Entergy Power Marketing Corp. has applied for a Password and has asked us to give them a "comfort letter" stating that the current trading with them will go under the respective master for the product and not the online GTC. I have spoken to Credit and we are trading financial gas, physical gas, and physical power (through EPMI). Can you please let me know first, if you have a master agreement agreement in place with this counterparty would it govern the product or would we need to use an override letter and if the master agreement will govern the trades, please provide me the exact name, parties and date of the contract. Obviously, as usual with online matters, this is a RUSH.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: EnronOnline-Entergy
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.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Order 637 ROFR Pricing Policy
Barry, You mentioned a gas outsourcing presentation. Could I get a copy of that? I am looking for examples of good ideas that can be applied to power - we have a current lapse in creativity!
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Gas Pitch
I have a schedule for Ms. Scott. April 14, 2000 9:00-9:30 Lance Schuler 9:30-10:00 Sheila Tweed 10:00-10:45 Mark Haedicke 10:50-11:10 Richard Sanders 11:10-11:30 Lisa Mellencamp 11:30-12:00 Julia Murray Please call me to confirm that this date is still available. Thanks
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Kathlyn Scott