Subject: Re: Final Late Exhibit Draft
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [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],
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:39:00 -0700 (PDT)

At 6/16/2000, Tom Beach wrote:
>On behalf of Watson and Vernon, I strongly object to the removal of the data
>on the takeaway capacity to other markets besides the SoCalGas system, as
>Norman apparently proposes in his draft exhibit.  Without the data on
>takeaway capacity to other markets, the exhibit suggests that all of the
>upstream interstate and PG&E capacity is designed to serve just the SoCalGas
>market.

The question is not what is designed to "serve" the SoCalGas market, but
what is the upstream capacity flowing to SoCal's interconnection points
that could theoretically serve SoCalGas if there was no limitation on
SoCal's takeaway capacity.  Based on this, Norman's exhibit seems OK unless
there is some physical system constraint (besides SoCal's takeaway) that
would limit potential inflow into the SoCalGas system.

The problem with SoCal's last exhibit is that there is still no
clarification of whether the upstream gas could flow into ANY ONE of the
take away pipelines.  Maybe this could be clarified somehow (in a footnote)?

Marcel