Canyon Creek Compression Company

Third Revised Volume No. 1

 Contents / Previous / Next / Main Tariff Index



Effective Date: 12/01/1993, Docket: RS92- 57-003, Status: Effective

Original Sheet No. 159 Original Sheet No. 159 : Effective








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 16.10(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

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

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

Section 16.10(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.