|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks. Lindy and I are going to look at whether any changes will need to be
made to the pro forma sheets we've filed, and will get back to you. From: Mary Kay Miller 12/21/99 10:30 AM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: EFBH I talked to Lindy last Friday, let us know when or if we need to discuss further-- Manual processes can still work--I think MK From: Susan Scott 12/17/99 03:14 PM To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Sharon Solon/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: EFBH In discussing the finer points of EFBH Service with our market services people, an issue has arisen with respect to allocation of FTS-1 and FTS-3 capacity. We are going to have to be able to put FTS-3 and FTS-1 capacity into separate buckets for purposes of allocation (that is, allocation due to circumstances such as, say, windowing by SoCal, &c.). Here's why. If capacity became constrained on a given day and we allocated FTS-3 and FTS-1 together, FTS-1 service would essentially be enjoying the use of capacity created by EFBH. This is all well and good until EFBH cancels at the last minute. Then you know what would happen: FTS-1 would get cut because EFBH cancelled. I am told that this would necessarily happen because once FTS schedules, it gets flowing gas rights. To keep this scenario from happening, we feel that FTS-3 will have to be put in its own bucket and not get cut unless EFBH doesn't show up. Obviously, there is more to it than this, and Lindy and I would like to discuss it with you. The systems people can't continue their work until we get this resolved. Can we discuss this on Monday or some other time next week? Thanks, SS
|