Message-ID: <17229601.1075842535044.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:01:00 -0800 (PST) From: drew.fossum@enron.com To: denise.lagesse@enron.com Subject: RE: TW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Drew Fossum X-To: Denise LaGesse X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_2\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf pls print for me on Monday--thanks. df ---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 02/11/2001 08:01 PM --------------------------- From: Maria Pavlou/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/09/2001 04:02 PM To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: RE: TW I haven't done additional research, but off the top of my head here's what I think. 1. Open season giving all parties an equal shot to capacity is better than selective marketing. However, once capacity is posted, a shipper is free to inquire about it and we should be free to solicit interest by picking up the phone. I can research whether any pipeline got its hand slapped for selective marketing. 2. I thought we had agreed that we need a separate provision that governs the allocation of capacity on TW's system apart from ROFR. In the rewrite, we should add language that allows us to use any non-discriminatory allocation methodology as long as we give shippers advance notice by posting the methodology on our website. Until then, Section 13 of the FTS-1 Rate Schedule is the only guidance we have. "All available capacity shall be allocated under these procedures..." The lottery only comes into play if there are two bids of equal value. I think we could use pro-rata as an allocation methodology if we notified all parties on the website ahead of time. 3. I agree with you on the approval process for negotiated rates and no or limited approval for standard language max-rate deals. Maria. -----Original Message----- From: Fossum, Drew Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 2:20 PM To: Harris, Steven; Hyatt, Kevin; Scott, Susan; Pavlou, Maria; Huber, Lee; Miller, Mary Kay; Hass, Glen Cc: Corman, Shelley Subject: TW In the last several weeks several areas have come up where the TW commercial team could, in my opinion, use some clear written guidance on gray areas under the tariff ought to be interpreted. Here is my list. Please add items if I've missed any. 1. When can TW "selectively market" available capacity? I.e., if capacity is on the board as available, and no one has bought it, are there any limits on calling up a customer, or a group of customers, and pitching a deal? I think we have a lot of discretion here--after all, using the telephone to talk to one customer is always "selective" since there's only one guy on the phone, not all our customers. Also, can we deliberately leave a customer off the list of "the usual suspects" we call to pitch a special deal like an index to index deal or a discount? I've asked Lee to pull together a quick analysis of this issue. 2. If we get multiple bids for a chunk of capacity outside of the open season context, how do we allocate it? This is the situation we got into a couple of weeks ago on the '02 and '03 space. Are we always required to use a lottery? Do we need to modify the tariff to use pro rata, or can we use pro rata simply by notifying the customers in advance? 3. What approval process applies to max rate contracts and negotiated rate contracts? The ET&S discount approval procedure still applies to TW discounted deals (even there is no ET&S anymore). I think all neg. rate deals should be approved by law and regulatory, but I don't need to see max rate strd language deals. 4. ??? I think there was another issue, but I can't remember what it was. Thanks for your input on this. DF