|
|
Enron Mail |
Interesting stuff....
-----Original Message----- From: Guerrero, Gary (Corp) =20 Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:14 PM To: Anderson, David W (Law); Gardiner, Stuart (Law); Kurz, Edward (Law);= =20 Lindh, Frank (Law); Locke, Richard (Law); Post, Jennifer (Law); Reid, Alic= e=20 (Law); Sampson, Keith (Law); Witalis, Lawrence (Law); Bar-Lev, Joshua (Law= );=20 Patrizio, Mark (Law); Manheim, William (Law); Guardalabene, John (Law);=20 Metague, Stephen; Mosley, Judi; Witmer, Deborah F; Eshbach, Shirley;=20 Malekos, Shelly; Risser, Roland; Rubin, David; Haertle, Steven; Bell,=20 Andrew; Rothfuss, Blake; Morford, Terry; Doran, Robert; Kozlowski, Lanette= ;=20 McLafferty, Daniel; Petersen, Kathryn; Bowen, Bruce; Simi, Lawrence (Corp)= ;=20 Forsgard, Karen; Janis, Megan Smith (Corp); Armato, John P; Hitson, Brian = J;=20 Faraglia, Annette (Law); Thomas, Dan (CGT Dir); Jauregui, Robert M;=20 Halverson, Shaun E; PGE 830 Regulars; Chovanec, Anthony C; =20 'Jeff.Hitchings@gt.pge.com'; Petersen, Donald; Campbell, Benjamin; Chang, = =20 Armando; Henri, Joseph; Myers, Joanne; Huffman, Mark (Law); Doble, Richard;= =20 Gourley, John; Lee, Wing; Ray, Joseph; Risdon, Angela; Shiffman, Rhonda;=20 Soneda, Alan; Sparks, Mike; Studley, Thomas; Zemke, William; Markevich,=20 Nicholas; Heatherington, Dean; Agerter, Linda L (Law); LaFlash, Hal (Corp)= ;=20 Wong, Ernie; Hawks, Jack; O'Neill, Sean; Richardson, Bruce; Treleven,=20 Kathleen; Wilson, Michelle (Law); Ludemann, Doreen (Corp);=20 'Harry.Singh@gen.pge.com'; Post, Charles; Jones, Sunita; Lavinson, Melissa= ;=20 Palazzi, Marsha; Wolfgram, Steve; Hartman, Sanford; Cahill, Jane; Meier,= =20 Peter E.; Vincent, Shaylene; Wilson, Chris; Sawyer, Sarah; Smith, Phil;=20 Eisenman, Eric; Morton, Kelly M (Law); Scott, Eric;=20 'marcy.collins@gt.pge.com'; Morrison, Darcy; Candlin, Jim; Johnson, =20 Gerianne; Lipson, Merek (Corp); De Backer, Steven; Roscher, John; Whyte,=20 Daniel; Black, Patricia (Corp); Martyn, Rick; Chan, Eileen (Corp); Low,=20 Ronald; Cooper, Shawn (Corp); 'Rob.Gramlich@neg.pge.com'; Helgens, Ronald;= =20 David, John (Corp); Chan, Eileen (Corp); Togneri, Gabriel (Corp); Fong,=20 Valerie O.; David, John (Corp); Hayes, Kathleen (Corp); Hendra, Vincent=20 (Corp); O'Flanagan, Joseph; Woo, Jeannette; Cherry, Brian; IA Support Staf= f=20 (Corp); Gee, Dennis; Laszlo, Janos John; Wan, Fong (Corp); Lubben, Sally;= =20 Lemler, Gregg; McNeece, Christopher; Allen, Samantha; Pidcock, Paulette C= =20 (Corp); Stock, William; Cooper, Kenneth; Dowling, Susan Cc: Kline, Steven (Corp); Hapner, Dede; Peters, Roger (Law); Herman,=20 Stephen; Tomcala, Karen (Corp); Document Retention-CPUC Subject: FERC Daily News [IMAGE] FERC Daily News February 28, 2001 ? Here is today=01,s FERC Daily News.? Electronic versions of the entries are= =20 available by sending me an e-mail. For utility employees, note that a copy= =20 of this document is automatically sent to the PG&E-- Document=20 Retention-CPUC central repository on behalf of the sender and all=20 recipients. =20 ? ? SPECIAL NOTE: o???????? Chairman Hebert Testimony:? Attached is the Testimony of FERC = =20 Chairman Curt Hebert before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on=20 Energy and Air Quality of the Energy and Commerce Committee.? His testimon= y=20 focused on natural gas issues and the role of natural gas in national ener= gy=20 policy.? The Chairman states that one of his top priorities is to ensure= =20 that needed energy infrastructure is built.? He pledges that he will do=20 everything in his power to ensure that the Commission quickly processes=20 certificate applications for new pipeline projects that bring newly=20 developed gas supplies to market and which eliminate gas transportation=20 bottlenecks.? He does though indicate that to the extent transportation=20 bottlenecks reside within state jurisdiction, the states must similarly=20 undertake to improve their infrastructure.? With respect to California, he= =20 indicated that the Commission is responding as quickly as possible to any= =20 applications to construct new capacity, noting three certificate approvals= =20 in the last seven months for 118,000 Mcf/day.? On the same page he exhort= s=20 California officials to expedite considerations of proposals to remove gas= =20 transportation bottlenecks within the state, which he believes contributed= =20 to recent high prices in the Southern California area.? Touching on his bos= s=01,=20 theme, the Chairman also speaks to the need for constructing a natural gas= =20 pipeline from the North Slope of Alaska to the lower 48 states. ? ? ? SUBSTANTIVE ISSUANCES: o???????? Kern River Gas Transmission Company, and, Northwest Pipeline, = =20 Docket No. RP00-505-001 and RP00-506-002 (not consolidated), ORDERs ON =20 COMPLIANCE FILINGs (Issued February 23, 2001)? The Commission issued an Ord= er=20 in each of the Williams Pipeline Companies=01, proceedings limiting their = =20 proposals to restrict customers to a pro rata distribution of partial=20 capacity turnbacks.? The Commission had required, in an earlier Order, th= at=20 the pipelines file support for their requirement that a shipper reducing i= ts=20 capacity in part do so on a pro rata basis across all delivery points.? = =20 Shippers had objected, and in the Order issued in response to the Complian= ce=20 filings, the Commission firmly rejected the pro rata reduction requirement= .?=20 The Commission agreed with the intervenors comments, however, finding that= =20 Kern=01,s requirement for pro rata reductions of receipt and delivery poin= t=20 entitlements in capacity reduction situations could lead to unreasonable= =20 results, and is contrary to flexibility in Kern=01,s existing tariff and= =20 Commission policy.? The Commission specifically rejected the pipeline=01,s= =20 claim that allowing varied reductions would result in =01&cherry picking,= =018 and=20 distinguished this issue from the FERC=01,s decision not to =01&enhance=018= shipper=20 ROFR rights by allowing geographic segmentation in Order No. 637.? In the= =20 Northwest Pipeline Order, the Commission made a similar finding, rejecting= =20 the pro rata restrictions proposed also for capacity reductions. The=20 Commission also rejected the argument that allowing shippers greater=20 flexibility would result in lost revenues and cost shifts.? Although=20 Northwest may find it more challenging to market turned-back capacity? and= =20 unused capacity, rather than allowing customers to maximize their use of??= =20 existing contracts, Northwest cannot show that it would face any immediate= =20 loss? of revenue, FERC stated.? FERC did acknowledge that operational =20 problems might provide a valid objection by the pipeline.? In both cases,= =20 because the pipelines employed a postage stamp rate structure, the custome= r=01, s use of flexibility in distributing partial reductions would not reduce= =20 pipeline revenues, the Commission concluded.? In both dockets, FERC=20 supported the pipeline=01,s retention of pro rata reductions in aggregate= =20 maximum daily delivery obligations, accepting the explanation that the=20 requirement is =01&to maintain historic contract relationships in reductio= ns=20 situations, and to prevent shippers from increasing flexibility under=20 specific contracts at the expense of other shippers ? ? ? OTHER PROCEDURAL NOTICES and ORDERS: o???????? Sempra Energy, Docket No. ER01-1193-000, NOTICE OF FILING=20 (February 27, 2001)? On February 16, Sempra Energy filed a request for=20 withdrawal of its February 7, 2001, Petition for Waivers, and Blanket=20 approvals in its filing for market based rate authority for the wholesale= =20 sale of electric power and ancillary services for 50% of the output of the= =20 El Dorado generating plant in Boulder City, Nevada.? COMMENT DATE:? Friday,= =20 March 9, 2001 ? ? o???????? PJM Interconnection, Docket No. ER01-1286-000, NOTICE OF FILIN= G=20 (February 27, 2001) On February 20, PJM Interconnection filed a request t= o=20 amend its Operating Agreement to waive, for this year, the requirement tha= t=20 PJM retain an independent consultant to propose candidates for the two sea= ts=20 on PJM=01,s Board of Managers for which an election is required at PJM=01,= s 2001=20 Annual Meeting.? PJM states that the two members whose terms are expiring= =20 this year are willing to continue to serve on the PJM Board, and the PJM= =20 Members have therefore concluded that obtaining the services of the =20 independent consultant are not necessary.? COMMENT DATE:? Tuesday, March = =20 13, 2001 ? ? o???????? New England Power Pool, Docket No. ER01-1289-000, NOTICE OF=20 FILING (February 27, 2001)? On February 20, the NEPOOL Participants=20 Committee filed to terminate the NEPOOL membership of Alternate Power=20 Source, as of March 5, unless APS cures its existing defaults.? The NEPOOL= =20 Participants Committee states that APS has suspended its participation in= =20 the NEPOOL markets pending the earlier of a cure of its defaults or the=20 effectiveness of its termination from the Pool.? COMMENT DATE:? Tuesday,= =20 March 13, 2001 ? ? o???????? Alliance Companies, Docket Nos. ER99-3144-003, et. al., NOTICE= =20 OF CONVENING SESSION (February 27, 2001)? In the January 24, 2001 Alliance= =20 Order, the Commission directed parties with grandfathered contracts, whose= =20 terms extend beyond the transition period, to negotiate amendments or=20 termination of such contracts. To assist the parties, the Commission=20 directed the Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)= =20 to convene =20 omeeting of the parties to explore the use of an ADR process to foster=20 negotiation and agreement.? The convening session in this matter will be= =20 held on March 5 at FERC.? The purpose of the convening session will be to= =20 explore options for renegotiating or terminating the relevant grandfathere= d=20 contracts, as directed by the Commission.? In addition, the meeting will= =20 explore whether any future sessions should be held with all parties or wit= h=20 individual transmission companies and contracting parties.?=20 ? ? ? ? - hebert228.pdf - image001.jpg
|