Caprock Pipeline Company

First Revised Volume No. 1

 Contents / Previous / Next / Main Tariff Index



Effective Date: 09/01/1999, Docket: RP99-452-000, Status: Effective

Second Revised Sheet No. 25 Second Revised Sheet No. 25 : Effective

Superseding: First Revised Sheet No. 25






EXAMPLE (6) The assumptions remain the same as in Example (5),

except that we assume that Bids (c) and (d) were never




Winning Qualified Bids: Bid (b) receives 60,000. Bid (e) receives

30,000. Bid (f) receives 10,000.



Explanation: There are two combinations of Qualified Bids with the

Winning Bid Value:



Combination 1 Combination 2

----------------- -----------------


Bid (a): 60,000 Bid (b): 60,000

Bid (e): 30,000 Bid (e): 30,000

Bid (f): 10,000 Bid (f): 10,000



(Pro rata allocation pursuant to Section 13.10(d)(2) between Bids

(a), (b) and (e) doesn't work, because only Bid (e) has a low enough

Minimum Bid Volume to accept 100/150 capacity allocation and Bid (e)

alone cannot create the Winning Bid Value). Under Section

13.10(d)(3)(A), we compare Combinations 1 and 2 for the highest

individual Maximum Bid Volumes, and find them all equal. Under

Section 13.10(d)(3)(B), the tie breaker goes to the Winning Bid Value

combination containing the Qualified Bid having the highest Maximum

Bid Volume and the lowest Minimum Bid Volume. In this case, Bid (b)

has the same (highest) Maximum Bid Volume as Bid (a) but a lower

Minimum Bid Volume. Therefore, Combination 2 wins.