Message-ID: <31717168.1075858847328.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: shelley.corman@enron.com
To: maria.pavlou@enron.com
Subject: RE: GISB standard on capacity postings
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Corman, Shelley </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SCORMAN>
X-To: Pavlou, Maria </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mpavlou>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \SCORMAN (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Corman-S
X-FileName: SCORMAN (Non-Privileged).pst

Sounds interesting (although I don't have capital dollars at this point for=
 modifications to make CAS accessible to customers).   Let me touch base wi=
th my team to talk about this concept & I'll get back with you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pavlou, Maria=20
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:01 PM
To: Corman, Shelley
Cc: Porter, Gregory J.
Subject: RE: GISB standard on capacity postings


On a similar note: in trying to come up with a settlement in the negotiated=
 rates proceeding, we have discussed the possibility of allowing shippers t=
o directly input a receipt and delivery point perhaps with a certain time p=
eriod in mind to determine if capacity is available.   What I'm thinking of=
 is like letting them have access to our CAS system with us giving the fina=
l ok as to capacity availability.  This would help IS who argue that our re=
ports are not user friendly.  Legitimately, this type of instant informatio=
n is all they should really need (as opposed to us having to post every dea=
l we do--why should they be able to steal it at the last minute by slightly=
 outbidding the deal or forcing a tie in a maximum rate situation when they=
 really didn't initiate a specific request for capacity.   It seems like th=
is is something we would want to do, but there a lot of outstanding issues-=
-is it feasible from a systems standpoint, is it economical, etc?   Is TW m=
ore doable than NNG since it has fewer points?  Greg asked me to get with y=
ou to see if this issue can be further explored.  I do believe Steve Harris=
 and the commercial group are interested.  Pls. let me know what you think.=
   Thanks,  Maria=20

[Pavlou, Maria]=20
=20
 : Corman, Shelley=20
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 9:58 AM
To: Pavlou, Maria; Hess, Theresa; Miller, Mary Kay
Cc: 'sstojic@gbmdc.com'; Porter, Gregory J.; Hess, Theresa
Subject: RE: GISB standard on capacity postings



Here is my recollection of the sequence of events. The concept of an operat=
ionally available capacity report and what it contains are already in GISB =
standards.  FERC then picked up on this concept, added design capacity & sa=
id that the report needs to be updated at each nomination cycle in Orders 5=
87-L and in Order 637 transactional reporting.  GISB has since adopted stan=
dardized data formats for the transactional reporting, recently published i=
n GISB version 1.5 standards.  While these standard formats have been adopt=
ed, and I believe that we are following these formats, they haven't yet bee=
n adopted by FERC -- so other pipelines may or may not yet be following.
=20
I'll try to look at the NGPL posting over the weekend and compare to ours. =
 Also - I'm sending your email to Theresa Hess to confirm my recall of the =
standardization.

-----Original Message-----=20
From: Pavlou, Maria=20
Sent: Thu 9/27/2001 3:15 PM=20
To: Hess, Theresa; Corman, Shelley; Miller, Mary Kay=20
Cc: 'sstojic@gbmdc.com'; Porter, Gregory J.=20
Subject: GISB standard on capacity postings



Indicated Shippers in their Reply to our Reply brief (at 19) argue that we =
implied that our capacity postings are consistent with the standardized Gis=
b format.  They compare our postings to NGPL's, which are different, to sup=
port their argument.  Then they conclude that there is no standardized GISB=
 capacity-posting format.  Is this true?  How can we respond if this comes =
up at oral argument tomorrow?  Maria