Message-ID: <11026229.1075842512971.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: drew.fossum@enron.com
To: martha.benner@enron.com
Subject: TW Options
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Drew Fossum
X-To: Martha Benner
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: FOSSUM-D
X-FileName: dfossum.nsf

pls print--I'll look at it in the am (maybe!) DF
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 08/01/2000 
04:13 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           08/01/2000 01:53 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com
cc:  

Subject: TW Options

Here is the latest draft of the filing for transport options.  Significant 
changes include:

- added definition of Counterparty
- added captions and reorganized the filing to more clearly reflect 
compliance with 154.202
- included an explanation of how the option fee will be part of a negotiated 
rate
- added an example of how options will work

I think we need to decide whether we are better off with the type of option 
fee explanation I have in this draft, or whether we should instead state the 
fee will be market based, and include an explanation that, pursuant to the 
Commission's discussion in Order 637, market based rates are appropriate 
because we are going to commit to an open season process that will be 
nondiscriminatory and that will ensure we aren't withholding capacity from 
the market.  

Can we have a conference call to discuss your comments this week?  I will 
have Janet call to determine your availability.