Message-ID: <31489283.1075852068087.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:25:44 -0700 (PDT) From: stephanie.miller@enron.com To: barry.tycholiz@enron.com Subject: FW: Huber Docs Cc: gerald.nemec@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: gerald.nemec@enron.com X-From: Miller, Stephanie X-To: Tycholiz, Barry X-cc: Nemec, Gerald X-bcc: X-Folder: \BTYCHOL (Non-Privileged)\Tycholiz, Barry\Deleted Items X-Origin: TYCHOLIZ-B X-FileName: BTYCHOL (Non-Privileged).pst Let's discuss -----Original Message----- From: =09Lawner, Leslie =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:20 AM To:=09Miller, Stephanie Cc:=09Cantrell, Rebecca W. Subject:=09RE: Huber Docs We expect a ruling in the 336 docket to allocate receipt point capacity on = El Paso, and that could be done before the end of the year. BUT, we expect= that will be subject of rehearing applications and possibly even court app= eal. And that allocation is likely to be revised if and when the full requ= irements/capacity problems get addressed in the other dockets in which they= are pending. So, the possibility of revisions to receipt point allocation= s exist even after an order is issued, and is final and non-appealable in 3= 36. The language in the draft agreement states that Huber acknowledges tha= t EP's capacity allocation procedures are under review by FERC and that the= capacity under contract will be bound by any modifications resulting from = any FERC proceeding related to such capacity allocation procedures. I thin= k this is broad enough to cover all potential FERC actions, as it says "any= " FERC proceeding. Since we want to keep it open for future revisions, I w= ould not advise inserting the usual "final, non-appealable order" since yo= u want to be able to track any changes that come along, however they may be= themselves changed by a later order. =20 Hope this makes sense. =20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Miller, Stephanie =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, October 16, 2001 7:37 AM To:=09Lawner, Leslie Subject:=09FW: Huber Docs Oops - here they are... -----Original Message----- From: =09Tycholiz, Barry =20 Sent:=09Tuesday, October 16, 2001 8:11 AM To:=09Miller, Stephanie Subject:=09FW: Huber Docs Latest doc's. pls review and comment on wording applicable to regulatory i= ndicator that triggers events. BT=20 -----Original Message----- From: =09Nemec, Gerald =20 Sent:=09Monday, October 15, 2001 7:24 PM To:=09Whitt, Mark Cc:=09Tycholiz, Barry Subject:=09Huber Docs Attached are the latest based on our discussions. I couldn't redline the C= apacity Release Agreement, so I am only sending a clean version. I would s= till make a general caveat, that we still need to do a final review of the = gathering agreement. This could add to the Transaction Agreement. << File: Huber Capacity Release(El Paso)3.doc >> << File: JM Huber Confir= m (Cal)3(red).doc >> << File: JM Huber Confirm (Cal)3.doc >>