postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: contract issue

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
Subject: certificate questions

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
Subject: more Red Cedar

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.
Subject: Gallup answers

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.
Subject: Gallup certificate question

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
Subject: Prepared Testimony in I.99-07-003

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.
Subject: Cali. proceeding files

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!
Subject: WT-1 Electric Service Agreement

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
Subject: GIR cross-examination

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.
Subject: Options for TW Capacity

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.
Subject: TW LFT

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
Subject: travel update

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
Subject: PNM filing

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.
Subject: Red Cedar update

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.
Subject: Prepared Rebuttal Testimony in I.99-07-003

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.
Subject: WT-1 Service Contract amendment

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.
Subject: I.99-07-003

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.
Subject: elf update

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
Subject: message part II

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,
Subject: WT-1 Service Contract amendment

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.
Subject: Late-Filed Exhibit

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
Subject: 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
Subject: Capacity Options on TW

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.
Subject: TW Capacity Options meeting

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.
Subject: Day after Ripley

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,
Subject: TW Capacity Options

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.
Subject: IGS agreements

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.
Subject: Caithness Big Sandy LLC

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?
Subject: TW questions

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=
Subject: PG&E question

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.
Subject: Confidentiality Agreements

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.