I'm forwarding the attached as an update.  Am presently researching the issue 
raised by Drew, and will let you know what I find.
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 03/13/2000 
08:50 AM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           03/13/2000 07:51 AM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Re: TW acquisition of capacity on PNM

I found the reference I was remembering over the weekend.  Check out the 
order issued to TriState Pipeline at Docket CP99-61.  FERC got all over CMS 
on the problems posed by "dual jurisdictional facilities" whatever that 
means.  CMS tried to do something that sounds a lot like what PNM would be 
doing under the idea you guys had.

---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 03/13/2000 
07:48 AM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           03/12/2000 08:37 PM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, 
sstojic@gbmdc.com, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: TW acquisition of capacity on PNM  

Interesting.  Assuming we could satisfy the Texas Eastern criteria (which 
would be tough given that this is a firm service, unlike our market center 
service), we still need to think about PNM's situation.  The letter says they 
are a Hinshaw.  This deal would seem to blow their Hinshaw exemption.  There 
is some new law on use of capacity on a Hinshaw for interstate service, only 
I think it involved a capacity lease instead of service agreements.   I think 
it was one of the Northeast pipeline cases involving CMS.  Does PNM know that 
we would use their service for interstate transportation?  If we can crack 
the Hinshaw issue, this might be worth a shot.  DF



Mary Kay Miller
03/11/2000 11:22 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: TW acquisition of capacity on PNM  

Mary,  I was unable to forward the attachment--  so try to get it form Glen
Susan,  I don't think it is a problem to try this, however,  do we have the 
current rates including fuel etc that we would have to pay and how much 
capacity would we be acquiring?  Need to see this-  MK


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           03/10/2000 04:14 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com
cc:  

Subject: TW acquisition of capacity on PNM

The Commercial Group has been discussing with PNM the possibility of entering 
into service agreements for firm capacity on the portion of PNM's system 
between Blanco and Rio Puerco.  This would effectively operate as an 
expansion of TW's system from the San Juan Basin to the mainline.  TW would 
acquire PNM capacity then post it as available on the EBB just like we post 
other capacity.  Shippers could then use the capacity to transport gas from 
Blanco to any point on TW's system.   The capacity that PNM has available at 
this time is seasonal (summer months) only, so it would be used to provide 
short-term firm capacity or LFT to TW customers.   The marketers anticipate 
that the additional capacity would mostly be used to ship gas to points on 
TW's mainline besides Rio Puerco -- in other words, the total path used by 
shippers would be a combination of PNM's system and TW's system.  Shippers 
wouldn't necessarily know whether PNM capacity was being used to provide 
service on their contract, only that their gas is being shipped from A to B.  

In re-reading the Texas Eastern line of cases, I believe we can distinguish 
TW's proposal from that in Northern's Docket No. 97-388 because it is more 
specific (we are asking for authority to acquire capacity on a specific 
pipeline) and because it is more in the nature of an expansion of TW's 
constrained San Juan lateral rather than a proposal to broker other 
pipelines' capacity.  I may be overly optimistic, but I also believe we meet 
all the Texas Eastern criteria.

I realize that I have not discussed this very extensively (or at all) with 
any of you, but I have gone ahead and drafted the proposal in the form of a 
letter to FERC.  It seemed the most efficient way to provide a starting point 
for discussion, especially since I was able to borrow heavily from our 
successful Market Center Services filing.  I'm not yet sure where we will 
include it in the tariff, but I propose tariff language along the lines of   
"Transporter may contract for firm transportation service on Public Service 
Company of New Mexico for use in providing transportation service from the 
Blanco receipt point on Transporter's system.  The cost incurred for 
acquisition of any such services shall be separately recorded in Account No. 
___.  Transporter is at risk for recovery of costs associated with such 
services."

After you've reviewed the attached, please let me know your overall 
substantive comments and let's talk about the best way to proceed.  Thanks.