|
|
Enron Mail |
Barry and Stephanie, I'll check on this when I get in in the morning. I ha=
ve a faint recollection that copies of the agreement were included in PGT's= filing, but I may have it confused with another proceeding. I was going t= o check it out from home but changed my mind when I discovered that the RIM= S copy of the filing is over 900 pages! -----Original Message-----=20 From: Tycholiz, Barry=20 Sent: Wed 7/25/2001 6:07 PM=20 To: Cantrell, Rebecca W.; Miller, Stephanie=20 Cc: Grigsby, Mike=20 Subject: RE: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31) Steph./ Becky .. is there a possibility that there is a condition precedent= "out" clause to Newport Gen regarding rolled in vs incremental tariff ( in= cl.) fuel that would allow them to not have to take on this transportation?= If so, this could affect the Malin Supply out of Nov 2002. Is there any w= ay that we can see the TA's that were filed with FERC that underpinned the = 2002 expansion? BT =20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Cantrell, Rebecca W. =20 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:19 PM=20 To: Miller, Stephanie=20 Cc: Tycholiz, Barry; Steffes, James D.; Lawner, Leslie; Nicolay, Christ= i=20 Subject: RE: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31)=20 Yep - in fact, they did. I just haven't got around to summarizing the orde= r yet. Here's some excerpts:=20 "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-----=20 From: Miller, Stephanie =20 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:48 PM=20 To: Cantrell, Rebecca W.=20 Cc: Tycholiz, Barry=20 Subject: RE: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31)=20 Do you think the Commission would apply this same principal to PGT's 2002 e= xpansion?=20 -----Original Message-----=20 From: Cantrell, Rebecca W. =20 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:36 PM=20 To: Miller, Stephanie; South, Steven P.; Gay, Randall L.; Sullivan, Pat= ti; Allen, Phillip K.; Shireman, Kristann; Superty, Robert; Calcagno, Suzan= ne; McMichael Jr., Ed; Smith, George F.; Grigsby, Mike Cc: Nicolay, Christi; Lawner, Leslie; Steffes, James D.; Canovas, Guill= ermo; Pharms, Melinda; Kaufman, Paul; Fulton, Donna Subject: Kern River 2002 Expansion Project (CP01-31)=20 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.
|