Enron Mail

From:tomb@crossborderenergy.com
To:bcherry@sempra.com, napedersen@jonesday.com, marcel@turn.org
Subject:Re: Final Late Exhibit Draft
Cc:rmp@cpuc.ca.gov, bcherry@sempra.com, alexanms@sce.com, paulamirault@aec.ca,david.bayless@utility.com, burkee@cts.com, craigc@calpine.com, rick.counihan@greenmountain.com, jdasovic@enron.com, mday@gmssr.com, bdingwall@unitedgas.com, douglass@arterhadde
Bcc:rmp@cpuc.ca.gov, bcherry@sempra.com, alexanms@sce.com, paulamirault@aec.ca,david.bayless@utility.com, burkee@cts.com, craigc@calpine.com, rick.counihan@greenmountain.com, jdasovic@enron.com, mday@gmssr.com, bdingwall@unitedgas.com, douglass@arterhadde
Date:Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:07:00 -0700 (PDT)

Marcel -- your last clarification would be fine -- it's the truth, the
upstream volumes can flow into any of the downstream takeaway capacity.

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcel Hawiger <marcel@turn.org<
To: Tom Beach <tomb@crossborderenergy.com<; Cherry, Brian - TPBKC
<BCherry@sempra.com<; Norman A. Pedersen <napedersen@JonesDay.com<
Cc: 'Pocta, Robert M.' <rmp@cpuc.ca.gov<; Cherry, Brian - TPBKC
<BCherry@sempra.com<; <AlexanMS@sce.com<; <paulamirault@aec.ca<;
<david.bayless@utility.com<; <Burkee@cts.com<; <Craigc@calpine.com<;
<Rick.Counihan@greenmountain.com<; <Jdasovic@enron.com<; <Mday@gmssr.com<;
<bdingwall@unitedgas.com<; <Douglass@arterhadden.com<; <eke@aelaw.com<;
<Jfawcet@enron.com<; <rfoss@coral-energy.com<; 'Gileau, Patrick L.'
<plg@cpuc.ca.gov<; <johnj@bcjlaw.com<; <Johnson_Pamela@lacoe.edu<;
<karpjos@sf.whitecase.com<; <jleslie@luce.com<; <kmccrea@sablaw.com<;
<jmpa@dynegy.com<; <porterdk@sce.com<; <RochmanM@cubjpa.org<;
<RochmanM@spurr.org<; <susan.scott@enron.com<; Betonte, Robert - TP2RSB
<RBetonte@socalgas.com<; Brill, Thomas R. <TBrill@sempra.com<; Follett, B.
David - TPDBF <DFollett@sempra.com<; Harrigan, James P. - TP1JPH
<JHarrigan@soca
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Final Late Exhibit Draft


< At 6/16/2000, Tom Beach wrote:
< <On behalf of Watson and Vernon, I strongly object to the removal of the
data
< <on the takeaway capacity to other markets besides the SoCalGas system, as
< <Norman apparently proposes in his draft exhibit. Without the data on
< <takeaway capacity to other markets, the exhibit suggests that all of the
< <upstream interstate and PG&E capacity is designed to serve just the
SoCalGas
< <market.
<
<
< The question is not what is designed to "serve" the SoCalGas market, but
< what is the upstream capacity flowing to SoCal's interconnection points
< that could theoretically serve SoCalGas if there was no limitation on
< SoCal's takeaway capacity. Based on this, Norman's exhibit seems OK
unless
< there is some physical system constraint (besides SoCal's takeaway) that
< would limit potential inflow into the SoCalGas system.
<
< The problem with SoCal's last exhibit is that there is still no
< clarification of whether the upstream gas could flow into ANY ONE of the
< take away pipelines. Maybe this could be clarified somehow (in a
footnote)?
<
< Marcel
<