|
|
Enron Mail |
I will keep you both up to speed as this develops. I've got a call in to Ne=
ubauer and Semin. thanks. sj ---------------------- Forwarded by Steven January/ET&S/Enron on 06/08/2001= 01:02 PM --------------------------- "Hewett, Mark A" <MAHewett@midamerican.com< on 06/08/2001 12:22:28 PM To:=09"'steven.january@enron.com'" <steven.january@enron.com< cc:=09=20 Subject:=09FW: Vinton control valves This didn't make it to you the first time around.=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Hewett, Mark A =20 Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:16 PM=20 To: 'dave.neubauer@enron.com'=20 Cc: 'drew.fossum@enron.com'; 'steve.january@enron.com'; Gesell, Tom A; = Porter, Greg J=20 Subject: Vinton control valves=20 Dave,=20 Please see the attached Email from Mike Hogan, one of MEC's System Operator= s. Obviously, we have a problem. Northern's actions over the last 10 days h= ave been reckless, completely unacceptable and in violation of MEC's agreem= ents, NNG's tariff and many years of operational precedent. In addition to = the financial risk that NNG is assuming resulting from supply allocations i= t has implemented based on hourly flow, NNG's restriction of MEC flow withi= n its firm rights elevates NNG's risk to an extreme level. Under certain ci= rcumstances, the actions that NNG has recently demonstrated may result in t= he loss of service to a portion of MEC's distribution system. The fact that= neither you, members of your staff nor NNG operations personnel have been = able to explain to any degree of specificity or accuracy the new operating = practices that NNG has unilaterally and abruptly implemented is unconsciona= ble. Accordingly, I have no alternative other than to request that NNG meet= the specific requirements of its tariff (including but not limited to Sect= ion 19.A.6) by providing MEC with all information, including affidavits, ex= plaining in detail NNG's restriction of flow and/or supply allocations on e= ach day from May 30 through June 8. Please also consider this correspondenc= e as a request for the same information related to any future day where NN= G takes such action. As always, I am available to discuss MEC's position in detail.=20 Mark =20 =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Putnam, William W =20 Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:59 AM=20 To: Hewett, Mark A; Lavengood, Kirk L=20 Cc: Gesell, Tom A=20 Subject: FW: Vinton control valves=20 FYI. Here is a sample of what we're dealing with.=20 Bill=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Hogan, Mike J =20 Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:35 PM=20 To: Barnes, Jerry E; Hogan, Mike J; Kinney, David J; Krejci, Jeff T; Me= rrigan, Susan L; Putnam, William W; Wise, Robert P Cc: Gesell, Tom A=20 Subject: Vinton control valves=20 After Mike Stoner worked on the control valve @ Vinton I had to put in a lo= w set point and come up gradually to keep NNG's and MEC's control valves fr= om fighting each other. This was around 1915. Around 2030 the control val= ves started fighting each other again. I waited for a while to see if they= would settle down. They didn't. I called NNG control (Richard) and reque= sted he set in a slightly higher set point to help alleviate the problem. = He refused. He said their orders were to set in 50,000/day (2083/hr) and n= ot to exceed it. I tried to explain that since we were under that hourly a= verage earlier in the day he needed to set his a little higher so we could = get in all the gas. He refused. I used a set point of 2083/hr to match NN= G's and hopefully get the control valves in sync. Therefore we are not goi= ng to hit our target without doing a storage netting nom in the A.M. The s= oap opera continues....................... Thanks,=20 Mikey=20
|