Jeff/Drew:

Been out all day.  Will get a copy.  I believe that Jeff's suspicions are 
dead on.  Given all the investigations regarding electricity "price spikes" 
in California, seems very likely that Edison feels the timing is right to 
push the gas issue.  Will confirm that it is targeted solely at El Paso and 
get back to you either way.  If there's anything else, just holler. Will keep 
you apprised of events as they occur.

Best,
Jeff




Jeffery Fawcett@ENRON
09/05/2000 01:31 PM
To: Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES
cc: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: So Cal Edison Claims Withholding of Pipeline Capacity  

Jeff,
Is it possible for TW to get a copy of the Edison filing at the CPUC?  While 
the article [shown below] doesn't provide any details, I suspect Edison's 
complaint echoes earlier allegations against El Paso regarding their sale of 
the 1.2 Bcf/d block of capacity to their affiliate.  I don't think 
Transwestern and/or Enron affiliate marketing companies are implicated in 
this deal at all.  

Can you confirm this is an "El Paso only" problem and not something Enron is 
being drawn into?  I really appreciate your help here.




   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           09/05/2000 01:17 PM
	

To: Lorna Brennan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, 
Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Christine 
Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle 
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lee 
Huber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley 
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria 
Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jim Talcott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: So Cal Edison Claims Withholding of Pipeline Capacity  

Please get copies to me asap of the Edison motion and the CPUC FERC 
complaint.  Has someone, maybe someone at ENA, already looked at any 
allegations about Enron or TW?  Please forward these to Kathy Ringblom also 
and I'll have her itemize any allegations we might want to repond to.  
Thanks  DF 


ET & S Business Intelligence Department
From: Lorna Brennan on 09/05/2000 09:30 AM
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, 
Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Christine 
Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle 
Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lee 
Huber/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley 
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dari Dornan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Maria 
Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jim Talcott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew 
Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  
Subject: So Cal Edison Claims Withholding of Pipeline Capacity

Edison Charges Gas Market Manipulation

Southern California Edison filed a motion late last week with the California 
Public Utility Commission seeking emergency relief from high spot gas prices 
on which its power purchase rates are based. The company told the CPUC that 
Southern California Border (Topock, AZ) prices in the last month have risen 
by $2.50/MMBtu possibly because of market manipulation, in particular the 
withholding off of the market of pipeline transportation capacity between the 
supply basins and the California border. 

"[T]here is substantial and compelling evidence that the basis differential 
has been and continues to be grossly distorted by market power abuse, 
collusion and affiliate self dealing of out-of-state gas suppliers and 
merchants," Edison told the CPUC. 

The company noted the CPUC already has filed a Section 5 complaint with FERC 
regarding this issue and is seeking a recision of "certain allegedly 
collusive contracts which it contends have permitted out-of-state natural gas 
suppliers and their affiliates to drive up artificially California border gas 
prices by wrongfully withholding capacity." It notes the complaint 
"conservatively estimates that the anti-competitive manipulation of the basis 
differential has already damaged California gas and electricity users by $100 
million annually since the beginning of 1998." 

Edison seeks an expedited order authorizing it to use the posted gas price of 
$4.5133/MMBtu, which was applied to SCE's August 2000 avoided cost posting, 
to calculate its payment obligations to qualified power producers for the 
month of October and every month going forward. It estimated September 
bidweek border prices would average $7/MMBtu. If such prices were used in 
Edison's September avoided costs posting, its Transition Formula payments to 
certain independent power producers will be $29 million more than the month 
prior, the company told the CPUC. "No mechanism exists to recapture the 
increase in such payments if it is later determined by this commission or in 
another forum that the Topock border indices are unreliable at this time." 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--