Message-ID: <5828452.1075859075644.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:12:24 -0800 (PST) From: bill.rapp@enron.com To: gregory.porter@enron.com Subject: RE: Transwestern/USGT - Response to Data Request Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Rapp, Bill X-To: Porter, J. Gregory X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Bill_Rapp_Jan2002\Rapp, Bill\Sent Items X-Origin: Rapp-B X-FileName: brapp (Non-Privileged).pst Actually, I recommended that we attach the entire bids and not the summaries. I believe it was Mary Kay and Steve Kirk who thought the summaries would be better. -----Original Message----- From: Porter, J. Gregory Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:37 AM To: Rapp, Bill Subject: RE: Transwestern/USGT - Response to Data Request I am ok with a summary (although I don't think it is as powerful of evidence, assuming the bids show we complied). Out of curiosity, why are summaries better (or should I ask: Whats wrong with the bids). Greg -----Original Message----- From: Rapp, Bill Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:16 AM To: Miller, Mary Kay; Kirk, Steve Cc: Porter, J. Gregory; Pavlou, Maria Subject: Transwestern/USGT - Response to Data Request I'm having faxed to each of you a summary that was prepared by Michelle Lokay of the bids that were received by third parties for the USGT capacity. I understand that the preference is to provide FERC with a summary rather than the actual bids.