONE DAY, Nov. 15.
Quantity: 30,000 Dth/day I know this is a bit unusual.
We are just going to have to ask the FERC for a waiver of their "before gas flows" filing requirement.
Given the price spreads and the shippers' willingness to pay more than max.
rates for short-term deals, we might have more deals like this.
We probably need to put our heads together to come up with a better procedure for when this happens.
It would be so much better if we were able to send tariff sheets via e-mail to our D.C. office.
Call if you have questions or need anything.
| Negotiated Rate |
On November 2, 2000, the California PUC issued an Order Instituting Investigation into the adequacy of Sempra's, SoCal's and SDG&E's planning of SoCal's and SDG&E's gas transmission system and what measures should be taken to correct any deficiencies.
The parties have been ordered to appear and show cause at a hearing (to be scheduled by the assigned ALJ) demonstrating that: - SDG&E has adequate gas and transmission supply for the 2000/2001 winter heating season, as well as the longer term throughout the year.
If such supply is not adequate, SDG&E shall submit plans for obtaining an adequate supply.
- SDG&E's gas and transmission supply is adequate to meet anticipated need for gas-fired electric generation.
If not, SDG&E shall submit plans for obtaining adequate supply.
- SDG&E's gas transmission service is not being adversely affected by interests of its corporate affiliates.
- Recently added demands on SDG&E's capacity are not negatively impacting supply for SDG&E's customers, and are otherwise consistent with representations to the Commission.
- SDG&E's current gas curtailment rules are just and reasonable; if not, SDG&E shall propose changes.
A written response from the three parties on these issues is due on November 22.
Other parties may file comments on the response within 10 days after the response is filed.
The Commission also ordered SDG&E to evaluate whether an interim, interruptible program, which will provide cost incentives to those customers voluntarily electing interruptible service, is needed this winter.
If so, SDG&E must submit a proposal for expedited Commission consideration.
The OII represents the Commission's response to an Advice Letter filed by SDG&E requesting emergency review and approval of its proposal to temporarily revise the gas transportation service level elections of its large electric generation customers.
The Advice Letter was heavily protested and was withdrawn by SDG&E.
In my conversation with Mark Baldwin regarding our pending consulting agreement for monitoring California regulatory matters for Transwestern, I asked him to watch for Sempra's Nov. 22 filing and to advise whether he believes Transwestern should file comments or appear at the hearing that is to be scheduled.
I will follow up with Mark, and provide you with a copy of the filing.
| SDG&E OII |
Mark: Please review the attached agreement, which is similar to what was in place before.
I have not included specific projects in the agreement, but at the outset, consistent with our conversation the other day, we will need you to monitor the following proceedings and provide us with updates and copies of any orders or presentation materials: - Gas Industry Restructuring proceeding (I.99-07-003) - OII on SoCal and SDG&E (I.00-11-002) - PG&E Gas Accord II If you have any questions, please give me a call.
If the attached is acceptable to you, please print it out and sign it, and return it to me.
We look forward to working with you!
Sincerely,
| Consulting agreement |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.