Message-ID: <33088498.1075846738508.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:50:00 -0800 (PST) From: susan.scott@enron.com To: gerald.nemec@enron.com Subject: Re: FERC Issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Susan Scott X-To: Gerald Nemec X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail X-Origin: SCOTT-S X-FileName: sscott3.nsf Gerald -- here are a couple of suggested wording changes (should appear in blue) 1. FERC was made aware of the Compression Services arrangement with ECS (at that time via Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.) in the filings for the certification of the Kachina units. FERC simply didn't ask any further questions in that proceeding. The Operation & Maintenance Agreements in place for the Kachina units essentially accomplishes the same things as the Operational Control Agreement in Gallup. TW feels the O&M agreements would be adequate to address any concerns about TW's regulatory responsibility over the compressor facilities. The Operational Control agreement was put into place in Gallup because it was thought to be easier to give FERC exactly what is was looking for rather than show them the Gallup O&M Agreement which might unnecessarily complicate the process at that time. 2. There is no basis in FERC Regs or the NGA for FERC to impose any type of penalty or discontinue the Compression Service's due to TW's operation of Kachina without the Operational Control Agreement. No regs or law address this situation. Again this is tempered by the fact that FERC was made aware of the arrangement and didn't ask any questions and the O&M agreement is in place to accomplish control for TW. 3. I also faxed you a copy of Section 19(c) of the NGA which indicates that the petition for rehearing does not effect the status of the certificate. Construction is moving ahead and the anticipated start date is May 1. I will forward the filing TW made wrt to the Operational Control Agreement as soon as I recieve it. Let me know if you have any further questions (713) 853-3512. Gerald Nemec@ECT 03/23/2000 11:47 AM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: FERC Issues Susan, Attached is the text I am forwarding to the investors. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks for your help. I talked further with Transwestern Counsel today concerning the issues and have the following points; 1. FERC was made aware of the Compression Services arrangement with ECS (at that time via Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.) in the filings for the certification of the Kachina units. FERC simply didn't ask any further questions in that proceeding. The Operation & Maintenance Agreements in place for the Kachina units essentially accomplishes the same things as the Operational Control Agreement in Gallup. TW feels the O&M agreements would be adequate to answer any questions that possibly FERC might ask regarding this subject matter. The Operational Control agreement was put into place in Gallup because it was thought to be easier to give FERC exactly what is was looking for rather than show them the Gallup O&M Agreement which might slow down the process at that time. 2. There is no basis in FERC Regs or the NGA for FERC to impose any type of penalty or discontinue the Compression Service's due to TW's operation of Kachina without the Operational Control Agreement. No regs or law address this situation. Again this is tempered by the fact that FERC was made aware of the arrangement and didn't ask any questions and the O&M agreement is in place to accomplish control for TW. 3. I also faxed you a copy of Section 19(c) of the NGA which indicates that the petition for rehearing does effect the status of the certificate. Construction is moving ahead and the anticipated start date is May 1. I will forward the filing TW made wrt to the Operational Control Agreement as soon as I recieve it. Let me know if you have any further questions (713) 853-3512.