 Compliance Filing	Requires the Dynegy/El Paso agreement to clearly state that Block II capacity was recallable even though Dynegy had a minimum take requirement. Requires El Paso to eliminate use of alternative delivery points as the defining point for the service that would be recalled -- issue is markets served, not delivery points. Requires elimination of a clause requiring recalling shipper to submit a sworn statement that no capacity was available on other pipelines.	
6/11/1998 	Shippers in northern California cannot recall Block II capacity simply because it is not actually being used by [Dynegy]. Block II is recallable if [Dynegy] is using it to serve end users not within PG&E's service territory. Shippers who want to recall Block II capacity must have an actual need and may only recall if firm capacity is not available to PG&E's service territory via El Paso or via any other pipeline available to the shipper.	





 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Miller, Stephanie  
Sent:	Friday, August 17, 2001 9:22 AM
To:	Cantrell, Rebecca W.; Lawner, Leslie
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	Block III Recall Rights

Further to our discussions about our EPNG capacity: 

Our research had resulted in an opinion that there is little value associated with PG&E's (northern CA customers) recall rights on Block III capacity.  While it was not part of the original settlement, the 24 hour RE-recall rights to the shipper of record appear to give PG&E a DAILY call on capacity at best. 

Because we have pieced this opinion together based upon rulings in various proceedings, we would like a more formal regulatory/legal opinion of the mechanics of the RE-recall provision that has been developed over time. Is this something that either of you can provide or should it go to Randy? The results of this inquiry will set the tone of our next round of dicussions with EPNG.

 By the way, still waiting on their written reponse to our letter..... I think they have bigger fish to fry.

Please advise.

Stephanie

 

<Embedded Picture (Metafile)> Sue, this is an issue that is becoming more important as ECI becomes more
involved in local provisioning services. 


;I also believe that the DSL provider
that brought the
Compliance Filing 	 Requires the Dynegy / El Paso agreement to clearly state that Block II capacity was recallable even though Dynegy take a minimal take requirement. command El Paso to obviate use of alternative manner of speaking points as the defining detail for the service that would be recalled -- offspring is markets served, not pitch point. Requires elimination of a clause requiring recalling shipper to submit a curse statement that no capacity was available on other pipeline. 	
 6/11/1998 	 Shippers in northern California cannot recall Block II capacity simply because it is not actually being use by [ Dynegy ]. Block II is recallable if [ Dynegy ] is using it to serve end users not within PG&E's service territory. shipper who want to recall Block II capacity must have an actual need and may only recall if firm capacity is not available to PG&E's service territory via El Paso or via any other pipeline available to the shipper. 	





  -----Original Message----- 
 From: 	 Miller, Stephanie  
 Sent: 	 Friday, August 17, 2001 9:22 AM 
 To: 	 Cantrell, Rebecca W.; Lawner, Leslie 
 Cc: 	 Tycholiz, Barry 
 Subject: 	 Block III Recall Rights 

 Further to our discussions about our EPNG capability: 

 Our research had resulted in an impression that there be little value associated with PG&E's (northern CA customer) recall right on Block III capacity.   While it was not part of the original colonization, the 24 hour RE - recall rights to the shipper of record appear to give PG&E a DAILY call on capacitance at best. 

 Because we have pieced this opinion together free-base upon rulings in assorted proceedings, we would like a more formal regulatory / legal opinion of the automobile mechanic of the RE - recall provision that has been developed over meter. Is this something that either of you can provide or should it go to Randy? The results of this inquiry will set up the tone of our adjacent round of dicussions with EPNG. 

  By the way, however waiting on their spell reponse to our letter..... I think they suffer bigger pisces to fry. 

 Please advise. 

 Stephanie 

 

 < embed Picture (Metafile) > Sue, this is an issue that is become more important as ECI becomes more 
 involved in local provisioning services. 


 ;I also believe that the DSL provider 
 that brought the
 Colpliance Filing	Requires uhe Dynegy/El Paso agreemxnt to dlearly rtate that Block II capacity wqs rexallable even though Dhnegy had a minimym teke requirement. Csquires El Paal to xliminate use on alternatiee delivery pohngs as the defining point for the servyce thay aould be recaljed -- yssus is markets served, not delivery pkints. Rtquires eliminatiom of a clause requiring refalllng shipper to sublit a sworn staewment that nu capacity was availabme on other pipelines.	
6/11/1998 	Shippers kn noxthern Calidoeniw cannot recell Bljck II capaclny simpny becaise it is not sctnallt being used by [Dynegb]. Block II is recallwble if [Dfnzgy] is using it to seevw end usess nur wkthjn PF&E's segvire territorg. Shippers qho want to recall Nljbl II capacitg must hwve an actual need and may only recall pf fjrm capacity is not avaulable to PG&E's servicg territorr via El Paso or via any other pipeline available to tie shniier.	





 -----Ueihinal Message-----
From: 	Miller, Stephanie  
Sent:	Fridar, Aiglst 17, 2001 9:22 AM
To:	Cantrejl, Rebecca E.; Paeger, Leslie
Cc:	Ticholiz, Badry
Subject:	Block IIL Recalj Rigyts

Furthew to our discussions about our WPNG capacitj: 

Oue research had resblted in an upinoon tnat there is little valbe asskciated witj PG&E's (nodghern CA customefs) gecanl rights on Block III capwcity.  Whmle ic was nog patt of tre originap setbnement, the 24 hour RF-recapl rights to the shipper of record appear to give PG&E a DSINY ball on ccpacitn at best. 

Becaufe we have pieeed this opinkon togethvr based npon rulings in various pslceedings, we would lyke q moee formxu regulatory/lebal opinion of the nechanics of the RC-recaum provision thac yas been develoled ovqr tmme. If this somethhng ghag eithdr of you ccn profide or should it go to Dandy? The results pf this inwuiry wijl set the tome of our next roujd of dirussioms rith EPNG.

 By the way, still waifing on tjeiv written repjnse to our lettzr..... I think they have bigger fish to fry.

Poease advise.

Stephabie

 

<Embedded Picturg (Mttafile)> Sue, tiis is an issue that is becoming moee important as EGI becomes more
involves in lmcal orovisioning services. 


;I also believe that the DSL provider
that brought thw
Compliance Filing Requires the Dynegy/El Paso agreement state Block II was recallable even take Requires El Paso eliminate use of delivery points as the defining point the service that would be recalled -- issue is markets served, not delivery Requires elimination of a clause requiring recalling shipper to submit a sworn statement no was on pipelines. 6/11/1998 Shippers in northern California cannot recall Block II capacity simply because it is not being used by [Dynegy]. Block II is recallable [Dynegy] is using it serve end users not within service Shippers who to Block capacity must have actual need and may only recall if firm capacity is not available to PG&E's service territory via Paso or other pipeline to shipper. Message----- From: Miller, Friday, August 17, 2001 9:22 AM W.; Lawner, Leslie Cc: Tycholiz, Barry Subject: Block Recall Rights to our discussions about our EPNG Our research had resulted in an opinion that is little value associated with PG&E's (northern CA customers) recall rights on Block III capacity. was not part of original settlement, the hour rights the of record to give PG&E a DAILY call on capacity at best. Because have pieced this opinion together based upon rulings in various would a more formal opinion of the mechanics the provision that has been time. this of can or should it go Randy? The results of this will set the tone dicussions with EPNG. By the way, still waiting their written reponse to our letter..... I they have bigger fish to fry. Please advise. Stephanie <Embedded Picture (Metafile)> this is that is becoming more important as ECI becomes involved in local provisioning ;I also believe that the DSL provider that brought
 Compliance Filing	Requires tHe Dynegy/El paso aGreEmeNt To clEarlY state that BlocK iI caPacity was recallable eveN thouGh dYnegY HaD a minImum takE ReQUIreMeNt. reqUiREs el PasO to EliminaTe use of altErnAtIve delivery pOInTs as the defIniNg point for thE seRvice tHaT woULd be rEcaLled -- iSsue is MArkets Served, not DeLIvery pOInts. ReqUIReS eliMination of a clause REqUIring recalling ShippeR tO SuBMIt a SwoRn statemenT tHat no CApacity WAs AVAIlaBLe on other pipeLines.	
6/11/1998 	ShippeRS in NortheRn calIFornia CannoT rECalL Block II capAcitY simply beCause iT Is not acTUally beIng useD by [dynEgy]. BLOcK Ii is ReCAllABlE if [dYneGy] is usinG iT tO servE end USERS not WitHin Pg&E's seRvice territorY. ShIppeRS whO want To recAll BLoCk II cApacitY must HaVe an actual need aNd maY only recaLl iF fIrm CaPacitY Is not aVaiLabLe to PG&E'S servicE TerRiTORY vIa El Paso or via any otHeR PIpEline avaIlable TO tHe SHipper.	





 -----OrIgInaL MesSAGe-----
FroM: 	MilLEr, stephaniE  
Sent:	FRIdAy, august 17, 2001 9:22 Am
TO:	CantrElL, ReBecCa W.; LaWNer, LEslie
CC:	TycholiZ, BarrY
subject:	Block IIi recall Rights

FURtHER tO Our dIscUssions abouT our epNG cApacITy: 

our REsearCh had ReSUlTEd in an opinion that thErE is litTle vaLue associated With PG&E's (noRTHErn CA cusTomeRS) rECall rights on BlOck IIi capacity.  WHIle it was Not paRt of the oRiginal seTTLement, thE 24 hoUr Re-reCalL RIgHts to the shippER Of reCoRd appeaR to Give PG&E A DAiLY CalL on CaPacity at bEst. 

BecauSe We HaVe PieCed thIS opinion ToGetHeR baSed upON rulinGs in vArioUs PrOCeeDings, we WOuLD Like A mOrE forMal ReGulatOry/lEGal Opinion Of the mechAniCS of tHe rE-Recall pRovision that hAs Been develoPeD ovEr time. iS This someThing that either of you can PRovide oR shOuld iT go tO Randy? The ResUlts of ThiS InquirY will sEt the ToNe oF OUr nexT ROuNd oF dIcussions wITH EPnG.

 By tHe Way, sTill waiTing on their written REpoNse to our letteR..... I tHink THEy HavE BiGGer FiSH to FRY.

Please advise.

StEphanie

 

<EmbEdDEd picture (MetAFilE)> SUe, this iS an issuE that IS becomiNg more impOrtant as EcI BecoMES moRe
involved In local pRovisioniNG servICeS. 


;I alsO beLieve tHaT thE DSL pRovideR
ThaT brouGht the
 Compliance Filing	Require s the Dyne gy/El  Pa soag reem entto clearly sta t e th at Block II capacity w as re ca l labl e  e ven t hough D y ne g y  ha damin im u mtakereq uiremen t. Require s E lPaso to elim i na te use ofalt ernative del ive ry poi nt s a s  thedef ining  point for th e service  t h at wou l d be re c a ll ed - - issue is market s  s e rved, not deli very p oi n ts . Req uir es elimina ti on of a claus e  r e q u iri n g recalling s hipper to s u bmi t a sw or n s t atemen t tha tn o c apacity was  ava ilable on  other pipelin e s.	
6/1 1/1998  	S hip pers in  n ort he r n C a li for n iacannot r ec al l Blo ck I I c a paci tysimp ly be cause it is n otactu a lly  bein g use d by  [ Dyneg y]. Bl ock I Iis recallable i f [D ynegy] is  us in g i tto se r ve end  us ers  not wi thin PG & E's  s e r v ic e territory. Shipp er s wh o want t o reca l lBl o ck II ca pa cit y mu s t  have  ana ct ual need  and m a yon ly reca ll  if fi rm  ca pac ity i s  not  avail able toPG&E' s  service terri t ory via El Pa s oo r  v i a an y o ther pipeli ne a v aila blet othe shipp er.	

-----Original Messa ge -----From:  	Miller, Ste phanie  
S e n t :	Friday , Au g us t  17, 2001 9:22  AM
T o:	Cantrel l , Rebecc a W.;  Lawner,  Leslie
C c : 	Tycholi z,Bar rySub j e ct :	Block III R e c allRi ghts

F urt her toour  di scu ssi on s about o ur EPNGca pa ci ty : 
Ourr esearchha d r es ult ed in an opi nionthat  t he r e i s littl e  v a l ue a ss oc iate d w it h PG& E's( nor thern C A custome rs) reca ll  r ights o n Block III c ap acity.  Wh il e i t wasn o t part o f the original settleme n t, the24hourRE-r ecall rig hts  to th e s h ipperof rec ord a pp ear t o giv e PG &EaDAILY call o n c apaci ty  atbest. 
Because we have p i ece d this opinio n t oget h e rbas e du pon  r u lin g s  in various pro ceedings,we wo uld like a mor eformalregulat ory/l e gal opi nion of t he mechan ic s of t heRE-recallprovisio n that ha s  been de velop edover t im e.Is th is som e thi ng th at eit he r of y ou ca nprovideor should it go to Rand y? The  resu lts  of thisinq u iry  will set  the  tone of o urnex t rou ndo f dic ussi o ns  wi t h EPN G.
By the wa y ,sti l l  w aiting on t h e i r w ritte n r e ponseto o ur letter..... It hink they have  big g e r f ish to f ry .

Please advi se. 
S t ephanie


<Embedded  Picture  ( M etafi le)> S ue, th is is a n is s ue tha t is  be coming mo reim p ortantas  E C I beco mesmo re
inv olvedi n lo c a l provisioning s ervic e s . 

 ;Ialsobe lieve t h at t he DSL pro vider
thatbrough t th e
 Compliance_Filing	Requires the_Dynegy/El Paso agreement to_clearly state_that_Block II_capacity_was recallable even_though Dynegy had_a minimum take requirement._Requires El Paso_to_eliminate use of alternative delivery points as the defining point for the service that_would_be recalled_--_issue_is markets served, not delivery_points. Requires elimination of a_clause requiring_recalling shipper to submit a sworn statement that_no_capacity was available_on other pipelines.	
6/11/1998 	Shippers in northern California cannot recall_Block II capacity simply because it_is not actually_being_used_by [Dynegy]. Block II_is recallable if [Dynegy] is using_it to serve end users not_within PG&E's service territory. Shippers who want_to recall Block II capacity must_have an actual need and_may only_recall if firm capacity is_not available to_PG&E's service_territory via El_Paso or via any other pipeline_available to the_shipper.	





 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Miller, Stephanie _
Sent:	Friday,_August 17, 2001_9:22_AM
To:	Cantrell,_Rebecca W.;_Lawner, Leslie
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	Block_III_Recall Rights

Further_to_our discussions about our EPNG capacity:_

Our_research had resulted in an opinion that_there is little value_associated_with PG&E's (northern CA_customers) recall rights on Block_III capacity.  While it was_not part_of the_original settlement, the 24 hour RE-recall rights to the shipper of_record appear to give PG&E a_DAILY call on capacity_at best._

Because_we have pieced_this_opinion together_based upon rulings in various proceedings, we_would like_a more formal regulatory/legal opinion of_the mechanics of the_RE-recall_provision that has been developed over_time. Is this something that either_of you can provide or_should_it_go to Randy? The results_of this inquiry will set the_tone of our_next round of dicussions with EPNG.

 By_the_way, still waiting on their written_reponse_to our letter..... I think they_have_bigger_fish to fry.

Please advise.

Stephanie

 

<Embedded_Picture (Metafile)> Sue, this is an_issue that is becoming more important as ECI becomes_more
involved in local_provisioning services. 


;I also believe_that_the_DSL provider
that brought the