Subject: Re: holding capacity on PNM
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:44:00 -0800 (PST)

I'm OK with trying what the commercial group wants but we'd better be aware 
of the consequences.  If we are successful, it may be a little easier to get 
Kent his authority to buy third party storage from other pipelines.  If we 
are unsuccessful, getting Kent's thing approved will get a bit harder.  I 
think the PNM proposal is pretty specific and has a nice operational basis 
that may help our chances somewhat. Also, I'm forwarding to Shelley to get a 
read on any FERC policy landmines.  Shelley, the summary of Madden's talk to 
INGAA that you circulated today quoted Madden as saying that FERC will take 
up the Texas Eastern remand soon.  Are we headed in the right direction?  
Looks to me like we may give Madden and his people an opportunity to broaden 
the current policy a bit without fundamentally changing it.  Thanks.  DF  

   

	From:  Susan Scott                           03/23/2000 05:38 PM

To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Glen 
Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, [email-masked], Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: holding capacity on PNM  

Nothing in my research has indicated that a specific agreement is required in 
order to make this filing.  While it is true that one of the reasons FERC 
rejected the NNG filing in which we sought authority to hold capacity on 
unspecified pipelines was because it was too general, the Commission never 
stated that pipelines must file specific deals in order to comport with the 
Texas Eastern requirements.  I believe that the filing is specific enough to 
address the Commission's concerns because we have narrowed it down to a 
specific portion of a specific pipeline in order to help alleviate a 
constraint on TW's system. The Commission did not require us to have an 
agreement with PG&E for Market Center services, and in fact we did not have a 
deal in place when we made our filing.   While I'm sure it's true that having 
a specific deal in place would make our filing even more convincing, the 
Commercial Group would like to maximize their flexibility to acquire capacity 
on PNM instead of having to ask permission for each deal they do with PNM, 
which is why we would prefer to use the same strategy we successfully 
employed in our Market Center services filing.  

On the Hinshaw issue -- I will forward you the relevant e-mail chain from 
last week.

   

	From:  Mary Kay Miller                           03/20/2000 07:04 AM

To: Glen Hass
cc: Mary Darveaux, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: holding capacity on PNM

I didn't see you on the distribution,  please respond to Susan's question on 
timing. 
Susan,  if the capacity is 10,000, what is the rate?  Seems like we need to 
have an agreement that we have all reviewed before we file at a minimum.  do 
we have one? 
How was the Hinshaw issue resolved? 
 Thanks
---------------------- Forwarded by Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron on 03/20/2000 
07:01 AM ---------------------------

	
	From:  Susan Scott                           03/19/2000 10:07 AM

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, [email-masked], Mary 
Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: holding capacity on PNM

I received several comments from you, and I believe we've resolved the legal 
issue (PNM's Hinshaw status).  Any other comments? (Mary Kay, the answer to 
your question is that Lorraine has been discussing a rate with PNM, and the 
amount of capacity they have available is 10,000.)   Mary Kay and Mary, when 
do you think would be a reasonable time to expect to file this, given the 
Order 637 filings we're working on?  

I've attached my draft again in case you need it.

Thanks.