postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: NM ROW

Do you know anyone in ROW who could give me a sense of what ROW currently is  going for in $/ mile, in New Mexico?
Please forward this to anyone you think  might be able to give me some insight on recent right of way procurement by  enron or others.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Mgt. Rep. Letter

I reviewed the latest draft of AA's management rep. letter and caught a few   innaccuracies in the way AA described the deal.
I attach a revised draft of  the letter, with a redline version to highlight for you the changes I think  we need to make to keep it accurate.
First, AA only listed two of the four  agreements that comprise the deal.
They apparently forgot that we had  created a second SBA.
Additionally, at Transcanada's request, we put the  transaction fee into a separate letter agreement this year.
You will recall  that last year, Sempra wanted the transaction fee put right in the SBA.
Second, AA's bullet no.
4, as originally drafted, states that Northern does  not intend to enter into an option to purchase any base gas during the term  of the agreement.
That statement is confusing given that Article VI.B of the  Monthly Pack Agreement includes an account balance cash out mechanism that is  a form of purchase option.
That cash out mechanism was in Kent's bullets  describing the deal and has been in every draft of the documents that AA  looked at, so I assume they are OK with the mechanism and were just inartful  in drafting bullet no.
4.
My simple fix was to leave AA's language alone  but to add an "except for" reference at the beginning of bullet no.
4.
Third, AA's draft of bullet nos.
5 and 6 includes the somewhat ambiguous  references to "other agreements" and "additional agreements" respectively.
Since AA's list of the agreements in the intro paragraph was incomplete,  these references in bullet nos.
5 and 6 were also innacurate.
Now that I  have made the list of agreements in the intro paragraph complete, I've  clarified the bullets by adding the "other than those agreements referenced  above" language to both bullets.
The couple of other changes in bullet 5  simply clarify the meaning.
Finally, I've modified the signature blocks per conversation with Bill to  delete MKM and myself.
I am certainly willing and able to sign this letter,  but MKM is not up to speed on the deal and has not reviewed the agreements.
Getting her up to speed enough to sign the letter would take some time.
Additionally, Bill's thought was that MKM and I are his direct reports  anyway, so it doesn't serve much purpose to have the subordinates sign if the  top guy has signed.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or want to discuss these  matters.
Subject: Mgt Rep Ltr

Per our discussion, I've modified the letter to remove reference to the  monthly pack agreement and made a couple of other minor changes.
I wasn't  able to get ahold of Bill on Friday afternoon to discuss who will sign, so  for now I've left it with signature blocks for Bill and Rod only.
I hope we  are getting closer to the target here and look forward to discussing it with  you further on Monday.
Thanks again for the illumination on AA's intent on  the earlier draft.
DF
Subject: El Paso

Britt- great memo.
I'm sure you guys are in the course of discussing these  very issues, but here's my two cents worth.
1.
Once we decide on an optimal forum, the key step before filing a lawsuit  is the assessment of our probability of success--for different reasons than
Subject: Power plants

These guys don't give up.
I'll forward any information Tino gives me on  their latest DOE strategy.
Rockey--do you have any interest in following up
Subject: Mock Trial

Here's a thought that didn't occur to me when I marked up the mock trial  script.
Should we have the consultants prominantly feature "IPEC  Busters"???
Unless we are pretty sure the judge will keep it out on  relevance grounds, it might be useful to at least get some juror reactions to  it.
With or without the specific IPEC Busters stuff, we probably ought to  assume that Jad's theme will be that Northern's whole philosophy was to  breach contracts without flinching if it served our commercial interests.
The vitriol from P&P and the other producers plays into that theme.
Maybe we  ought to spice that part of the script up a bit also just so we can see how  our response plays.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

Just got an update on the project that won't go away.
Dennis has a meeting  lined up with DOE decisionmakers on the 25th.
He is going to pitch the  project as an approximately 100 mw power plant, to be owned by (read  "financed by") DOE, with the gas pipeline owned by Dennis and\or third  parties (read "Enron"?).
Dennis has run economics that show the DOE will get  a more than 10% cost savings on the project compared to current PNM rates,  even assuming a fairly high gas transport cost because of the smaller gas  load.
How did he do it?
Very easy:  they ran the power plant economics  using about a $2.00 gas cost instead of current, real world prices.
Dennis'  argument is going to be:  "I'll take the risk on building the pipeline and  the power plant at a capped cost, and then sell the power plant to you."
"You take the risk on gas cost:  if gas cost tracks the 18-24 month average,  you will realize your 10% cost savings, but if current fuel costs continue or  escalate, you lose."
Either way, your reliability improves and you kick  PNM in the shins."
Dennis and Tino apparently think they can sell DOE on  this.
By the way, their current story on Richardson is that he won't resign,  and won't be forced out by the administration because that would create even  more publicity.
You'll love this:  they think Richardson is even more likely  to sign off on the deal now because his chances of being nominated for VP or  cabinet are dead and he now has nothing to lose in DC.
They think his real  angle is now to bring home the bacon to New Mexico and then run for governor  out there!!
Apparently the rank and file out in the home state think he got  hosed and made a scapegoat unfairly.
I've asked  Lorna Brennan to pull some historical San Juan prices together  to give to Tino to confirm whether his $2 price is wacky.
Other than that, I  just told Tino that we are potentially interested in the pipeline part of the  project if the risks and rewards make sense, and that EE&CC might be  interested in the design/build on all of it.
He said he'd get back to me  after the 25th meeting and tell me whether the project is undead.
DF
Subject: The Memo

Congratulations to you both!
Your designation as V.Ps.
is richly deserved!
Just among us "constrained technical" people, however,  couldn't they have  come up with a better description of our category?
It makes us sound like we  are deficient in something other than just career choice!
See you  soon--beers are on me!
DF
Subject: book

Thinking about bailing out of the big O for a couple of days w/o rugrats or  Sandra.
Taking Kari out of her native biome is more hassle than its worth  these days.
Might just blow up for a long weekend and do some fishing and  beer drinking.
Send me the name of that book on flyfishing in the Hills--I
Subject: Pueblo

Sorry, I neglected to forward this to you earlier.
You've gotta give these  guys credit for being tenacious!
I'll keep you posted on any meaningful  developments after their meeting with DOE on the 25th.
Thanks for your  patience.
DF
Subject: GPG Organization Announcement

FYI.
Interesting, and no significant deviations from what we discussed.
Dan  was up here yesterday with Stan.
He seems like a good guy and is pretty gung  ho about getting on board.
Lets keep in touch.
DF
Subject: NM First Town Hall Energy Summary

Leslie Lawner called and asked if TW could help with the funding of this  organization.
As you will recall, the "NM First" group has taken positions  on right of way issues that are consistent with TW/Enron's view on Indian  right of way issues.
Leslie asked if we could kick in $1000.
I leave this  to you guys to weigh in on--If you think it's worthwhile, let me know and one
Subject: Enron and Blockbuster to Launch Entertainment On-Demand Service

No wonder you are oblivious to our meager organizational changes up in  Omaha!
You are out doing zillion dollar deals for EBS!!!
Congratulations--sounds like a very cool deal!
Lets get together soon down
Subject: Pueblo

Does anyone find it interesting that we've heard nothing but silence from  Dennis and Tino?
I suspect that their big meeting with DOE on the 25th  didn't go so well.
If you hear anything let me know, otherwise I'll try to  get ahold of Tino sometime next week to find out what DOE said.
DF
Subject: TW Compressor Monetization

Assuming we keep Arthur Anderson on board this afternoon and assuming Enron  is still in the business of doing asset monetizations like this one (which  better be the case since its in the TW 4th Q plan @$2.5 mm), the following  things need to happen on roughly the following timetable:  1.
Mike talks to Hanover and we negotiate the price, specific contract  language, etc.
(hopefully within 2-3 weeks of turning Mike loose?)
2.
Regulatory (assisted by Maria and me) flanges up the FERC abandonment  filing and tees it up to file the minute Mike finalizes the deal with  Hanover.
We haven't talked about this for a while, but the story we tell   FERC has to acknowledge that the monthly O&M cost will be higher under our  outsourcing deal than it currently is, if load factor and other operating  assumptions remain constant.
That may be the key to our story line--we
Subject: TW Letter Agreement

Here is the draft letter agreement.
We are still discussing it with ECS and  can make whatever changes are appropriate.
Note that the letter agreement  ties back to Article 6 of the Compression Services Agreement.
That article,  you may recall, is where ECS agreed to create a computerized system that  would monitor Continental Divide's electric system utilization and warn when  their system peaks were occurring and then automatically take the compressor  offline (subject to manual override) so we and ECS could avoid peak period  demand charges.
Instead of creating such a system, which apparently turned  out to be mostly a manual system anyway, ECS is going to pay us a monthly fee  to monitor CD's system peaks ourselves and decide when we need to get off  line.
The load management service has to do with operational management of  the load we place on CD's electric system, and is not a jurisdictional gas  transportation or storage service.
Note that the service goes on for 10  years (as required by the accountants' 10 year amortization rule) and thus  may be vulnerable to scrutiny and potential revenue crediting in TW's 2007  rate case.
Any way to avoid that?
DF
Subject: PG&E: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL--ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

Bill, attached is a memo prepared by Susan Scott that does a good job of  answering the several questions that you had about the situation at Topock.
Note that in Susan's first answer, PG&E has no obligation to Transwestern to  accept gas at Topock.
They may well have obligations to their own  transportation customers or sales customers that have to be satisfied with  Topock receipts, but that doesn't give TW any rights against PG&E.
I realize  these are not comforting answers, but I wanted us all to have a realistic  understanding of where we are.
I'm running this by Lou in case he has a  different spin on the history or the agreements.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Red Cedar

Ugh.
We'll keep working this angle if their new attorney shows up on deck,  but I think Susan and I have done as much as can be done with Howard H.  Do  any of you know what the Red Cedar facilities look like?
I.e.
how many miles  of line, any big diameter line, any compression, etc?
Howard must have read  some old cases and gotten himself spooked that their facilites aren't  gathering under the modified primary function test.
I'm not sure why he  thinks signing a transport contract with us will make their situation any  worse, but that seems to be his conclusion.
If Steve and Bill can't nudge  Red Cedar's management into doing the deal, I'd suggest that you both or one  of you ask Tsuri (sp?)
to have his new lawyer call me and Susan after Howard  leaves, maybe with one of the Kinder Morgan lawyers on the phone also, and  we'll try to straighten this out.
Subject: Pueblo

I called Tino today to let him know that our affiliates are sniffing around a  power plant opportunity and potential gas bypass pipeline in Albuquerque.
Kevin, you should be getting a call from a guy in Portland whose name I can't  seem to find right now.
He had gotten my name from Thome out there and  called to let me know that ENA is interested in pitching either PNM or some  outfit called "Delta" on development or expansion of a gas-fired power plant  in the south part of Albuquerque.
It didn't sound to me like ENA was very  far along in their deal.
I explained to this guy what we were involved in  and swore him to confidentiality.
I also told him he need to call either  Kevin or Steve before he talked to PNM.
I thought it was a little curious  that ENA is interested in generation in Alb.
all of a sudden.
On the Tino front, he apologized for not calling after their big DOE  meeting.
He said it went very well and that DOE is considering their  offer--$.085/Kwh power less revenue sharing for all surplus power sold.
Tino
Subject: Endurance

In case you haven't already marked your calendars, tomorrow will be my two  year anniversary with the company.
The good Lord willing (and with Stan's  and Mike's continued acquiescence) I may even surpass the tenure of my two  most recent and very illustrious predecessors.
Given your meteoric career  tracks, however, I'm not sure you guys would view that as a huge  accomplishment.
Hope all goes well with you both.
Adios from the big O.   DF
Subject: Risk Management

I noted in the Finance and Accounting report that you guys are setting up a  meeting with AA to talk about the draft risk management document that folks  had been working on a year ago.
Please include Tony and I.
We had some  questions and concerns that I have long since forgotten but will renew and  talk to you about before the AA meeting.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: El Paso-ENA Deal

I thought Becky's draft answer to protests looked great.
Her mention of the  amount of TW capacity held by the Indicated Shippers was an elegant touch.
No changes.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Gallup Order: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY CLIENT  PRIVILEGE

Now that the celebrating has died down, lets decide whether to seek rehearing  or clarification of the order.
If there is anything in it that disadvantages  us, we should consider rehearing, particularly since it is a nearly certain  that our friends at SoCal will file a nasty one.
(It might be good for Steve  H. or Bill or whoever has the best relationship with SoCal to make a high  level courtesy call to extend the olive branch and tell them that we'll work  with them to minimize their concerns blah blah blah.
At minimum, we'll  probably learn if they do intend to seek rehearing)    I see two things that may be worth seeking rehearing on:  1.
The requirement that we disclose our discount agreements in 15 days.
FERC really punted this issue.
They say that "since the expansion capacity  is fully subscribed we see no reason why Transwestern should not publicly  disclose the agreements.
.
.
. "
This is the first time I've heard of any  rule that if your project is fully subscribed you therefore lose your right  to confidential treatment of sensitive pricing info.
At minimum, we could  argue that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious because FERC didn't  even mention its normal regulations and procedures governing filing of  discount reports.
It just cited the certificate regulation that requires an  applicant to "file" its rate information with the Commission (which we did)  and ignores the regulation (Sec.
284.7(c)(6)) that doesn't require a pipeline  to publicly disclose its discounts until 15 days  after the close of the  billing period to which the discount pertained.
The commercial people need  to decide if we care about this issue--i.e., how upset will the customers
Subject: Blockbuster

I heard there was an article in the WSJ a few days ago on Blockbuster and  that mentioned the Enron deal--could you send it to me?
Thanks.
dF
Subject: Changes in Administrative Responsibilties

Congratulations on your new responsibilities.
I look forward to working with  you on the Litigation Unit stuff (as Eric will advise you, a very pleasant  task!).
DF
Subject: Organizational Announcement

Congrats big guy!
I look forward to showing you the sights in the Big O.
Since that will only take about 10 minutes, we'll have plenty time to go out  for a beer afterwords!
DF
Subject: Release

The Market Services bullets listed a capacity release deal between MUD and  Oxy at 102% of max.
rates.
Please let me know whatever we know about that  deal--points, term, etc.
Very interesting.
DF
Subject: Rev. Mgt.

Did you all see the blurb in Sep. 29 gas daily on Williams' deal with PROS on  a revenue management system?
May be useful to use with our management if  there is anxiety about going forward.
DF
Subject: FERC interviews in Omaha

I think the safest and most efficient way to comply with this request is to  have Keith and Ray briefed and ready to answer all FERC's questions without  deferring any to other people.
Ray and Keith, please talk to Gary Zahn and  make sure you are up to speed on everything FERC has asked for and focused on  so far.
You don't need to be an expert on all that, but a basic  understanding of what they have already looked at will help you be more  responsive to what they want to ask you about.
If you do get stumped, try to  defer the question by telling FERC you need to check on a fact or two and can  answer that question after a break or at the end of the interview.
By doing  that , you should be able to get them the information they need without  having them cross examine a bunch of other people.
Inevitably, if you ask  enough people the same question, you may start getting different answers.
Lee, I'd like you to be on the phone call with Ray, Keith and Gary to discuss  generally what to be ready for and what FERC has already looked at.
Please  let me know if anyone has any concerns about this approach.
DF
Subject: Paul B

Paul Bieniawski's phone number is 713-345-8641.
Go ahead and give him a call  just as a courtesy  to let him what you guys are looking at at Bushton and  let him know I put you up to it.
If he has some useful off the cuff  insights, great.
If not, that's fine also.
I don't expect you to send him  any material or get him deeply involved--just give him a heads up.
DF
Subject: ETS Products/Services

Please follow up with Lou on this.
It sounds like something the commercial  people would be in a good position to answer, so maybe start by finding out  if they are already responding, either through Lou or otherwise.
Then get  the right people to review and supplement this list.
Thanks.
df
Subject: ??

Sorry you weren't able to join my hunting boondoggle in SoDak!
It was epic.
Lots of birds (the wild variety, not pen raised and tied down like at  Pheasant Haven!)
We saw literally 1500-2000 birds over three days of  hunting, and limited out every day.
Got my first double--two shots, two
Subject: Risk System Alternatives Next Steps

I've talked to Lee Ferrell about this, and it sounds to me like there are  serious business reasons (i.e., cost and functionality) not to use the ENA  system.
THe "sharing of resources" issue worries me, but might be solvable  if the right people are in Networks instead of ENA.
I'll call you tomorrow.
DF
Subject: The memo

Here is a good example of the problem to which your research project  pertains.
This info.
could be devastating in the next rate case ( or sooner)  if disclosed.
How comfortable are we with our privilege arguments?
DF
Subject: Pueblo

Tino called this morning with a quick report.
They are still negotiating  with DOE on a power plant deal, but it looks pretty shaky.
The size of the  plant has grown to 380 MW, for reasons that are unclear to me.
Tino has been  ordered to develop an exit strategy in case the power plant deal falls  apart.
He says Dennis has about $3 mm in the project so far, most of it  related to the pipeline right of way.
The have a binding 20 year agreement  with the tribes for the ROW that calls for a $100,000 minimum monthly  payment.
I'm not sure the entire route is perfected or not or whether the  ROW agreement includes fiber optic rights etc.
The question is whether we  are even interested enough to justify a closer look, since the rights Dennis  has pulled together will probably be available for cents on the dollar.
I  told Tino I'd give him a call next week to let him know.
At minimum, I'd  suggest we have one of our ROW guys take a look at whatever they've got and  advise us on what its worth.
Your thoughts?
DF
Subject: Gallup

Lets talk today, susan.
I need to satisfy myself that this is really one of  those "shit happens" situations like everyone seems to believe, rather than a  situation where we may have a cause of action and some $$$ owed to us by  someone.
DF
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
Subject: ETS on the Move...

Congratulations on the move!
Its great to see a reorg that actually seems to  make so much sense!
Thanks again to you and Terry for watching the three  stooges on Saturday night.
It was great seeing you guys again and getting  the kids a chance to play for a while.
We'd love to return the favor next  time you come up to Omaha--the weather is getting real nice right about
Subject: NewCo

When you guys settle on a name for NewCo, please let me know and also call  Lillian Bailey at Corp.
Her # is 33577.
Thanks.
df
Subject: Revised responses to Interrogs. & Req. for Production for your re 	view.

Please review this final draft at your earliest convenience and get back to  Britt or me with your comments.
Thanks.
Martha, please print it out for  me.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Transwestern Contracts

You guys probably don't remember this (I didn't until I checked the file) but  there were a couple of exhibits to the Transwestern Gallup contracts that we  left to be attached to the final contracts after execution.
My recollection  is that we were in such a hurry to get the Compression Service Agreement  signed and sent to FERC that we left a couple of these things to do later.
Now that we have the FERC order, I want to get these contracts off my desk  and off to Corporate Records or whereever original contracts go to die.
On  my originals, I'm missing Exhibit B to the CSA (which is the CDEC Rate  Schedule No.
21),  and Exhibits A and C to the O&M Agreement.
Susan, please coordinate with Gerald to get these exhibits in our respective  files and we can send these contracts off to the central rathole and be done  with it.
Thanks to you all.
DF
Subject: Albuquerque Project

For those of you who didn't have the patience/patriotism to listen to your  president for the whole hour and a half last night, let me share a  highlight:  Clinton announced a new $1 billion program for economic  development on the reservations.
Langley may be onto something.
If he/we  can get the first deal done in New Mexico and assuming Gore wins, there may  be opportunities to replicate the deal elsewhere.
I'm thinking of tribal  lands in Minnesota, Wisconsin, S. Dakota, etc.
Perhaps Bill should call  Chairman Ken and talk to him about changing sides.
Notice that I'm not  volunteering to make that phone call.
DF
Subject: TW Gallup - Gas Conversion Pricing

Well, there you have it.
We waited and we blew it.
What a bunch of  dummies.
Next time someone calls and gives me a special deal thats only  available for a limited time, I'll jump on it!
Kevin, please let me know  what Steve, Bill, and Stan ultimately decide to do on this.
Thanks.
DF