Subject: Re: El Paso/ENA Negotiated Rate Order
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 04:59:00 -0800 (PST)

You correctly predicted my reaction.  I think we should let sleeping dogs 
lie.  Also, was it just an oversight that the FERC ignored the unsold 
capacity that TW controls in evaluating how much of the available capacity 
that Enron controls?  That conclusion is good for us, if it was intentional.  
DF  

Shelley Corman
01/24/2000 11:40 AM
To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: El Paso/ENA Negotiated Rate Order

I'm sure you've seen the order approving the El Paso/ENA transaction.  For 
the most part the order is a good one.  It observes that ENA holds little 
capacity on TW, and that PG&E and Socal control a larger portion of capacity 
on TW.   With respect to policy matters, the order is good in the sense that 
it reaffirms that a pipeline can withhold capacity to maximize the value of 
services if shippers are not willing to pay maximum rates.

My only concern with the order appears in the last paragraph before Section 
C.  Here the Commission cautions that its will address on an expedited basis 
future allegations that TW is not allocating capacity on a non-discriminatory 
basis.  Certainly the Commission has always had this authority anyway.  
Nonetheless, I am a little bit troubled that the Commission is addressing 
Transwestern at all in an El Paso order.   TW shouldn't have to read the 
orders of other pipelines for any directives that apply to it.    My knee 
jerk reaction is that we would want clarification that the Commission is just 
reiterating its general willingness to take up any bona fide complaints and 
is not imposing any directive on TW.  But, I'm guessing you'll probably say 
we should just let that sentence pass in an otherwise good order that does 
not involve TW.