Message-ID: <29586566.1075846663067.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 04:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: mary.miller@enron.com, mary.darveaux@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com
Subject: TW LFT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Mary Kay Miller, Mary Darveaux, Glen Hass
X-cc: Drew Fossum@ENRON
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

I have been working with Ramona and Lorraine to make system adjustments to 
TW's LFT arising from conclusions made at a Northern LFT meeting a few weeks 
ago.  One change that has been called for is that if a Limited Day is called 
(for now let's say a total Limited Day, without notifying shippers of any 
percentages), no LFT can flow at any time during that day but the LFT shipper 
would have the option to flow IT to the extent space is available.  If a 
Limited Day were called notifying shippers that only a certain percentage 
would flow, LFT shippers would be able to flow that percentage, and the rest 
could be scheduled IT.  

Drew latched onto this when I mentioned it to him and wanted to debate this 
change with me.  As currently configured, TW's system would allow LFT 
shippers to put in nominations on a Limited Day, and if any LFT capacity were 
in fact available that LFT would be scheduled.  Similarly, if TW were to 
notify shippers of a partial Limited Day (say 50%), and 60% of the capacity 
in fact became available, TW's system (today) would allow LFT shippers to put 
their nominations in and flow 60%, not limit them to 50%.   TW's tariff 
language appears suitably vague to allow this --  a Limited Day is defined as 
a day on which TW may choose not to schedule service in whole or in part, and 
the billing section has a provision for Limited Days on which any quantity of 
gas is transported.  

Our question was whether, by changing TW's LFT system as described in the 
first paragraph, we wouldn't be leaving some firm transportation revenue on 
the table (because the IT rate is generally lower than our firm rate).  If 
so, is the change necessary for some other reason?   Please let me know what 
you think.

SS