From: lynn.blair@enron.com
To: lindy.donoho@enron.com
Cc: susan.scott@enron.com, drew.fossum@enron.com, maria.pavlou@enron.com, mary.miller@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com, mary.darveaux@enron.com, lynn.blair@enron.com
Date: 2000-12-06 19:02:00+00:00
Subject: Re: TW

Lindy, your example is correct for settling operator imbalances.  If we have 
a payable operator imbalance
and we settle volumetrically, then we get fuel and transport.  But, I thought 
the "netting and trading" in Order 637
was on Shipper imbalances only.  I am not sure what we mean by "no additional 
cost, etc" mentioned below.
I'll call you in the morning (Thursday) to discuss further,  since I am not 
familiar with the PNM protest.  Thanks. Lynn 





Lindy Donoho
12/06/2000 11:19 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lynn Blair/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: TW  

I think the example of when quantities may be subject to transportation and 
fuel is when an Operator overpulls at a delivery point and then cashes out 
the imbalance, TW could be out the transport and fuel.  For example,  

  DP is SoCal/Needles: scheduled volume is 700,000/d
     actual volume delivered is 720,000/d
     imbalance is 20,000/d, SoCal owes TW
     TW collects transport & fuel on 700,000/d (bill on scheduled volume)
     SoCal cuts a check to TW for dollar value of 20,000/d
     TW doesn't collect transport & fuel on 20,000/d
  Payback in-kind doesn't have this problem:
     The 20,000/d transport gets scheduled at Needles, TW collects the 
transport & fuel      (bill on scheduled volume), but we physically give 
SoCal 20,000/d less on that day

Is this the correct example?  I'm copying Lynn Blair to verify.



Susan Scott
12/06/2000 09:20 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy 
Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: TW  

We did not answer protests to our Order 637 filing.

The gist of PNM's protest in RP00-626 is that we shouldn't be able to charge 
a transport or fuel fee for our imbalance netting and trading service.  I 
agree with PNM that our tariff language is vague in this regard.  What 
exactly do we mean by "no additional cost...unless through the allocation 
process, quantities may be subject to transportation and fuel"??   Can 
someone help me with this?

Since we really did not want to make this compliance filing anyway, I would 
say we probably wouldn't mind if FERC rejected our tariff sheet outright.  
However, it's more likely that they will just instruct us to clarify our 
language.  Or they could tell us to remove the "subject to transportation and 
fuel" provision.  If we want to preserve our right to charge transport and 
fuel, it might be worthwhile filing something in the way of an answer.  
However, I am going to need some assistance in understanding what the 
language means and why we think we can do it, so I can justify it to FERC.  
Any comments you have in this regard would be appreicated.


   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           12/05/2000 05:18 PM
	

To: Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: TW

Should we respond to PNM's protest of the dollar valuation of imbalances 
prior to netting and trading?  Did we already respond to this issue when they 
filed their protest of the 637 filing?  DF