|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Ray Alvarez X-To: Steve Walton, Susan J Mara, Alan Comnes, Leslie Lawner, Rebecca W Cantrell, Donna Fulton, Jeff Dasovich, Christi L Nicolay, James D Steffes, jalexander@gibbs-bruns.com, Tim Belden, Linda J Noske, Dave Perrino, Don Black, Robert Frank, Stephanie Miller, Barry Tycholiz, Sarah Novosel, Jennifer Thome, Phillip K Allen X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Oct2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf FYI. This is receiving close scrutiny by the Commission. RA ---------------------- Forwarded by Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron on 07/26/2001 05:5= 9=20 PM --------------------------- Nancy Bagot 07/26/2001 05:54 PM To: Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: =20 Subject: TW neg. rate order summary (1) Transwestern Negotiated Rates proceeding, RP97-288 et al.: The order= =20 calls for an expedited hearing to explore four primary issues (listed=20 below). The draft order passed at the meeting by a vote of 5 =01) 0, and= =20 language on revisions to TW's tariff and posting policy were added to the= =20 final order to assuage concerns expressed in the discussion of the case at= =20 the meeting. =20 The case was called for public discussion by Commissioner Breathitt, who=20 wanted to highlight that the additional =01&limited scope=018 fast track he= aring =20 is the =01&right way to go=018 to understand why negotiated rates that were= seventy=20 times the maximum recourse rate are just and reasonable. Breathitt=01,s=20 additional question in this case is why shippers would agree to such rates= =20 when lower rates were available. In the final order, Breathitt=01,s concerns about the posting of the operat= ional=20 capacity as such were reflected in language ordering TW to revise its tarif= f=20 and web postings to provide clear identification of operational capacity an= d=20 to post and contract such capacity on each day of its availability (i.e., o= n=20 a day-to-day basis) unless it can demonstrate that operational capacity wil= l=20 be available for some longer period of time. At Wednesday=01,s meeting, Wood noted that =01&we bumped into something her= e,=018=20 though he did not mention possibilities but instead agreed that a procedura= l=20 schedule to =01&vet the issues in the light of day=018 was the best route. = The=20 four issues set for hearing are: =20 ? whether the transportation capacity was advertised and awarded in an=20 accurate and fair manner consistent with Transwestern=01,s tariff;=20 ? whether the transportation rates=01(were the product of an exercise of= =20 market power (i.e., did TW withhold capacity that otherwise could have= =20 been made available under recourse service in order to make the capacity= =20 available under negotiated rate charges at substantially higher rates);= =20 ? why the shippers agreed to these rates when significantly lower recours= e=20 rates should have been available under our negotiated rate program; and= =20 ? why the awarded capacity appears to be available without interruption= =20 while firm transportation service under Transwestern=01,s recourse rate= was=20 not.
|