We did not answer protests to our Order 637 filing.

The gist of PNM's protest in RP00-626 is that we shouldn't be able to charge 
a transport or fuel fee for our imbalance netting and trading service.  I 
agree with PNM that our tariff language is vague in this regard.  What 
exactly do we mean by "no additional cost...unless through the allocation 
process, quantities may be subject to transportation and fuel"??   Can 
someone help me with this?

Since we really did not want to make this compliance filing anyway, I would 
say we probably wouldn't mind if FERC rejected our tariff sheet outright.  
However, it's more likely that they will just instruct us to clarify our 
language.  Or they could tell us to remove the "subject to transportation and 
fuel" provision.  If we want to preserve our right to charge transport and 
fuel, it might be worthwhile filing something in the way of an answer.  
However, I am going to need some assistance in understanding what the 
language means and why we think we can do it, so I can justify it to FERC.  
Any comments you have in this regard would be appreicated.


   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           12/05/2000 05:18 PM
	

To: Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: TW

Should we respond to PNM's protest of the dollar valuation of imbalances 
prior to netting and trading?  Did we already respond to this issue when they 
filed their protest of the 637 filing?  DF