|
|
Enron Mail |
You can file one at any time you have information to report, and they can be
as formal as a Commission filing or as informal as a letter to the Commission with copies to the Public Staff. The method would depend on what information you wish to convey. -----Original Message----- From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:09 AM To: Duncan, Allyson Cc: Fine, Jonathan; 'Jeffrey.M.Keenan@enron.com'; 'Tom.Chapman@enron.com'; 'Heather.Kroll@enron.com'; 'Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com'; Ben.Jacoby@enron.com Subject: RE: NCNG Delivery Points Allyson, Thank you for your prompt response. Can you describe the process and timing for filing a project update? Thanks, Kay "Duncan, Allyson" <aduncan@kilstock.com< on 08/10/2000 09:45:11 AM To: "'Kay.Mann@enron.com'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com< cc: "Fine, Jonathan" <JFine@kilstock.com<, "'Jeffrey.M.Keenan@enron.com'" <Jeffrey.M.Keenan@enron.com<, "'Tom.Chapman@enron.com'" <Tom.Chapman@enron.com<, "'Heather.Kroll@enron.com'" <Heather.Kroll@enron.com<, "'Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com'" <Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com< Subject: RE: NCNG Delivery Points I inadvertently ended the sentence with a comma. The point I was making was that if it were necessary to negotiate an additional delivery point, NCNG would probably demand concessions such as an extension of the contract period. Hopefully, since we are only talking about a high pressure tap, NCNG will have less leverage. Jeffrey and I did talk about amending the application some time ago; he expressed the concern that the description of the generators might be misleading unless either more or less data were supplied, and he suggested describing them more generally. I think he was confortable with the fact that the CPCN will be reviewed by electrical engineers who understand the generators described without the elaboration he thought necessary. One of the problems with amending the application is that you run the risk that the Commission will adjust the time frames for intervention, etc., accordingly. If you want to revise the description of the equipment, it would be less dangerous to file a project update. -----Original Message----- From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:48 PM To: Duncan, Allyson Cc: Fine, Jonathan; Jeffrey.Keenan@enron.com; Tom.Chapman@enron.com; Heather.Kroll@enron.com; Ozzie.Pagan@enron.com Subject: Re: NCNG Delivery Points Allyson, Thank you for the email. It seems to stop in mid sentence, so I was wondering if maybe something got deleted? We have an interest in having the application for the CPCN amended to be less specific on the equipment we will be using. I believe Jeffrey may have mentioned this to you before. We would like to follow up with that now, unless there is some significant problem with it. Thank you, Kay "Duncan, Allyson" <aduncan@kilstock.com< on 08/07/2000 02:27:23 PM To: "'Mann Kay'" <Kay.Mann@enron.com< cc: "Fine, Jonathan" <JFine@kilstock.com< Subject: NCNG Delivery Points There would seem to me to be two questions--the threshold one is whether the site is within Rocky Mount's service territory. If it is, then what obligation does NCNG have with respect to the construction of a delivery point. I haven't reviewed the annexation statutes yet, but based on my initial reading of the Service Area Territory Agreement between Rocky Mount and NCNG, once annexed the site would come within Rocky Mount's purview to serve, and, although a "mutually agreeable" delivery point would have to be negotiated, NCNG would at least have to negotiate that in good faith. The January 13, 1992 Service Area Territory Agreement gives Rocky Mount the right to distribute natural gas within the city's incorporated limits as well as a specified area outside the incorporated limits. The contract goes on to provide that should any part of that perimeter be annexed into the city, "the respective rights of the parties as to service in any such portion shall be determined by applicable case law and the General Statutes of North Carolina. . ." The contract further provides that absent an order of the NCUC to the contrary, NCNG agrees that Rocky Mount has the right to serve all end users within the "aforementioned" area--presumably referring to the annexed area, although the agreement is not a model of clarity. So, at least based on this language, Rocky Mount's right to serve arguably tracks its incorporated limits, whatever they might be. (Jonathan and I are looking at annexation law to see what else might be lurking out there). The 1992 Service agreement provides, In Article IV, provides that points of devliery for all natural gas purchased or transported under the agreement with NCNG shall be "at the following locations and other stations added at mutually agreeable locations in the future. . ." In the Third Amendment to the Natural Gas Service Agreement, dated March 10, 1997, new language and delivery points are negotiated upon, but the principle is still included that other stations may be added at "mutually agreeable locations in the future." The question which then arises is what Rocky Mount would have to give in exchange. In the 1997 agreement, Rocky Mount agreed to an extention of terms of the of ten years, until December 6,
|