|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: steven.harris@enron.com, kay.miller@enron.com, j..porter@enron.com,
maria.pavlou@enron.com, robert.kilmer@enron.com, kimberly.watson@enron.com, shelley.corman@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: steven.harris@enron.com, kay.miller@enron.com, j..porter@enron.com, maria.pavlou@enron.com, robert.kilmer@enron.com, kimberly.watson@enron.com, shelley.corman@enron.com X-From: Fossum, Drew </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DFOSSUM< X-To: Horton, Stanley </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Shorton<, Hayslett, Rod </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rhaysle<, McCarty, Danny </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Dmccarty< X-cc: Harris, Steven </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Sharris1<, Miller, Mary Kay </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mkmiller<, Porter, Gregory J. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Gporter<, Pavlou, Maria </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mpavlou<, 'cmoore@akingump.com', 'rnuschler@akingump.com', 'fkelly@gbmdc.com', 'sstojic@gbmdc.com', Hartsoe, Joe </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jhartso<, Kilmer III, Robert </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rkilmer<, Watson, Kimberly </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Kwatson<, Corman, Shelley </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Scorman< X-bcc: X-Folder: \KWATSON (Non-Privileged)\Watson, Kimberly\Inbox X-Origin: Watson-K X-FileName: KWATSON (Non-Privileged).pst Stan, Rod and Danny: following is an outline of the issues I'd like to cover tomorrow. The last point is the most important, so we can blow through the preliminaries as fast (or slow) as is appropriate. 1. Current Status of Proceeding --Briefing is complete --minor skirmishing on page limit and Staff motion to strike still going on (argument set for 9-28) --ALJ decision still expected on or around 10-15 2. Primary Issues --TW's tariff and posting procedures are confusing, complex, inconsistent, and allow TW too much discretion --TW gave Sempra and Richardson unfair advance notice of the capacity availability (preposting conversations) --TW withheld operational capacity and agreed to make it available only to shippers who agreed to favorable deals with TW --TW offered negotiated terms and conditions in exchange for the shippers' agreement to pay high rates --The Sempra and Richardson deals are irrational and must have been the product of market power or unfairness 3. The Political Climate --FERC is now coming after PG&E GT NW, on facts that look worse than ours (customers claim they weren't offered the recourse rate). That case is set for hearing with a decision within 120 days. Staff raised one new issue: misuse of alternate delivery point rights. --Prices continue to abate, with some in California declaring the energy crisis over 4. Likely Litigation Outcome --Little or no chance of a complete win --No party proposed refunds or unwinding of the deals as a remedy, but ALJ could recommend it --No party proposed elimination of TW's negotiated rate authority, but ALJ could recommend it --Some additional changes in tariff and posting procedures almost certain --ALJ likely to defer difficult decisions on refunds and negotiated rate policy to the Commission 5. Settlement Recommendation --Staff has initiated discussions; ball is in our court to make a specific proposal --Recommend proposal to Staff that includes some or all of the following points: *limited moratorium for next heating season on additional index-index contracts on operational capacity *future operational capacity sales all done through interactive open season *new posting and capacity allocation procedures in the tariff, with most discretion eliminated *TW makes many of the tariff and posting changes advocated by Indicated Shippers (i.e., pro rata allocation) *TW offers to upgrade the EBB to a "fully interactive, next generation EBB" as soon as operationally feasible --TW and Staff will try to get all interested parties on board after general framework nailed down.
|