Salt River Project, in an effort to bring resolution to the mainline and
receipt point allocation issues pending in the above-captioned proceedings,
is filing today (and serving hard copies of) the attached "Motion of SRP for
Adoption of Strawman Alternative to March 28, 2000 Proposal of El Paso
Natural Gas Company".  Unlike any other proposal before it, it seeks to
weave into one workable solution, the concerns raised by shippers in their
initial and reply comments filed in the Order 637 proceeding, as well as
address the 3 complaints.  It is a share-the-pain proposal among CD -
Converted FR - and El Paso.  Under it, FR shippers would convert to CDs at
levels reflecting actual usage over the past 5 years, weighted to the
present. It assures each westward flowing firm shipper, based on the current
physical mainline capacity (including L. 2000), 93.1%(winter) and 94.2%
(summer) of their contractual entitlement.  On a daily basis, all westward
FT shippers are assured of receiving approximately 60% of their 93.1 and
94.2% allocation from the San Juan.  FT-2 shippers would continue to be
served off the top.  This Strawman adopts the in-line pooling methodology
set forth in SoCal Gas' initial comments.  It includes North and South
system segmentation rights, and narrowly defined demand charge credits for
unprovided capacity as long as there is a shortfall.  Provision is made to
encourage turn-back of capacity and to have capacity under expired contracts
dedicated by El Paso to meeting the approximately 7% shortfall. Provision is
also made to treat each primary delivery point as a receipt point, and to
give priority to Alternate Receipt- to- Primary Delivery point in the
systemwide scheduling process, all intended to encourage a strong
supplemental market to meet peak seasonal needs.

This Strawman Alternative is not filed as an offer of settlement, but as a
basis for a merits decision, eliminating the need for lengthy evidentiary
hearings, and providing certainty and flexibility to the system once
implemented.  Alternatively, we have left it to the Commission to decide
whether other procedures should be adopted.  Because it is a motion, it may
be responded to within 15 days of filing.  SRP strongly urges each shipper
and state commission to contact SRP for answers to any questions before
taking a position in response to the motion.  Any shipper that has questions
but does not seek answers, but merely sticks to their litigation position
will only be delaying resolution. This proposal is a viable
compromise...everyone gains and everyone loses something.  That is why it
works.  We look forward to hearing from you and reading your constructive
comments.  Joel Greene
 <<SRPstrawman.cvr.doc>>  <<SRPSTrawmanfiled11-13.doc>>  <<Attachment 1
filed 11-13.doc>>  <<Attachments 2-12 filed11-13.ppt>>  <<Attachment 13
filed 11-13 .xls>>
Energy Advocates LLP
202-371-9889
202-371-9025 (fax)
jlgreene@energyadvocates.com


 - SRPstrawman.cvr.doc 
 - SRPSTrawmanfiled11-13.doc 
 - Attachment 1 filed 11-13.doc 
 - Attachments 2-12 filed11-13.ppt 
 - Attachment 13 filed 11-13 .xls