Subject: RE: I.99-07-003 - EPNG Revisions To SoCalGas Draft Exh 28 re Pipe line Capacity
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:37:00 -0700 (PDT)

Susan - We expect to get a further revision out later today as a preview to 
the final filing.? I think that should resolve TW's concerns.? However, feel 
free to call and yell at me nonetheless.......

-----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:32 AM 
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked] 
Subject: I.99-07-003 - EPNG Revisions To SoCalGas Draft Exh 28 re 
Pipeline Capacity 

Brian -- TW does not agree with the changes proposed by El Paso.? If we 
need to discuss this further please e-mail or call. 
Thanks. 
Susan Scott 
Transwestern Pipeline Company 
713-853-0596 
---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 06/20/2000 
12:28 PM --------------------------- 

"Edward W. O'Neill" <[email-masked]> on 06/19/2000 09:13:34 
PM 

To:?? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? 
SF40#c#SF40.NCO#c#internet#c#cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us#c#grant#u#kolling@J
MBM.COM, 

????? 
SF40#c#SF40.NCO#c#internet#c#cerberus.city.palo-alto.ca.us#c#raveen#u#maan@JMB
M.COM, 

????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? 
[email-masked], 

????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? 
[email-masked], 

????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked] 
cc:?? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked], 
????? [email-masked] 

Subject:? I.99-07-003 - EPNG Revisions To SoCalGas Draft Exh 28 re Pipeline 
????? Capacity 

Attached is an e-mail containing revisions and additions El Paso recommends 
be 
made to SoCalGas' draft Exhibit 28 which was distributed for further 
comment to 
parties on June 16, 2000.? This e-mail has two attachments.? The first 
attachment 
is a revised copy of SoCalGas' table titled "Firm Pipeline Capacity into 
Southern 
California" with changes to:? (a) correct the amount of firm interstate 
capacity on 
El Paso at Topock, shown in the col. "Incoming Interstate Capacity," by 
replacing 
the incorrect figure, 2230 MMcfd (which includes capacity for delivery to 
SW Gas 
which is not available to California on a firm basis) with the correct 
figure,? 2080 
MMcfd; (b) delete the reference to El Paso delivery capacity to SW Gas from 
the 
col. "Total Take-away Capacity" since this capacity is not firm capacity 
available 
to California; (c) adjust the totals at the bottom of both cols. affected 
by these 
changes; (d) add a new footnote to reference to the fact that shippers on 
El Paso 
have existing firm contract rights for delivery from El Paso at Topock to 
SoCalGas 
totaling 1466 MMcfd which exceeds SoCalGas' take-away capacity at Topock 
and clearly creates a "mismatch"; and (c) add reference in footnote (2) to 
the 
physical capacity of Kern/Mojave at the interconnection with SoCalGas at 
Wheeler Ridge South, which is in excess of 680 MMcfd even though the 
metering 
is currently set to 500 MMcfd.?? The second attachment contains two 
schematics 
intended to supplement SoCalGas' draft map of receipt points and 
interconnections.? These schematics more accurately reflect the actual 
physical 
interconnections at Topock and Hector Ridge and correct both the inaccurate 
impression that the interconnect with? El Paso at Topock consists of 
several 
separate pipelines with no cross over, and that inaccurate impression that 
several 
interconnections may exist between pipelines at Hector Road .?? El Paso 
understands and acknowledges that there are a number of possible responses 
to 
Administrative Law Judge Biren's request for a late filed exhibit 
concerning 
"mismatches" and pipeline capacity upstream and downstream from SoCalGas 
receipt points.? In the spirit of compromise, El Paso? will not oppose 
SoCalGas 
filing an exhibit as proposed 6/16/00 provided it is revised to reflect the 
changes 
and additions El Paso has proposed in this e-mail.?? Very truly yours, 
Edward W. 
O'Neill, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP,? One Sansome Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94104, (415) 398-8080, fax: (415) 398-5584, e-mail 
[email-masked], for El Paso Natural Gas Company. 
Received: from elpmime02.epenergy.com ([192.53.35.90])? by [MAIL.JMBM.COM] 
(GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)????? ; Mon, 19 Jun 00 17:21:00 PDT 
Received: from mailimc.epec.com (unverified) by elpmime02.epenergy.com 
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 
<[email-masked]> for 
<[email-masked]>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:32:14 -0500 
Received: by mailimc.epec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)? id 
<NGKSQ0T4>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:32:16 -0500 
Message-ID: <567B2EC6CBF6D311877000805FAD64D135D41B@MAIL06A> 
Return-Receipt-To: "Healy, William H." <[email-masked]> 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) 
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:32:09 -0700 
From: "Healy, William H."? <[email-masked]> 
To: [email-masked], [email-masked] 
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: SoCalGas' latest revised draft exhibit re upstream and 
downstream capacity-Forwarded 
Mime-Version: 1.0 
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4E163481.4F2E4160" 

Here is a copy of SoCal's table describing firm capacity to California with 
the changes we discussed: 
?<<GIR-exhibitpipe999.xls>> 

In addition, here are the two sketches that help to describe Topock and 
Hector Road: 
?<<Interconnect Sketch.xls>> 

****************************************************************** 
This email and any files transmitted with it from El Paso 
Energy Corporation are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error 
please notify the sender. 
****************************************************************** 

(See attached file: GIR-exhibitpipe999.xls) 
(See attached file: Interconnect Sketch.xls)