RE: sid letter ,
 Maria, I wanted to follow up after discussions with you and Shelley, th=
e SoCal window is based on what SoCal=20
    is willing to confirm into their system for the day.  It does not neces=
sarily have anything to do with physical capacity at Needles.
    If you have any questions, please let us know.  Thanks.  Lynn
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Corman, Shelley=20
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:09 PM
To: Blair, Lynn; January, Steven; Schoolcraft, Darrell
Subject: FW: sid letter


Please look at the insert below and let me know if you believe it to be a r=
easonable description of the Socal windowing process from the customers' pe=
rspective

-----Original Message-----=20
From: Miller, Mary Kay=20
Sent: Thu 8/2/2001 2:11 PM=20
To: Fossum, Drew; Pavlou, Maria; Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Greg=
ory J.; 'stojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'=20
Cc: Corman, Shelley; Hass, Glen=20
Subject: RE: sid letter



Looks ok to me, but make sure that Shelley also reviews as her group deals =
with the windowing issue.  =20

 -----Original Message-----=20
From:   Fossum, Drew =20
Sent:   Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:59 PM=20
To:     Pavlou, Maria; Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Gregory J.; 's=
tojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'; Miller, Mary Kay

Subject:        RE: sid letter=20

I'll defer to you guys on getting the specific words right, but it would be=
 great if we can get something like this.  Steve Harris needs to take a clo=
se look to make sure we are describing the windowing impacts correctly.  La=
wyers:  will a letter from Sid be admissable evidence under FERC evidence r=
ules?  We may need to ask them to have Scott sign it instead of their lawye=
r to assure admissability.  DF

 -----Original Message-----=20
From:   Pavlou, Maria =20
Sent:   Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:35 PM=20
To:     Hartsoe, Joe; Harris, Steven; Porter, Gregory J.; Fossum, Drew; 'st=
ojic@gbmdc.com'; 'rnuschler@akingump.com'; Miller, Mary Kay

Subject:        sid letter=20

Richardson has agreed to send us an additional writing regarding the other =
justifications for the volumetric negotiated rate.   Joe Koury asked me to =
email the insert to the letter.   Koury told me that he would reference the=
 July 26 order and the fact that the Commission has requested additional in=
formation as to why the shipper entered into the subject negotiated rate tr=
ansaction, with Scott Walker stating that in reviewing his previous respons=
es he would clarify by adding the following: =20


Insert: =20
 =20
Richardson Products proposed to share in a rate based on a daily spread as =
a volumetric rate because under that rate arrangement if the gas did not fl=
ow, Richardson was not obligated to pay Transwestern the rate.  Richardson =
desired to avoid the risk, under normal demand service, of having to pay th=
e rate if the gas did not flow.   The issue of whether the gas would flow w=
as a very real one at the California border (Needles delivery point) given =
the manner in which SoCalGas, the downstream party, confirms volumes for de=
livery with Transwestern.   Specifically, SoCalGas has a windowing procedur=
e whereby it limits the amount of gas that Transwestern can deliver into Ne=
edles based on SoCalGas' allocation procedures and the amount of available =
takeaway capacity at the delivery point. [True?]  Simply stated, if SoCalGa=
s did not confirm Richardson's nomination at the Needles delivery point, th=
e gas would not flow.    The negotiated rate, as opposed to the rate for no=
rmal demand service, allowed Richardson to avoid the risks associated with =
Richardson's gas not flowing due to SoCalGas's windowing procedure.  =20

 Pls. review and comment asap.   I promised Joe K.  I would get it to him t=
onight or first thing tomorrow because he will be out all next week and agr=
eed to take care of this matter this week.  Thanks, Maria
shelley.corman@enron.com, steven.january@enron.com, 