Message-ID: <31617461.1075861084233.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:34:18 -0800 (PST)
From: sheila.nacey@enron.com
To: shelley.corman@enron.com
Subject: Peoples Gas conversation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Nacey, Sheila </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SNACEY>
X-To: Corman, Shelley </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Scorman>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Shelley_Corman_Mar2002\Corman, Shelley\Inbox\Archives - Post Revised Order
X-Origin: Corman-S
X-FileName: scorman (Non-Privileged).pst

Shelley,  An FYI--Teb & I had a conversation w/Raye Grimaard at Peoples Gas=
 today in regard to the scheduling allocation process.  She indicated they =
do not like FGT's process "one little bit" regarding their flexibility to s=
chedule secondary firm in an allocated area.  For instance, when we allocat=
e the market area, and Peoples wants to nominate secondary gas within their=
 path, they feel they should have the priority to do so and not be in he mi=
x for a cut.  Teb was highly concerned about this in light of the implicati=
ons it could have on ultimately changing to a mileage rate base.  Teb argue=
d the point that we rarely cut into firm gas, thus is their threat to file =
with the Ferc for within the path segmentation really necessary.  He asked =
that we have an opportunity to review this with them at greater length befo=
re they file.  In the meantime, I will look into the number of times we hav=
e allocated firm in the market area.  I'm not sure how far back I can get a=
ccurate information though.  I'm afraid it will be more memory facts than h=
ard facts.  Sheila