Glen, I had a conversation with Pat Davidson (SoCal) yesterday.  Things have been going smoothly,
	because SoCal has not been calling any OFO days.  She felt like we would not have an issue until
	spring and at that time, there is an expectation that SoCal could be calling more OFOs.  We agreed
	to continue talking, but that does not resolve the issue completely.  Thanks. Lynn

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hass, Glen  
Sent:	Monday, December 03, 2001 9:44 AM
To:	Donoho, Lindy; Blair, Lynn; Harris, Steven; Watson, Kimberly; Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb; Kowalke, Terry; Schoolcraft, Darrell; Lindberg, Lorraine; Lohman, TK; Rapp, Bill
Subject:	FW: SoCalGas Response to TW Protest of AL 2837-A

FYI--Attached below is a summary of the protests and comments the CPUC received in response to SoCalGas'  Advice Letter filing on receipt point operating procedures.  

Lynn,  Are they still working with us to resolve the OFO/Intraday 2 issue?  gh

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com>@ENRON  
Sent:	Friday, November 30, 2001 5:59 PM
To:	Rapp, Bill; Hass, Glen; Gregg Klatt
Subject:	SoCalGas Response to TW Protest of AL 2837-A


Attached is the SoCalGas response of our mild protest to their advice  letter 2837-A.  The relevant language is on page 5 of their letter and has  been highlighted for your convenience.  In part, they state that:   
 
"These types of reductions are no different from today's  practice of allowing customers to reduce nominations in the fourth scheduling  cycle.  The flaw is not in SoCalGas  new procedures.  SoCalGas provides  customers with notice of an upcoming OFO two hours prior to scheduling cycle  closing times.  Within those two  hours, customers can make changes to their nominations and still meet the  scheduling timeline as defined by GISB standards.  Even if SoCalGas cuts nominations in  cycle four because customer reductions don't reduce deliveries enough to avoid  operational problems, changes in cycle 4 are within GISB standards.  Transwestern is supposed to be complying  with those GISB standards and seems to state that it is unable to do  so."
 
They go on to state a willingness to  work with us on the issue.  There is no procedural option for us to respond  to their response.  At this point, our option is to meet with Energy  Division staff to discuss the issue further, should we feel the need to do  so.  
 
Have a good weekend!
Dan
 
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  Suite  244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:   (818) 596-2201
Fax:   (818) 346-6502douglass@energyattorney.com << File: mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com >> 
 
 
 - 2837ARES.DOC << File: 2837ARES.DOC >>