|
|
Enron Mail |
This is one of those to show to Amr to quantify.
Jim -----Original Message----- From: =09Cantrell, Rebecca W. =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:19 PM To:=09Miller, Stephanie Cc:=09Tycholiz, Barry; Steffes, James D.; Lawner, Leslie; Nicolay, Christi Subject:=09RE: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31) Yep - in fact, they did. I just haven't got around to summarizing the orde= r yet. Here's some excerpts: "We reach no determination regarding whether PG&E Transmission's system-wid= e cost of fuel will increase above the current cost, since the outcome depe= nds on numerous factors, such as the total pipeline volumes transported and= the price of fuel. Instead, as discussed below, and in accordance with En= ron's request [way to go, FERC!!], we will act to insulate existing shipper= s from increased fuel costs attributable to the proposed expansion." After suggesting that it would have been more appropriate to calculate fuel= costs by using the average of the latest twelve months of actual data in p= lace of the theoretical maximum rate, FERC directed "PG&E Transmission to d= esign a surcharge to ensure that expansion shippers are subject to an incre= mental fuel charge for fuel costs above the costs attributable to fuel abse= nt the proposed addition of 97,500 horsepower of compression. In addition,= PG&E must indicate compliance with this condition whenever it files to adj= ust its compressor fuel surcharge and whenever it files its annual gas fuel= reimbursement reports." (emphasis added) -----Original Message----- From: =09Miller, Stephanie =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:48 PM To:=09Cantrell, Rebecca W. Cc:=09Tycholiz, Barry Subject:=09RE: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31) Do you think the Commission would apply this same principal to PGT's 2002 e= xpansion? -----Original Message----- From: =09Cantrell, Rebecca W. =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:36 PM To:=09Miller, Stephanie; South, Steven P.; Gay, Randall L.; Sullivan, Patti= ; Allen, Phillip K.; Shireman, Kristann; Superty, Robert; Calcagno, Suzanne= ; McMichael Jr., Ed; Smith, George F.; Grigsby, Mike Cc:=09Nicolay, Christi; Lawner, Leslie; Steffes, James D.; Canovas, Guiller= mo; Pharms, Melinda; Kaufman, Paul; Fulton, Donna Subject:=09Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31) According to the Draft Order that was voted out at the Commission meeting t= oday, the subject project, as amended to reflect the approval of the Califo= rnia Action Project, is approved, subject to certain conditions including r= estrictions on rolled-in rate treatment. =20 The Commission was concerned that the additional fuel costs could exceed th= e rate reduction to existing shippers. Kern River's projections were based= on a $3.00/dth cost of gas. The Commission conditioned its approval of ro= lled-in rate treatment by providing that, "in its future compliance tariff = filing to roll-in the costs and lower transmission rates, Kern River must s= ubmit revised exhibits showing the excess revenues over the incremental cos= t-of-service, and the net benefits after anticipated fuel costs are conside= red" (Kern River's settlement in RP99-274 requires it to reduce its rates f= or existing customers coincident with the in-service date for newly certifi= cated facilities if it receives approval for rolled-in rate treatment). Ad= ditionally, if during any year, the combined level of the electric and gas = fuel expenses exceed the benchmark level(s) of excess revenues established = in the tariff filing, then Kern River must allocate the excess portion of f= uel costs to its expansion shippers. Thus, Kern River must always assure t= hat this expansion does not increase costs for existing shippers. The Commission rejected concerns of the existing firm shippers as well as S= oCal Gas about the potential for additional curtailment at Wheeler Ridge. = The Commission found that the potential for increased curtailment did not w= arrant rejection or modification of Kern River's proposal, in part because = SoCal Gas does not offer firm service on its system and therefore existing = shippers have never had any assurance that Socal Gas would accept their gas= . =20 The Draft Order is 49 pages long. Please advise if you would like a hard c= opy.
|