|
|
Enron Mail |
I believe this was intended for the other Susan Scott...I'm with Nat Gas tr=
ading. Thanks From:=09Ramona Betancourt/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/17/2001 11:15 AM To:=09Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Gerry Medeles/ENRON@enronXgate, Terr= y Kowalke/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc:=09Sheila Nacey/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lynn Blair/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan M S= cott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sue Neville/ENRON@enronXgate, TK Lohman/ENRON@enronxgate= =20 Subject:=09RE: PNR questions Mike, I see in your emails below that you are indicating that the allocation proc= ess does not comply with the tariff. The allocation process I do not think = is the problem. It is the way the rates are used today for PNR. Today, the = only rates I think that are loaded in CBS are the posted rates and the tari= ff rates. If you want the rate to carry through at the contract level for t= he range of dates of the specific deal, then the rates must be loaded that = way in CBS for each PNR deal that is granted prior to the timely allocation= process. If the allocation does not find a contract specific rate, then it= looks for the next level which is your posted rates, if no posted rates ar= e found, then it looks for tariff rates on PNR. It sounds like to me that T= W will need to implement specific deal sheets and calculate the specific ra= tes for each deal sheet on a daily basis & load the total specific contract= deal rate in CBS. Please let me know if there are other problems in the a= llocation process itself. Thanks Ramona -----Original Message----- From: =09Bodnar, Michael =20 Sent:=09Monday, April 16, 2001 2:28 PM To:=09Betancourt, Ramona ; Medeles, Gerry; Kowalke, Terry Cc:=09Nacey, Sheila; Blair, Lynn Subject:=09RE: PNR questions Regarding my meeting invitation..............I hope this helps. I've had a series of e-mails with Marketing, Legal and Regulatory regarding= TW PNR in an effort to finalize the process and procedures. As a result, I= 've learned that TW's allocation process does not comply with the tariff. (= See below) Marketing wants to continue with current practices, but changes = are required for the allocation process.=20 ----------------- Forwarded by Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron on 04/16/2001 01:3= 3 PM --------------------------- From:=09Sue Neville/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/10/2001 03:57 PM To:=09Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ENRON@enronxgate cc:=09Lynn Blair/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sheila Nacey/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Gerry Med= eles/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ENRON@enronXgate=20 Subject:=09RE: PNR questions Mike, I recommend that we continue to use the current practices we are using now = of charging the PNR rate posted on the day service begins. I also recommen= d that we continue our current practice of using the nomination process an= d posted rates for PNR service. In the future, we may choose to change th= ose practices to one of the methods you recommended below. It is helpful t= o know that that would require system changes and new language on the posti= ngs to accommodate any new change of that sort. =20 Thanks for your help on this. Sue -----Original Message----- From: =09Bodnar, Michael =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:13 PM To:=09Neville, Sue; Hyatt, Kevin Cc:=09Blair, Lynn; Nacey, Sheila; Medeles, Gerry; Scott, Susan Subject:=09PNR questions Sue & Kevin, I need some help from you.............. Based on the response from Susan Scott and Glen Hass (below),=20 Should TW continue the practice of charging the PNR rate posted on the day = service begins or charge the rate posted daily? (Using the latter, TW's pos= ted rates would include the text Susan provides below) =20 Should TW continue to use the nomination process and posted rates for PNR s= ervice or revert back to entering into individual purchase orders for each = deal? The individual purchase orders are not as convenient , but they provide bet= ter clarity between the parties. TW's allocation program uses the posted and/or deal rates entered into CBS = when capacity is allocated. It does not calculate ..."the greatest total c= ost commitment". System modifications are needed to determine which shipper= has the greatest cost commitment. =20 =20 ---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron on 04/04/2001= 10:17 AM --------------------------- From:=09Susan Scott/ENRON@enronXgate on 03/08/2001 03:52 PM To:=09Michael Bodnar/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc:=09Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lynn Blair/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sue Neville/= ENRON@enronXgate=20 Subject:=09PNR questions You asked: =091. For a customer keeping a PNR balance for several days, is it accepta= ble to charge whatever is the posted rate for each of those days, or should= TW charge the rate in effect on the first day of the balance? =09Answer: The tariff doesn't say. I believe this is a business decision.= Would we rather charge the same rate every day, or are both parties OK wi= th taking the risk that it will go up or down from day to day? My understa= nding is that we presently charge the same rate that was in effect on the s= ame day. I also understand that, rather than documenting the rate in a con= tract or other writing, we rely on our posting. If we change our practice = and start charging the posted rate applicable to each rate, I recommend at = a minimum that we notify our customers in a posting. From a legal standpoi= nt I also have to recommend that the rate be documented in a deal sheet, e-= mail or other writing. While we may be indifferent (after all, Form M says= the max rate applies in absence of an agreement to the contrary), document= ation of the actual rate could save us hassle if a conflict arises. =09Another thing: There is nothing to keep us from charging some shippers = the posted rate on the first day for the entire term of the balance, and ot= her shippers the posted rate from day to day. However, there can be no dis= crepancy among similarly situated shippers. To avoid the appearance of dis= crimination, I'd recommend choosing one method or the other, if that is fea= sible from a business standpoint. =20 =09Assuming you are going to use the day to day approach for all shippers, = here are my recommendations: =09My recommended language to include on the rate posting webpage would be = something to this effect: BALANCES CARRIED FORWARD FROM DAY TO DAY SHALL B= E CHARGED THE RATES APPLICABLE TO EACH DAY OF THE BALANCE. (If this looks = awkward to you let's discuss a better way to say it.) =09I recognize PNR deals happen within minutes. However, if it is possible= to do an e-mail or fax, it could read: The rate applicable to Contract No= . ______ on each day that quantities are parked or ridden shall be the rate= posted on Transwestern's website for that day. Another option might be ju= st to include this language as an attachment to the master agreement; it wo= uld not have to be done for each deal. 2. If we have the following situation: Shipper A has parked 10,000 dth fo= r a week and wants to move it out; Shipper B wants to ride 10,000 dth; we c= an only accommodate schedule activity totaling 10,000 dth -- who gets prior= ity? =09Answer: Shipper A should have priority because it has the greatest tota= l cost commitment to TW in accordance with Sheet 37E of the tariff.
|