|
|
Enron Mail |
Glen, I had a conversation with Pat Davidson (SoCal) yesterday. Things have been going smoothly,
because SoCal has not been calling any OFO days. She felt like we would not have an issue until spring and at that time, there is an expectation that SoCal could be calling more OFOs. We agreed to continue talking, but that does not resolve the issue completely. Thanks. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Hass, Glen Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:44 AM To: Donoho, Lindy; Blair, Lynn; Harris, Steven; Watson, Kimberly; Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb; Kowalke, Terry; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Lindberg, Lorraine; Lohman, TK; Rapp, Bill Subject: FW: SoCalGas Response to TW Protest of AL 2837-A FYI--Attached below is a summary of the protests and comments the CPUC received in response to SoCalGas' Advice Letter filing on receipt point operating procedures. Lynn, Are they still working with us to resolve the OFO/Intraday 2 issue? gh -----Original Message----- From: "Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com<@ENRON Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:59 PM To: Rapp, Bill; Hass, Glen; Gregg Klatt Subject: SoCalGas Response to TW Protest of AL 2837-A Attached is the SoCalGas response of our mild protest to their advice letter 2837-A. The relevant language is on page 5 of their letter and has been highlighted for your convenience. In part, they state that: "These types of reductions are no different from today's practice of allowing customers to reduce nominations in the fourth scheduling cycle. The flaw is not in SoCalGas new procedures. SoCalGas provides customers with notice of an upcoming OFO two hours prior to scheduling cycle closing times. Within those two hours, customers can make changes to their nominations and still meet the scheduling timeline as defined by GISB standards. Even if SoCalGas cuts nominations in cycle four because customer reductions don't reduce deliveries enough to avoid operational problems, changes in cycle 4 are within GISB standards. Transwestern is supposed to be complying with those GISB standards and seems to state that it is unable to do so." They go on to state a willingness to work with us on the issue. There is no procedural option for us to respond to their response. At this point, our option is to meet with Energy Division staff to discuss the issue further, should we feel the need to do so. Have a good weekend! Dan Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502douglass@energyattorney.com << File: mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com << - 2837ARES.DOC << File: 2837ARES.DOC <<
|