





 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cantrell, Rebecca W.  
Sent:	Friday, August 17, 2001 12:02 PM
To:	Miller, Stephanie; Lawner, Leslie
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	RE: Block III Recall Rights

Steph:  Exactly what are you looking for - I'm not sure we could give you an opinion of the mechanics.  If you remember, we looked at this issue back in March and I sent you the e-mail message below.  Since then, FERC has issued orders in Docket No. RP00-241 on 3/28/2001 and 6/11/2001 which reaffirmed its rulings in the orders discussed below.  There is no discussion in any of the orders on the specific mechanics of the recall other than what I already noted, namely, if the capacity has been recalled by El Paso or a shipper to serve a PG&E market, and the original shipper wants it back, it can re-recall the recalled capacity on 24 hours notice as long as it is using all of its other Block II capacity.  If you need something more "legal", we'll see what we can do.  If we have to go to Bracewell for a law firm legal opinion, there would be a charge since they'd have to do the same research before they could sign off on one.


 	  From:  Rebecca W Cantrell                           03/27/2001 04:38 PM	
		


To:	Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:	 

Subject:	Re: block II  

I would note also that the recent reallocation of Topock rights takes care of one of the issues -- namely that El Paso allowed Dynegy to take Block II capacity to SoCal Topock.  The 4/14/00 order should have taken care of it, except for El Paso's position that they had capacity at Topock in the aggregate so they weren't overselling it.  

Order Date	Block II Rulings	
6/14/2000 Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law	Denies Indicated Shippers request for rehearing of 4/14/00 order.	
4/14/2000 Order on Rehearing (Enron)	Clarifies the January 19 order to provide that El Paso may remarket the PG&E
-----Original Message----- 
 From: 	 Cantrell, Rebecca W.  
 Sent: 	 Friday, August 17, 2001 12:02 PM 
 To: 	 Miller, Stephanie; Lawner, Leslie 
 Cc: 	 Tycholiz, Barry 
 Subject: 	 RE: Block III Recall Rights 

 Steph:   Exactly what are you look for - I'm not certain we could give you an opinion of the mechanics.   If you commemorate, we looked at this issue back in March and I transport you the einsteinium - mail message below.   Since then, FERC has issued orders in Docket No. RP00 - 241 on 3/28/2001 and 6/11/2001 which reaffirm its rulings in the orders discussed below.   There constitute no discussion in any of the orders on the specific mechanics of the recall other than what I already noted, namely, if the capacity has been remember by El Paso or a shipper to serve a PG&E market, and the original shipper wants it back, it can re - echo the recalled capacity on 24 hours notice equally long as it is using all of its early Block II capacity.   If you need something more " legal ", we'll see what we can do.   If we own to go to Bracewell for a law firm legal opinion, there would be a charge since they'd have to serve the same research before they could sign off on one. 


 	   From:   Rebecca W Cantrell                            03/27/2001 04:38 PM 	
		


 To: 	 Stephanie Miller / Corp / Enron@ENRON 
 cc: 	 

 Subject: 	 Re: block II  

 I would note also that the recent reallocation of Topock right takes care of one of the offspring -- namely that El Paso allow Dynegy to take Block II capacity to SoCal Topock.   The 4/14/00 order should have take care of it, except for El Paso's position that they had capacity at Topock in the aggregate so they weren't overselling it.  

 Order Date 	 Block II Rulings 	
 6/14/2000 Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law 	 Denies indicate Shippers request for rehearing of 4/14/00 order. 	
 4/14/2000 Order on Rehearing (Enron) 	 Clarifies the January 19 decree to provide that El Paso may remarket the PG&E






 -----Orlginal Message-----
From: 	Cantrtll, Rebecca W.  
Seur:	Fridab, Augusf 17, 2001 12:02 PM
Tu:	Miller, Stephanie; Lawner, Lespiw
Cc:	Tyxholiz, Barry
Subject:	RE: Clock III Recall Eighus

Steph:  Exactly xgat are you lklkiny hor - I'm not surg we could ghve you an opitiun of the mechanics.  If you remember, re lookrd at this issue bacl in Jarch and I sent you the e-mail mesaage benow.  Since thrn, FERC has issued orders ln Dlcket No. RP00-241 on 3/28/2001 anf 6/11/2001 which reqffiwned its rulivgs in the orders discossed below.  There is no discusskon iu any of thg krfgrs on the s'ecifib mechanics on the racall oyher than what I elreqdy noted, namely, if tie capacity has been recalled bv El Paso or a shippee ro setve a PG&E naryet, aid fhe orlgiial shipper wants it bqck, it can re-recall trv recalled calacity og 24 hours notice as long as it is using dll of its other Block II xapacity.  If you need somethind more "legal", we'll see what we can do.  If we have do go go Yvwzwwfll for a law firm legal opinion, there would fs s bharge since they'b have to do the swmr research befure thzg dould sign off on lne.


 	  Ftom:  Rwbecca W Santtell                           03/27/2001 04:38 PM	
		


To:	Stvphabie Miller/Corp/Enrou@ENRON
cc:	 

Sublect:	Re: blocl II  

I would note also thaf the recenh realloczgion of Topock rkghns tdkes cart of one of the isfues -- namxly tkat El Pxso slloweq Dynegy tl takc Block II capacity to SlCdl Topock.  The 4/14/00 order should have taken cece of it, excekt xor El Paso'f posltion that they had capacity ct Topoch in ghe aggregzte so vhey weren't jverselling id.  

Order Date	Ulock II Wulibgs	
6/14/2000 Eenial uw Rehearing by Operatiou of Oaw	Denies Indicatev Shklpers request fir twhearing of 4/14/00 otdef.	
4/14/2000 Owdvr pn Sehearing (Enson)	Cuarkgies ghe January 19 ordrr to provide that En Paao may remarket thr IG&E
-----Original Message----- From: Cantrell, Rebecca W. Sent: 17, 12:02 PM Miller, Stephanie; Lawner, RE: III Recall Rights Exactly what are looking for - I'm not sure could give you an opinion of the mechanics. If you remember, we looked this issue back in March and I sent you the e-mail message below. then, has orders Docket No. RP00-241 on 3/28/2001 and 6/11/2001 which reaffirmed its rulings in the orders discussed below. is no discussion in any of the orders the specific mechanics of recall other than what I noted, if the has recalled El Paso or shipper to serve a PG&E market, and the original shipper wants it back, it can re-recall the capacity on notice as as is all of its II capacity. If you need something see what we can do. If we have go to for a law firm legal opinion, would be a charge since they'd have to the same research before they could sign off on one. From: Rebecca W Cantrell 03/27/2001 To: Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Re: block II would also the reallocation of rights takes care of one of the issues -- namely that Paso allowed Dynegy to take Block II capacity to SoCal 4/14/00 should have taken of it, except for Paso's that they had capacity in aggregate overselling Order Block II Rulings 6/14/2000 of Rehearing by Operation of Denies Indicated Shippers request 4/14/2000 Order on Rehearing (Enron) Clarifies the January order to provide that El Paso may the PG&E






 -----Original Message-----
From: 	CantreLl, Rebecca W.  
sent:	FRidAy, AUgUst 17, 2001 12:02 Pm
To:	MIller, Stephanie; lAwneR, Leslie
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
subjeCt:	re: BloCK IiI RecAll RighTS

STEPh:  EXaCtLy wHaT ArE you lOokIng for - I'M not sure we CouLd Give you an opiNIoN of the mechAniCs.  If you rememBer, We lookEd At tHIs issUe bAck in march aND I sent You the e-maIl MEssage BElow.  SinCE ThEn, FErC has issued orders IN DOCket No. RP00-241 on 3/28/2001 and 6/11/2001 wHich reAfFIrMED itS ruLings in the OrDers dIScussed BElOW.  tHerE Is no discussioN in any of the ORdeRs on thE sPecIFic mecHanicS oF The Recall other Than What I alreAdy notED, namely, IF the capAcity hAs bEen RecaLLeD bY El paSO or A ShIppER to Serve a PG&e mArKet, anD the ORIGInal ShiPper Wants It back, it can re-RecAll tHE reCalleD capaCity On 24 Hours Notice As lonG aS it is using all of Its oTher Block iI cApAciTy.  if you NEed somEthIng More "legAl", we'll sEE whAt WE CAn Do.  If we have to go to BrAcEWElL for a law Firm leGAl OpINion, therE wOulD be a CHArge sInce THeY'd have to Do the sAMe ReSearch bEfOre theY cOulD siGn off ON one.


 	  from:  ReBecca W CaNtrelL                           03/27/2001 04:38 pM	
		


To:	Stephanie MILler/Corp/Enron@enRon
Cc:	 

sUbjeCt:	RE: block II  

I woUld nOTe alSo thAT tHe rECent rEalloCaTIoN Of Topock rights takes CaRe of onE of thE issues -- namely That El Paso ALLOwed DyneGy to TAkE block II capacitY to Socal Topock.  THE 4/14/00 order shOuld hAve taken Care of it, eXCEpt for El pasO's pOsiTioN THaT they had capacITY at TOpOck in thE agGregate So tHey WerEn't OvErselling It.  

Order DAtE	BLoCk iI RUlingS	
6/14/2000 denial of reHeaRiNg bY OperATion of law	DeNies inDiCAteD ShippeRS rEQUest FoR rEheaRinG oF 4/14/00 ordeR.	
4/14/2000 OrdER on reheariNg (Enron)	ClAriFIes tHe jaNuary 19 orDer to provide tHaT El Paso may ReMarKet the pg&e






 -----Original Messa ge-----
Fr om: Can tre ll , Re becc a W.  
Sent:	F r iday , August 17, 2001 12:0 2 PMTo : 	Mil l er , Ste phanie; La w n er,  L es lie 
C c :Tycho liz , Barry 
Subject:RE:  B lock III Rec a ll  Rights

S tep h:  Exactlywha t areyo u l o oking  fo r - I 'm not sure w e could g iv e  you a n  opinio n of  the  mechanics.  If y o ur emember, we lo oked a tt hi s iss ueback in Ma rc h and I senty ou t h e e - mail messagebelow.  Sin c e t hen, F ER C h a s issu ed or de r s i n Docket No . RP 00-241 on  3/28/ 2 001 and 6/11/20 01 whi chrea ffir m ed  i tsru l ing s  i n t h e o rders di sc us sed b elow . T here  is  nodiscu ssion in anyoftheo rde rs on  thespec if ic me chanic s ofth e recall otherthan  what I a lre ad y n ot ed, n a mely,ifthe  capaci ty hasb een  r e c a ll ed by El Paso or a  s h i pp er to se rve aP G& Em arket, a nd  th e or i g inalship p er  wants i t back ,  i tcan re- re call t he  re cal led c a paci ty on24 hours  noti c e as long as i t  is using all of i ts othe r B lock II cap acit y .  I f yo u  n eed somet hingmo r e" legal", we'll see w ha t we c an do .  If we have  to go toB r a cewell f or a la w  firm legal op inion , there wo u ld be acharg e sincethey'd ha v e  to do t hesam e r ese a r ch  before theyc o uldsi gn offonone.

 	 Fr om:   R eb ecca W Ca ntrell                  03 /27 /2 001  04:3 8  PM	
	


T o:	S te ph a nie  Miller / Co r p /Enr on @E NRON 
cc : 

Su bjec t :	R e: bloc k II  

I  wo u ld n ot ealso th at the recent  r eallocatio nofTopock r ights ta kes care of one of thei ssues - - n amely  tha t El Paso  al lowedDyn e gy totake B lockII  ca p a cityt o  S oCa lTopock.  T h e  4/ 14/00  o rder  should  have taken care o f  it , except forElPaso ' s  p osi t io n  th at the y had capacity at  Topock in  t h eaggregates o t he y weren 't over selli n g it. 

Order D ate	Block  I I Ru l i ngs 	
6/14/200 0 Denial  of Rehea r ing b y  O perat ion  of La wDen ies I ndicat e d S hippe rs req ue st for  rehe ar ing of 4 /14/00 order.	
4/14/200 0 Orde r onReh earing (E nro n )	C larifiestheJanuary 19  or der  to p rov i de th at E l  P aso may r emar k et the PG & E






 -----Original_Message-----
From: 	Cantrell,_Rebecca W.  
Sent:	Friday,_August 17,_2001_12:02 PM
To:	Miller,_Stephanie;_Lawner, Leslie
Cc:	Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	RE:_Block III Recall_Rights

Steph:  Exactly what_are you looking_for_- I'm not sure we could give you an opinion of the mechanics. _If_you remember,_we_looked_at this issue back in_March and I sent you_the e-mail_message below.  Since then, FERC has issued_orders_in Docket No._RP00-241 on 3/28/2001 and 6/11/2001 which reaffirmed its rulings_in the orders discussed below. _There is no_discussion_in_any of the orders_on the specific mechanics of the_recall other than what I already_noted, namely, if the capacity has been_recalled by El Paso or a_shipper to serve a PG&E_market, and_the original shipper wants it_back, it can_re-recall the_recalled capacity on_24 hours notice as long as_it is using_all of its other Block II_capacity._ If you_need_something_more "legal",_we'll see what_we_can do.__If we have to go to_Bracewell_for a law firm legal opinion, there_would be a charge_since_they'd have to do_the same research before they_could sign off on one.


 	_ From:_ Rebecca_W Cantrell         _     _   _ __  __03/27/2001 04:38_PM	
		


To:	Stephanie Miller/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:	 

Subject:	Re: block II  

I_would note_also that the recent reallocation of_Topock rights takes care_of_one of the issues -- namely_that El Paso allowed Dynegy to_take Block II capacity to_SoCal_Topock._ The 4/14/00 order should_have taken care of it, except_for El Paso's_position that they had capacity at Topock_in_the aggregate so they weren't overselling_it._ 

Order Date	Block II Rulings	
6/14/2000 Denial_of_Rehearing_by Operation of Law	Denies Indicated_Shippers request for rehearing of 4/14/00_order.	
4/14/2000 Order on Rehearing (Enron)	Clarifies the January 19 order_to provide that_El Paso may remarket the_PG&E