FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT on 04/19/2001 
02:38 PM ---------------------------
From: Shelley Corman/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/19/2001 10:16 AM
To: Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: RE: FW: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. El 
Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., Docket No. RP00-241-000

Yes,

It had by shipper, by contract level info.  -- the type of info available on 
our transactional reports.  There is a protective order in place in the 
proceeding, so I don't believe the information is generally available.  We 
did not ask for confidential treatment -- but we did excise rate information 
for periods prior to Sept. 2000 (the date that this info started appearing on 
our transactional reports).

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Cantrell, Rebecca  
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:55 AM
To: Corman, Shelley
Cc: Lawner, Leslie
Subject: Re: FW: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. El 
Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., Docket No. RP00-241-000

Shelley, how detailed was the information provided?  Was it broken down by 
shipper?  Also, did you request confidential treatment?  



From: Shelley Corman/ENRON@enronXgate on 04/19/2001 09:32 AM
To: Leslie Lawner/NA/Enron@Enron, Rebecca W Cantrell/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: FW: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. El 
Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., Docket No. RP00-241-000


FYI 

Judge Wagner issued a subpoena to Transwestern and several other pipelines in 
the referenced proceeding at SoCal Edison's request.  The request sought 
information on scheduled, actual and contracts quantities to the California 
border for the time period 1997 to present.  While we are not a party in the 
case, we decided to cooperate in the proceeding and not file a motion to 
quash.  We responded yesterday.