Subject: FW: Draft Order No. 637 Filing
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:31:09 -0800 (PST)

Another concern I have is that once we say that we can path -- then we've lost our best argument against physical segmentation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Corman, Shelley 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:41 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Draft Order No. 637 Filing

Are you at all worried that this starts the move to zone rates in the market area?  Do we care?  Are we worried about having competitive Zone E/F rates?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Corman, Shelley; Blair, Lynn; January, Steve; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft Order No. 637 Filing
Importance: High

If all of marketing is in agreement and we can demonstrate the elements sufficently to include in the filing.  How will this work in the field area??  Doesn't this conceptually give everyone the same priority or we narrowing it down to within the MID?  MK

-----Steve Kirk/NNG/Dynegy wrote: -----

To: Maria Pavlou/NNG/Dynegy
From: Steve Kirk/NNG/Dynegy
Date: 02/21/2002 05:52PM
cc: Dave Neubauer/NNG/Dynegy, Mary Kay Miller/NNG/Dynegy, Michele Winckowski/NNG/Dynegy, Mary Darveaux/NNG/Dynegy, Kathy Patton/DEC/Dynegy, Jo Williams/NNG/Dynegy, Kent Miller/NNG/Dynegy, John Dushinske/NNG/Dynegy, Ranelle Paladino/NNG/Dynegy, Frank Semin/NNG/Dynegy, John Pritchard/NNG/Dynegy, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], Maria Pavlou/NNG/Dynegy
Subject: Re: Draft Order No. 637 Filing

In our meetings today on Order No. 637, we failed to discuss the topic of alternate point priorities "within-the-path". Marketing indicated in a meeting yesterday that they would like a change to alternate rights in the Market Area.  That change would provide that use of an alternate point within the operational zone where the shipper's primary rights are located would have priority over alternate rights in an operational zone where the shipper doesn't have primary.  This means we would have another level of alternate to be added to the tariff.  For example, if Minnegasco made an alternate nomination in Zone D at E.Dubuque, they would have a lower alternate right than Wisconsin Gas at E.Dubuque.
 
Please provide any comments you have on this issue along with your other comments requested to be provided to Maria by COB on Monday.  
 
p.s. I recognize this would fall into the category of "needing system changes so it may take awhile".