Q: Max, I spoke to Pete Metzner of METRIC Corporation about the status of the environmental assessment you need for the above project and he said that he has received the packet you sent him but he needs to have additional clearification on some items which are pertinant for completing the EA. Mr. Metzner was concerned that he would not be able to complete the EA by the specified time unless he discussed these issues with you. METRIC has extensive experience with environmental assessments, but is not familiar with pipeline terminology and pipeline actions proposed uder the agreement with the Office of Pipeline Safety. When you get a chance, would you please contact Pete at (505) 828-2801. Thanks.
Propose a subject line
A: Environemtal Asessment,Pipeline Risk Management Project

Q: Robert: I am still waiting to hear back from our credit person on some of the credit comments that you made, but here is my response to the legal and certain of the credit comments: 1. I am okay with the first paragraph of Insert 1. I would like to talk to you about the second paragraph. 2. We have a strong preference and policy towards using Loss rather than Market Quotation. 3. Inserts 2, 3, 4 and 5 are okay. In addition. our tax people are now advising us to require the delivery of W-9's to part 3. 4. NY is okay with governing law. 5. On arbitration, other than changing the location, I would prefer to go
Propose a subject line
A: Response to Comments

Q: Though the electronic copy is not yet available, we have faxed out a hard copy of FERC's "Order on Rehearing" issued today in RM01-9, "Reporting of Natural Gas Sales to the California Market." All requests for rehearing and clarification have been denied, as the requirement "is in the public interest...[and further] is necessary for the Commission to advise Congress as to whether it should change the existing regulatory framework..." Some major points are: (1) Arguments that FERC cannot require the info. from non-jurisdictional entities is disputed by citation to the NGA and FPA, allowing FERC to collect any information in order to advise Congress on a matter of urgent concern. The Commission also cites the FPA's authorization to investigate electricity issues, including the cost of generation (of which natural gas is a key factor). (2) In response to Enron's arguments, the order states the following: Enron argues that the data collection should be undertaken on an as-needed basis, not regularly; FERC simply denies this. Enron argues that the burden of reporting was underestimated; FERC says this may be true but is no reason to rescind the requirement. Enron argues that the reporting is not based on the business method utilized by the company and that it does not have the information on a daily pricing and volume basis (matched to physical volumes); FERC answers that data should be submitted "in a manner consistent with the way the particular gas seller does business." Examples are given in the text of the FERC order. If Enron is contending it should only file aggregate information, FERC finds this option unacceptable. Only Enron asked for an extension for the filing deadline, from 30 days to 45 days after the close of each month; FERC denies this request as unnecessary. (3) CPUC request for access to all information filed is denied. Sensitive price data will be exempt from public disclosure (with no exceptions) so that all parties must comply. The order also states, "Moreover, the purpose in seeking the information is to enable the Commission to understand the operation of the market for gas sales into California, not to investigate the conduct of particular participants in that market."
Propose a subject line
A: CA rept requirements rehearing denied

Q: Hi Chris, As promised, I have phoned the IRS today and spoken with a representative who was able to tell me that the original request for the trace on your cheque on September 19 was rejected by their system on October 22. He told me that he couldn't tell me why because the IRS aren't sure either why the system rejected it. As such, a new request for a trace was placed on October 22 and now the IRS are asking us to wait until December 17. The IRS told me that you should receive a letter called a 510C letter from them. I have changed your address with the IRS from Texas to Calgary. I would ask that when you receive this letter to fax a copy to my attention at 781-1825 for our files. I know that this probably isn't the news you were hoping to hear, but at least it's some news. I have made a note to follow up with the IRS again on December 17 and hopefully by then they will have good news in time for the holidays! Again, don't hesitate to contact either Judy or myself should you hear anything further from the IRS, receive your cheque(!) or have any other questions or concerns. Kind regards,
Propose a subject line
A:
IRS refund cheque--update