IN: The policy spelled out in Order No. 637 (and affirmed on rehearing in Order No. 637-A) for pricing under ROFR at the expiration of a lower-rate service agreement (where rates are "vintaged"). In both Order No 637 and Order No. 637-A the Commission notes that this policy is consistent with the Certificate Policy Statement issued in 1999. Order No. 637 states as follows: [A] shipper exercising its ROFR could be required to match a bid up to a maximum rate higher than the historic maximum rate applicable to its capacity in certain limited circumstances: when a pipeline expansion has been completed and an incremental rate exists on the system; the pipeline is fully subscribed; and there is a competing bid above the maximum pre-expansion rate applicable to existing shippers. * * * As the Commission explains in the Certificate Policy Statement, to adjust the maximum rate applicable to shippers exercising their ROFR in these circumstances, the pipeline would have to establish a mechanism for reallocating costs between the historic and incremental rates so all rates remain within the pipeline's cost-of-service. The mechanism can be established either through a general section 4 rate case or through the filing of pro forma tariff sheets which would provide the Commission and the parties with an opportunity to review the proposal prior to implementation. Order No. 637 references one instance where a pipeline had filed such a mechanism as follows: Cf. Viking Gas Transmission Company, 89 FERC Para. 61,204 (1999) (rejecting tariff filing to raise matching rates under a ROFR where, among other things, the filing did not readjust existing and expansion rates. Jan and I are doing a search right now to determine where there have been any other filings. I'll let you know what we find. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Order 637 ROFR Pricing Policy
IN: This is an email
Leslie: Per our conversation, you mentioned that you had comments to the form of assignment to be executed by you, Lehman and Enron North America Corp.. Would you please provide me with your comments so that I can forward the same to Lehman? I know that the Merrill name needs to be corrected. Thanks. Sara

What is the subject?

OUT: Assignment Agreement from Merrill Lynch International to Lehman Brothers Finance S.A.
QUESTION: John and Randy, I got a call from Bob Sevitz regarding a change I made to the EECC revisions to the Co Op City EPC contract. Specifically, I deleted language he had added to the waiver of consequential damages. Bob had added a provision that said that the waiver was "subject to" the indemnification section of the contract. I felt this was too broad of a carve out, especially from the contractor's point of view. Any tweaking of the indemnity language (to blatantly reconcile it with the waiver) can occur during the drafting process. Just wanted to pass this along. Kay
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Co Op City EPC contract
Q: market_relations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants, Due to the outage of the NYISO website today (October 16, 2001), the following changes originally scheduled for implementation today have been rescheduled for October 30, 2001. 1) Deployment of BEA's WebLogic application server. 2) Data postings for real-time internal transmission flows and limits. 3) Transmission line scheduled and actual outages. In addition, the MIS outage scheduled for October 17, 2001 at 11:35 AM has also been cancelled. This outage will be rescheduled. The NYISO apologizes for any inconvenience that this unscheduled outage has caused and we are working to bring the website back on-line as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call Customer Relations at 518-356-6060. Regards,
Propose a subject line
A:
NYISO Software Release Update for October 16 and October 17, 2001