|
|
Enron Mail |
Shelley,
Since Steve and Kevin are out, I'll wade in here. The TW Red Rock expansion is for 150,000 Dth/d. It is a mainline expansion, allowing Transwestern to flow west from receipt points East of Thoreau to the California border. As you recall, we held an open season in November for an [undefined] expansion to the system. Customers were encouraged to define volumes/price/path in their expressions of interest. As you'd expect, we received wide-ranging expressions of interest for various locations/term lengths/paths/pricing. After months of work to define the most economical project for TW, we were able just this week to go back to the original open season respondents and define the project for them. We've given them until March 2 to provide us with a binding bid for capacity in the expansion. We'll look at those bids once they're received and sort/allocate them [in the event volumes bid exceed 150,000] according to our tariff. We've identified what receipt and delivery point capacities are available for customers on the expansion. There is no capacity available for deliveries to SoCal Gas at Needles. We expect gas to be delivered to PG&E, Southwest Gas and the two new power plants recently constructed off TW at the Cal. border. In my view, and I think a view shared by many, is that there really isn't [necessarily] a lack of upstream interstate capacity. Rather, the bigger obstacle to meeting growing gas demand in [Southern] California are the physical and regulatory bottlenecks in the California utility systems. For example, SoCal Gas has a physical bottleneck coming off TW into its Line 235 that limits TW to 750,000 Mcf/d sustainable capacity. With the addition of a modest horsepower increase at the SoCal Gas receiving station, they could easily take another 150,000 Mcf/d off TW. Similar bottlenecks exist into SoCal Gas Line 3000 system off EPNG at Topock, as well as the interconnect with PG&E and Kern/Mojave at Wheeler Ridge. The Line 225 takeaway capacity from Wheeler Ridge is rated only at 680,000 Mcf/d. PG&E and Kern/Mojave could easily deliver over 1 Bcf/d. The problem at Wheeler Ridge will only be exacerbated if both PG&E and Kern are successful in building expansions to their systems. The clearest description of this problem I've ever heard came from Jeff Dasovich. Jeff likened the interstate pipelines serving California to "an interstate highway system that ends in a dirt road." The gas transmission infrastructure in California has been sorely neglected. In fact, if it hadn't been for the construction of Kern/Mojave in the early '90's building directly into Kern County, problems would be much worse today. The issue has reached such a crescendo in California, that even SoCal Gas is convening an industry "forum" to discuss intrastate infrastructure issues on March 8. Transwestern will be represented there. As to regulatory bottlenecks, the CPUC launched an investigation a couple of years ago into the unbundling of the gas industry in California. In an unprecedented effort, the majority of stakeholders in the SoCal Gas system; marketers, producers, pipelines, the CPUC's own Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and SoCal Gas itself, offered up a comprehensive unbundling proposal to the CPUC for its consideration and approval. Unforntunately, the vested interests of the new owners of former utility generation, used to having SoCal Gas system resources for balancing/swings [paid for by other customer classes], put up significant resistance to the comprehensive settlement proposal. This generator opposition, along with the well publicized timing of problems blamed on electric system unbundling, have put a stake in the heart of the regulatory reform process. To answer your question about larger expansions, as I said above, I'm not sure that additional interstate pipe [beyond the current list of expansions on TW, PG&E and Kern] necessarily has to be put into the ground in order to meet near term (3-5 year) demand in California. However, I do believe that California must take a rational look at its infrastructure needs with an eye towards relieving significant physical and regulatory bottlenecks in its intrastate transmission system. -----Original Message----- From: Corman, Shelley Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:19 PM To: Miller, Mary Kay; Fossum, Drew; Harris, Steven; Hyatt, Kevin; Scott, Susan; Fawcett, Jeffery; Petersen, Keith; Lowry, Phil; Martin, Jerry D.; Shafer, John; Keller, John Subject: California Data Requested Through INGAA, Kevin Madden has requested certain information related to the issue of new infrastructure to serve the California market. He asked INGAA to ask each of its members whether they had plans for new capacity to California and what obstacles exist in meeting California demand. He asked what FERC can do to speed the process of getting new pipe in the ground? I responded that yes Transwestern is looking at expansion opportunities. Obstacles include intrastate infrastructure and air permitting times. Kevin replied that he had heard these same exact themes from El Paso, but would like to know more. Phil Lowry suggested at staff meeting that getting equipment is more of a critical path than air permitting. This should be factored into any further response. Stan is planning to see Kevin next Tues. I need to put together information responsive to Kevin's requests by this Friday. Here is my outline of data that I need to gather: Transwestern Expansion ? Red Rock project -- size, timing, etc. ? Longer term expansion? ? Review jurisdictional obstacles to building into the state? State of Intrastate Infrastructure ? Provide copy of recent California Energy Committee Study ? Check with Jeff Dasovich for other materials. Air Permitting - outline of process / timing Equipment Procurement - lead times, shortages, other issues What help are we looking for from FERC? ? Emergency certificate? Please let me know if you can supply me with any of the information on this outline.
|