Thanks.  Lindy and I are going to look at whether any changes will need to be 
made to the pro forma sheets we've filed, and will get back to you.




   
	
	
	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           12/21/99 10:30 AM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: EFBH  

I talked to Lindy last Friday,  let us know when or if we need to discuss 
further--  
Manual processes can still work--I think
MK


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           12/17/99 03:14 PM
	

To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Sharon Solon/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: EFBH

In discussing the finer points of EFBH Service with our market services 
people, an issue has arisen with respect to allocation of FTS-1 and FTS-3 
capacity.  We are going to have to be able to put FTS-3 and FTS-1 capacity 
into separate buckets for purposes of allocation (that is, allocation due to 
circumstances such as, say, windowing by SoCal, &c.).  Here's why.  If 
capacity became constrained on a given day and we allocated FTS-3 and FTS-1 
together, FTS-1 service would essentially be enjoying the use of capacity 
created by EFBH.  This is all well and good until EFBH cancels at the last 
minute. Then you know what would happen:  FTS-1 would get cut because EFBH 
cancelled.  I am told that this would necessarily happen because once FTS 
schedules, it gets flowing gas rights.  To keep this scenario from happening, 
we feel that FTS-3 will have to be put in its own bucket and not get cut 
unless EFBH doesn't show up.

Obviously, there is more to it than this, and Lindy and I would like to 
discuss it with you.  The systems people can't continue their work until we 
get this resolved.  Can we discuss this on Monday or some other time next 
week?  

Thanks, 
SS