Subject: Re: Update: posting of available capacity on TW
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:49:00 -0800 (PST)

I agree-- I also thought we were already doing it that way.  MKM and Glen:  
Is this a problem on NN also???

Susan Scott
01/17/2001 04:30 PM
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Update: posting of available capacity on TW

In representing to participants at the TW Options technical conference that 
shipper call options will not be sold on capacity that is subject to a ROFR, 
our underlying assumption (I believe) was that capacity subject to a ROFR 
isn't posted as generally available either.  Jeff, Lorraine and I just 
learned that this is not the case.  Our "generally available" posting system 
does not distinguish between capacity rolling off of a contract and capacity 
that is subject to a ROFR; all it recognizes is the expiration of the initial 
contract term.  Therefore, we have capacity posted on our website that is 
subject to the current shipper's ROFR and that is therefore not really 
available.  We found this out when a shipper called asking about some posted 
space.  Jeff's initial reaction was "no, that space isn't available."  But 
when we checked the posting, there it was.  The commercial people instantly 
recognized it as space currently subject to a contract that contains a ROFR.  

My recommendation is that we modify the posting procedure to NOT post 
capacity until we know that capacity is unsubscribed after we jump thru all 
the ROFR hoops.  The premature posting of that capacity is, at best, 
confusing to our customers who might count on getting the space by bidding 
maximum rate.  I realize that modifying our system might involve additional 
time and cost, but I think it's misleading to leave it as is.  Please let me 
know whether you concur.