Subject: Re: Socal Receipt Point Exhibit
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:55:00 -0700 (PDT)

Luckily, we will have input re. the exhibit, and if SoCal does not cooperate 
to make it accurate, we will be able to file our own with an explanation.  
Lad is such a weasel.  Why don't we try to talk sometime this a.m.

"mbaldwin" <[email-masked]> on 06/11/2000 11:11:13 PM
To: "Susan Scott" <[email-masked]>, "Jeff Fawcett" <[email-masked]>
cc:  

Subject: Socal Receipt Point Exhibit

Well unfortunately, Ladd managed to confuse the judge as to the Upstream
capacity into the Socal system. In doing so he has potentially opened up a
"real" danger for TW at Hector Rd. and again completely left out of his
testimony S.Needles aka Topock capacity of 200 mmcfd. Now Socal will try to
poll the parties so as to prepare a consensus Exhibit that will put "fact"
to the upstream capacities into the Socal system. Well, I fear that the
other pipeline lines will shape the facts to their agendas and we will have
a distorted landscape into the Socal system. The downside I perceive is that
the judge will 1) want to Let the Market decide via increasing the maximum
receipt point capacity allowed  or 2) want further comments on the entire
Socal receipt point capacity structure. These two onerous outcomes can be
avoided if the judge receives a consensus Exhibit(at least from the
Settlement parties) that is explained in a consistent manner  and with
common terms. For example, if we look at just FERC capacities in lieu of
perfect design capacities we might calm down these issues.

We will likely lead this process for the CSA parties, Lets discuss Monday
morning. Hope everything went well in Florida, especially you Jeff . I hope
you just banged up your pride and not your body to badly.

Mark, IGS