Message-ID: <26630904.1075842488385.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:11:00 -0800 (PST) From: shelley.corman@enron.com To: mary.miller@enron.com Subject: Re: TW options filing Cc: drew.fossum@enron.com, susan.scott@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: drew.fossum@enron.com, susan.scott@enron.com, glen.hass@enron.com, mary.darveaux@enron.com X-From: Shelley Corman X-To: Mary Kay Miller X-cc: Drew Fossum, Susan Scott, Glen Hass, Mary Darveaux X-bcc: X-Folder: \Drew_Fossum_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: FOSSUM-D X-FileName: dfossum.nsf I thought that was the point of requesting a December 1 date -- so that the Commission had a longer period to act. Since we requested an effective date with more than 30 days advance notice (but less than 60 days per 154.207 of the regs), then the Commission has until the effective date to act? ( NGA 717c.) From: Mary Kay Miller 11/13/2000 12:16 PM To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: TW options filing At this mornings staff meeting, Stan asked about the status of TW options filing, Shelley indicated that she felt it would be on the Nov 21 st agenda. The 30 days to act is up on Nov. 16th, if the FERC hasn't done anything aren't the tariff sheets approved as filed?? If that answer is yes, isn't an order after that date required to meet the SS 5 requirements?? Just thinking about the timing- MK