Message-ID: <6340879.1075846708979.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: mbaldwin@igservice.com To: sscott3@enron.com, jfawcet@enron.com Subject: Socal Receipt Point Exhibit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: "mbaldwin" X-To: "Susan Scott" , "Jeff Fawcett" X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Gir X-Origin: SCOTT-S X-FileName: sscott3.nsf 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