IN: This is an email
Have we suggested to FERC staff that they force the ISO and PX to open the "blackbox" to show how they determine dispatch? In addtion, if you are not on the distribution list for Belden's memo on utility behavior in California this summer, I will forward it to you. It suggests some other areas FERC ought to be looking into.

What is the subject?

OUT: FERC investigation

IN: This is an email
Below is a summary of the discussions last week regarding the complaint against El Paso for oversubscribing the Socal Topock Point. The meeting started out by summarizing the dollar impact of the Border cuts to Amoco and Burlington of $3 million dollars and the additional fuel costs of $15 million that they have incurred when the mainline fuel was reduced and the gathering fuel was increased. Accordingly, producers are seeking a minimum of $17 million in compensation in some form or another. The biggest concern is that a total of 1.2 bcf/day is being nominated at the Socal Topock which can only deliver 540000 mmbtu/day. Socal Gas stated that this problem should go away when there system becomes unbundled (referred to as Gatekeeper).. The proceeding is currently pending CPUC approval and could be implemented as early as October 1, 2001. When the Gatekeeper is implemented , only 540000 mmbtu/day will be accepted at the Socal Topock border and must match up with the intra-state transport. SoCal Gas suggested taking the 1.2 bcf/day of nominations at the Topock delivery point and divide it up based on the original intent of the capapcity- 400 to Mohave; 540 to Socal Topock; and 180 to PGE Topock. They also stated they would accept less than 540 at Topock but needed a minimum of 300 to meet core needs. However, they wanted some type of compensation if their volume was reduced. They also agreed to live with the status quo until the Gatekeeper was implemented. This would result in firm rights being established at Socal Topock based on downstream rights. Williams owns Block 3 capacity and is willing to look at a CD reduction or a reduced take requirement or use of alternate points with a rate adjustment. After much discussion, El Paso came back with the following counter proposal: Recommended interim solution until Socal Gatekeeper implemented. Does not relate to receipt point rights. 1) Block 1 Capacity will always be alternate to Socal Topock (198000); 2)Block II Capacity can not be sold at PGE Topock (614000) 3) Amoco and OneOk each have a contract 45000/d which can go to Topock or Ehrenberg. It is recommended that they give up their Ehrenberg right and keep Topock right and Socal will give up like amount at Topock as well as shift an additional 70000 mmbtu/day from Topock to Ehrenberg resulting in approx. 115000 being shifted to Ehrenberg. 4) Rights fro expansion shippers would be carved up as follows: Socal Topock PGE/Mohave Topock Texaco 40 135 Burlington 26 74 Aero 5 15 Borax 7 12 LADWP 0 36 SWGas 0 20 5) Socal Topock would now be divided as follows: Expansion Shippers 78000 Socal Gas 425000 BLK 3 348000 (25-Amoco;20-Oneok;99-Williams;189 El Paso Merchant;15-Wlliams) Total 851000 540 divided by 841 would result in 37 percent cuts or 63 percent thruput. The producers were not happy with having to live with 37 percent cuts and felt that any transport sold after their Sept 28 complaint should be cut off the top which would be El Paso merchant services Blk 3. Separate meetings were then held amongst the Topock shippers to duscuss El Paso's counter -proposal.

What is the subject?

OUT: El Paso Complaint

IN: This is an email
Mike, Jason Peters, who was a lawyer seconded with us from Andrews & Kurth, has now gone back to A&K, but is still doing some work for us. Is there some way for us to get him access to the Financial Trading Agreement database? He is a lawyer, and is bound by client confidentiality with respect to all the information in the database, so I don't think we need to worry about granting him security access. Can we get him access?

What is the subject?

OUT:
Lotus Notes access