Hey, you be talkin' to gas trash, counsel.



Susan Scott@ENRON
06/15/2000 12:58 PM


To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: Re: Pedersen inquiry  

I agree that the briefest possible response is probably best.  In any event, 
let's wait until after we speak with Brian.  Also, I'm thinking that a 
written response might actually be better than calling him.  I've dealt with 
Norm's kind before and they are very creative about paraphrasing.

I believe I can manage to pencil lunch into my "gas trash" schedule tomorrow.




Jeff Dasovich @ EES on 06/15/2000 02:48:39 PM
To: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Re: Pedersen inquiry  

First, it's always a great pleasure to see you two in person, even with a 
brace.  Second, I apologize for all the time you folks are having to spend on 
this kind of stuff.  Second, this is a great answer, though, as we discussed, 
I think it provides dear Norm with too much information.  Susan's the boss, 
but if deleted everything after "Our west flow mainline capacity is 1.09 
Bcf/d,"  that (for what it's worth) would seem dandy to me.  Finally, I've 
been informed that it doesn't look like drinks will work tonite; but what 
about lunch tomorrow?

Best,
Jeff




Jeffery Fawcett@ENRON
06/15/2000 10:29 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, mbaldwin@igservice.com, Jeff 
Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin 
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc:  
Subject: Pedersen inquiry

Hey gang,
I've taken the first stab at answering Norm's inquiry... give me your 
thoughts.  Also, Susan, what is the protocol for a case being litigated at 
the CPUC for inquiries like this?  Should we put a disclaimer that the 
information we might provide is protected under Rule 51 or other "settlement 
discussions only" protection?



Mr. Pedersen,
First, I'd like to clear-up the nomenclature being used here.  As you know, 
currently SoCalGas doesn't assign "primary rights" to deliveries off of any 
interconnecting pipeline.  The establishment of tradeable rights for 
intrastate capacity is among the issues currently under consideration in the 
CPUC proceeding.   However, if what you are asking about is what has been the 
historical or otherwise available receipt capacity for Transwestern 
deliveries at North Needles, then let me offer the following. 

Transwestern has always operated on the premise that SoCalGas could 
physically accept up to a maximum of 750 MMcf/d at its North Needles receipt 
point.  Consequently, Transwestern has sold firm transportation to its 
interstate customers for west flow deliveries to North Needles not to exceed 
the 750 MMcf/d limitation.  Our west flow mainline capacity is 1.09 Bcf/d.  
The 340 MMcf/d difference between the mainline capacity and the physical 
capacity into SoCalGas at North Needles is used to provide firm service at 
our other delivery points at or near the California border, including PG&E, 
Mojave, Southwest Gas, Citizens Utilities, and in the near future, directly 
connected electric generation plants.