postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: TW Options

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.
Subject: BEWARE: AGGIE VIRUS

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.
Subject: Gallup

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.
Subject: Burlington: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT  COMMUNICATION

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.
Subject: IGS

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 --
Subject: Transport Options Program

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.
Subject: Transport Options on TW

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.
Subject: PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION  Terminability of Val Verde interconnect agreement

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.
Subject: cultural notes

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
Subject: Transition To Do List

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!
Subject: my work

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!
!
Subject: TW Options

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.
Subject: Oneok Contract

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.
Subject: New red cedar 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.
Subject: PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Attorney/Client Communication: Your TW  Capacity Options questions

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.
Subject: stuff

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,
Subject: apt. update

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.
Subject: draft I&O

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.
Subject: Tenaska

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.
Subject: Hi

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
Subject: TW/EPFS interconnect agreement

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).
Subject: Outline of TW Options Program

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.
Subject: PNM

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.
Subject: PG&E

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.
Subject: EPFS/TW Interconnect Agreement

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,
Subject: Glob. Settlement question

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.
Subject: SoCal complaint against El Paso

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.
Subject: bond renewal

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.