PGS in the past and in the present has all divisions.  I am not sure what the tariff means by "plant," either.  I do not know if any of PGS' current divisions has plants in them or not.    

In reading the messages below, Teb is correct in that Chris can trade any real imbalances between any of his firm or DPOA contracts.  However, if both firm contracts are on one DPOA, then any market area delivery imbalances created on either of his firm contracts will be summarized together on the one DPOA contract and become a single market area delivery imbalance available for trade with any other entity with an offsetting market area delivery imbalance.   Also, cash out will be calculated using the summarized DPOA market area delivery imbalance quantity net of any offsetting trades.  I do not see that Chris will have two balancing entities to deal with if both firm agreements are tied to one DPOA contract (as Nancy has stated below).   Jim           

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	King Jr., Frazier  
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 3:50 PM
To:	Bastida, Nancy; Lokey, Teb; Long, John; Cramer, James; Nacey, Sheila
Cc:	Dietz, Rick; Smith, Buzz; Studebaker, James 
Subject:	RE: F.P.U. NEW SMYRNA DELIVERY POINT QUESTION

The new point would have to qualify as a "division" under Section 1.af (which it does not appear to do) or a "plant".  Not sure we have a definition for "plant".  Will have to look at original filing to see what was meant by "plants".  Jim, how have we treated "plants" in the past.  Did Peoples have "divisions" or "plants"?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bastida, Nancy  
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 3:41 PM
To:	King Jr., Frazier; Lokey, Teb; Long, John; Cramer, James; Nacey, Sheila
Cc:	Dietz, Rick; Smith, Buzz; Studebaker, James 
Subject:	RE: F.P.U. NEW SMYRNA DELIVERY POINT QUESTION

The way the dpoa is set up now is the way it would be reflected if the two contracts were combined.  However, if the contracts are combined, does that mean that we would make the point a division?  If so, the problem is solved, otherwise, we're back to the same issue.  nb

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	King Jr., Frazier  
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 3:39 PM
To:	Lokey, Teb; Long, John; Cramer, James; Nacey, Sheila
Cc:	Dietz, Rick; Bastida, Nancy; Smith, Buzz; Studebaker, James 
Subject:	RE: F.P.U. NEW SMYRNA DELIVERY POINT QUESTION

I agree with Teb.
The "book-out" is GTC Section 14.A.

Not sure what you mean by "Balancing Entities".
The same DPOA covers both contracts.
But, there are two contracts.
And, the two contracts are accounted for separately.
Each contract must be "balanced".
(Whether covered by one DPOA or two DPOAs.)
Is that what you mean?

Since FPU holds two FTS-1 contracts (according to Nancy), 
we could probably combine them (if FPU wants top do that).
Jim says that we did that for Peoples.
We would have to check and see if there was any reason not to combine.
If they were combined, then there would be balancing under one contract.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lokey, Teb  
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 9:35 AM
To:	Long, John; Cramer, James; Nacey, Sheila; King Jr., Frazier
Cc:	Dietz, Rick; Bastida, Nancy; Smith, Buzz
Subject:	RE: F.P.U. NEW SMYRNA DELIVERY POINT QUESTION

He can net imbalances together by "booking out" the imbalance of one entity with the imbalance of the other entity.  In other words,  do a book-out with himself.  This can be done without adding the single point as a division to an existing divisional contract.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Long, John  
Sent:	Monday, January 07, 2002 7:50 AM
To:	Cramer, James; Nacey, Sheila; Lokey, Teb; King Jr., Frazier
Cc:	Dietz, Rick; Bastida, Nancy; Smith, Buzz
Subject:	F.P.U. NEW SMYRNA DELIVERY POINT QUESTION
Importance:	High


	I spoke with Chris Snyder this morning and his request is to add New Smyrna as a 4th Division to his existing 3 Divisions in order to have one Balancing Entity  vs.. Two Balancing Entities so he can net imbalances together. He is not looking for section 11 rights and he knows the New Smyrna lateral is constrained and he can not move any additional volumes there. Chris right now will have to deal with Two Balancing Entities and this is what he is trying to avoid. He will do what ever it takes on his end that we require/request. Please take another look with the one reason (Balancing) in mind. Give me your feedback. Thanks... John.