Message-ID: <7969788.1075842437747.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:31:00 -0800 (PST) From: shelley.corman@enron.com To: mary.miller@enron.com Subject: Re: TW Options filing Cc: susan.scott@enron.com, drew.fossum@enron.com, jeffery.fawcett@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com, mary.darveaux@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: susan.scott@enron.com, drew.fossum@enron.com, jeffery.fawcett@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com, mary.darveaux@enron.com X-From: Shelley Corman X-To: Mary Kay Miller X-cc: Susan Scott, Drew Fossum, Jeffery Fawcett, Glen Hass, Mary Darveaux X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf In our pre-filing discussion, we explained the awarding of call options as follows: Because call options are only sold after we have tried to sell the underlying capacity and there were no takers at max. rate or an acceptable price, there is really only 1 variable -- the total rate (consisting of the option component and the strike price). The call option is posted for a specific quantity, start date, etc. There are no other variables. It's just price. From our discussions with Mike Coleman and crew on this topic -- I think is it absolutely key that we keep the award variables to a minimum. My take is that the transmittal letter referring to highest price is the right way to go. The concept in the tariff about posting the evaluation criteria (implying that there are more variables) could kill the deal.