RE: Gas Industry Settlement

WGSI supports the PG&E clarification. Mike Day

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Chancellor [mailto:craigc@calpine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:20 PM
To: 'Sullivan, Glen J.'; 'MBD'; 'Leslie, John'; 'Elsesser, Evie';
'McCrea, Keith'; 'Pocta, R. Mark'; 'Dasovich, Jeff'; 'Beach, Tom';
'Burkholder, John'; 'Amirault, Paul'; 'Alexander, Michael'; Craig
Chancellor; 'Dingwall, B.'; 'Douglass, Dan@SES'; 'Fawcett, Jeff';
'Porter, Doug'; 'Rochman, Michael'; 'Counihan, Rick'; 'Bayless, David';
'Paul, Joe'; 'Jimison, John'; 'Foss, Robert'; McVay, Nancy W - TPNWM;
'Scott, Susan'; 'Karp, Joe'; 'Johnson, Pamela'; 'gileau, patrick'
Cc: Lorenz, Lad - TPLPL; Nelson, Eric B. - TPEBN; Morrow, Rick - TP3RMM;
Follett, B. David - TPDBF; Brill, Thomas R.; Van Lierop, Jan - TP2JXV;
Harrigan, James P. - TP1JPH; Sakarias, Wayne P.; Purves, Ralph A.;
Teeter, James S.; Watson, Steven - TP2SAW; Cherry, Brian - TPBKC;
Whitaker, Sue
Subject: RE: Gas Industry Settlement

Another substantive change to consider is the allocation of firm capacity at
Wheeler Ridge between the north and south points. Currently the settlement
has 520 for WH-N and 120 for WH-S for a total of 680. PG&E has proposed a
"let the market decide" approach on the primary/secondary split by setting
each receipt point at its physical capacity (WH-N @ 520 and WH-S @ 500 with
the combination not greater than 680). This approach provides more
flexibility to the shipper to move between the two points and maintain the
quality of the firm service. I do not see any cost to SoCal or any other
party to the settlement by making this change. I know Rich Hall has
discussed this with several of you already. Attached is a document he sent
me outlining proposal. Calpine supports this change but realizes that all
parties need to agree.

Thanks

Craig

<<Wheeler Ridge capacity .rtf<<

< -----Original Message-----
< From: Sullivan, Glen J. [SMTP:GSullivan@sempra.com]
< Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:58 PM
< To: 'MBD'; 'Leslie, John'; 'Elsesser, Evie'; 'McCrea, Keith'; 'Pocta, R.
< Mark'; 'Dasovich, Jeff'; 'Beach, Tom'; 'Burkholder, John'; 'Amirault,
< Paul'; 'Alexander, Michael'; 'Chancellor, Craig'; 'Dingwall, B.';
< 'Douglass, Dan@SES'; 'Fawcett, Jeff'; 'Porter, Doug'; 'Rochman, Michael';
< 'Counihan, Rick'; 'Bayless, David'; 'Paul, Joe'; 'Jimison, John'; 'Foss,
< Robert'; McVay, Nancy W - TPNWM; 'Scott, Susan'; 'Karp, Joe'; 'Johnson,
< Pamela'; 'gileau, patrick'
< Cc: Lorenz, Lad - TPLPL; Nelson, Eric B. - TPEBN; Morrow, Rick - TP3RMM;
< Follett, B. David - TPDBF; Brill, Thomas R.; Van Lierop, Jan - TP2JXV;
< Harrigan, James P. - TP1JPH; Sakarias, Wayne P.; Purves, Ralph A.; Teeter,
< James S.; Watson, Steven - TP2SAW; Cherry, Brian - TPBKC; Whitaker, Sue
< Subject: RE: Gas Industry Settlement
<
< To signatories to the Comprehensive Settlement:
<
< ALJ Biren has given us until Friday of this week (April 28, 2000) to file
< "errata" to the Comprehensive Settlement.
<
< So far, I am planning to make the following non-substantive changes:
<
< 1. The table of contents was seriously messed up by an "automatic update"
< feature in Word just before we duplicated and filed. I will be putting it
< back to the state you saw in the final draft.
<
< 2. On p.7, section 1.12, put a period at the end of the last sentence.
<
< 3. On p.9, section 1.1.3.1, two thirds of the way down the page, I will
< be
< changing "subject to adjustment annual by the base rate PBR formula" to
< "subject to adjustment annually by the base rate PBR formula".
<
< 4. On p.27, section 1.5.4, in the third full paragraph on the page, I will
< be changing "If only one customer has an OFO day" to "If only one customer
< class has an OFO day".
<
< 5. Also on p.27, section 1.5.4, bottom line on the page, I will be
< filling
< in the blank with "C" (so it reads "Appendix C")
<
<
< In the category of "maybe substantive",
<
< 1. On p.10, section 1.1.3.2, three lines from the bottom of the page, the
< date "October 1, 2000" would be changed to "October 1, 2001". This
< sentence
< refers to including the cost of backbone transmission for core customers
< buying gas from SoCalGas in the "procurement" rate. Obviously, our intent
< was to do that only once we had unbundled backbone transmission, which
< happens on October 1, 2001.
<
<
< In the category of "substantive":
<
< 1. Our capacity term sheet had said that we would unbundled "additional"
< (non-reliability) storage for CTAs effective upon implementation of the
< settlement (See p.4). The filed settlement managed to drop the section
< that
< provided for this option for CTAs prior to the principal storage change on
< April 1, 2001. (The filed settlement is ok for the period starting April
< 1,
< 2001). So, to be consistent with the term sheet, we need to insert
< something back into the settlement to allow CTAs to opt out of
< non-reliability storage in the period from the effective date (90 days
< after
< approval) to April 1, 2001. Obviously, this may not be a very long
< period.
< John Leslie has suggested inserting at the very beginning of Section
< 5.4.4.3: "In the partial storage year beginning on the effective date of
< this Settlement Agreement, and....[continue with current text]." We would
< need to cover as part of implementation filings the exact
< mechanism/pricing
< for SoCalGas purchasing gas in storage owned by CTAs if they opt out of
< nonreliability storage prior to April 1. 2001. SoCalGas and SDG&E are ok
< with John's language and want to make sure it is ok with other
< signatories.
<
<
< If you have any problems with any of these changes, please contact me or
< Brian Cherry by noon on Friday, April 28. My email is
< gsullivan@sempra.com
< and my phone is (619) 699-5162. Brian's email is bcherry@sempra.com and
< phone is (213) 244-3895.
<
< We are looking at the possibility of two or three additional changes, and
< Brian may send you a follow-up message.
<
< -- Glen Sullivan
< Sempra Energy Law Dept.