QUESTION: 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
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Late-Filed Exhibit
John, Scana Energy Marketing bought an additional 823 dt per day from Enron North America at $4.765. The term is from May 2, 2001 through May 31, 2001. The delivery point is TCo Pool. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Additional Gas Purchases for May 2001
Attached is a first draft of a letter agreement relating to the LM 6000/Coral transaction. Please let me know ASAP if you have any comments. Thanks,
Answer: LM 6000/Coral transaction
Here is an email: At Third Current Estimate, we added a full year forecast for MGT for Operations and added the MGT and Border amounts together on the Border page in the ETS Functional Income Statement as instructed. We are trying to confirm what we should be reflecting. Jason is being instructed that ETS should not pick up any actuals for January through May, and that we should use Actuals received from El Paso for June forward, and not our numbers. The El Paso amounts for June through September are close to what we have, but not exact. Please advise us as to what we should be reflecting and we will revise our schedules. We did not pick up MGT at all until 3rd CE, so I'm OK with restating 3rd CE to reflect the appropriate amounts for MGT and rolling forward from there. Thanks, Elaine
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Forecast for MGT
Q: It looks like we are done on the new Citizens deal effective July 1. I have sent original contracts for execution. We now have to put the deal in the system. This is a little complicated. The attached spreadsheet indicates how this deal will work, using June as an example. The only differences between June and future months are: 1) In the future, we will collect a $.09/MMBtu demand charge with $.02/MMBtu of this going to EAMR (ENA gets $.07/MMBtu) 2) In the future, the PG&E discount is $.10, not $.25. Some of the complicated booking issues are: 1. We need to show the John Cogan commission as a separate deal and a cost to ENA 2. We need to show the payment to EAMR as a separate deal and a cost to ENA 3. We will continue to bill Citizens for the TW Mainline cost on our utility deal 1 and 2 above are pretty straight forward and should not create any deal entry difficulties other than someone will have to enter the deals. Number 3 is more difficult. The complexities relate to where we are making the sale and what costs should be included. Can you get with the folks who can help us here and have them come up with a recommendation on how this deal should be booked? Let me know if you have questions. I also believe I can add value in speaking with Darren Giron or others. I guaranty their initial recommendation will not be 100% workable. Thanks!
Propose a subject line
A: Citizens Gas Deal
Here is an email: As both of you are well aware, ENA currently owes Midland Power Cooperative ("MPC") past due amounts for power delivered pursuant to an Agreement for Purchase of Power dated March 31, 1995 by and between ENA and MPC, as amended. I am working with Chip and Dave to determine if we can pay the past due amounts. Two questions need to be answered ASAP: 1) Is there any other entity that might be able to supply the power if ENA defaults under its agreement with MPC? 2) Is MPC considered a "utility"? Dave has learned that "utilities" cannot refuse to serve entities in bankruptcy on a going forward basis for failure to pay pre-petition obligations (so long as adequate assurances of future payments are provided). Gerald, you might need to consult with one of the bankruptcy lawyers to see how this determination is made. Please respond at your earliest possible convenience. Thanks
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
ENA - NNG Hubbard Transaction - Past Due bill from Midland Power Cooperative