Q: I saw in the press that N.M. has delayed electric open access until Jan 1, 02 for residentials and small commercials and to July 1, 02 for large industrials. That increases the likelihood that the Pueblo project will have to dump power in the wholesale market at 4 Corners for a while before retail markets start to open up. One more thing to factor in. I'm expecting to hook up with Bill Votaw of Enron Federal Solutions today to talk about Langley's "sole source" procurement strategy with DOE. I hope to get Votaw on the phone with Langley's D.C. govt. contracts lawyers to discuss their theory. We should be in a better position to raise a flag if the sole source strategy is really a high risk approach. I'm not sure where that would leave us because the only other approach I can think of is to steer DOE into opening the power plant up for bids. Langley does not appear interested in trying to win an open bid for the power plant, although frankly we would probably have about as good a chance as anyone of winning. Once we clear up the government contracts issues (if ever) it seems to me that it would be time to expand the team to include Federal Solutions (potentially, if they see an angle to help them with their Kirtland outsourcing strategy) and ENA. The ENA involvement would be particularly important so we could get a line of specific turbine availability and the specifications/economics that would result. I'm probably engaging in wishful thinking again, but my hope is that the economics on a specific turbine/heat exchanger configuration work out a little better than the generic economics from the model that James ran. If we think this thing is a potentially viable deal after I talk to Votaw and the Langley DC team, we need to grab Bill Cordes and discuss whether we go to ENA "from the bottom up," or through Stan "from the top down" to get hooked into a deal team over there. Kevin, I still intend to hook you into the Votaw-DC call if you are available. Thanks. DF
Propose a subject line
A: Pueblo

Q: Dear Medicine Bow Shipper: Yesterday, we filed with FERC for approval of the fifth tie-in segment (to gate #6) contracted for 115 Mdth/day. This will bring the firm capacity of the Medicine Bow system to 495 Mdth/day. We will notify you as soon as we have approval. Please call me if you have any questions.
Propose a subject line
A: Medicine Bow Tie-In Capacity

Q: Below is the information for opening the utility accounts in your name. The phone and cable will be disconnected on Nov. 5, and the water, gas and electricity will be disconnected on Nov. 6. (If you make the calls prior to these dates and give them the Nov. 6th date, then the water, gas and electricity will not actually be turned off in the house.)
Propose a subject line
A: 3527 Yupon misc.

Q: Eric, We need to get the physical gas delivery issue resolved. TW is scheduled to deliver to ECS which was contracted with ENA for a fixed price for each of the stations ( [Bisti & Bloomfield or Kachina] and Gallup ). The total volume for Dec.01 according to TW and my best determination at this time is 342,560 MMBtu which ENA has not scheduled reportedly because they do not have a counter-party that will transact. This gas volume and the resulting cash flow into ECS Compression Co. LLC is a large portion of the monthly cash flow required to fund the billing expenses. Gallup Sta. - 81,605 mmbtu's (Annual Charge Conversion) appears to be a $2.35/mmbtu price for this year 25,521 mmbtu's (Compression Service Charge) appears to be a $2.44/mmbtu price for the term 107,126 mmbtu's for the month with a resulting $2.37144/mmbtu blended price Bloomfield - 110,240 mmbtu's (Compression Service Charge for Oct. power billed in Nov. 01) Bisti - 125,194 mmbtu's (Compression Service Charge for Oct. power billed in Nov. 01) 342,560 mmbtu's for the month of Dec. to ECS I'm not 100% sure of the pricing on these transactions but possibly with your information and Gerald Nemec's input we can determine and confirm. TK Lohman at TW called with a buyer for the Dec. 01 ECS gas. Scott Walker w/ Richardson Products 817 810 9385 frequently buys TW's operational gas that is sold intra month. The most direct method of handling the gas is to have ENA sell the gas & the proceeds directly flow back to ECS (if that is possible). ECS doesn't want the gas sale to roll into the ENA bankruptcy process. Otherwise ENA would need to assign ECS the ability to sell the gas directly but ECS would then need to execute a TW Pooling Agreement (or something) and there may be issues with ECS marketing gas directly. Let me know what blanks you can fill in. mk
Propose a subject line
A:
TW - Physical Gas Delivery for Dec.01