Message-ID: <10916157.1075846739223.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:08:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: jeffery.fawcett@enron.com
Subject: Re: TW position in All-Party Settlement Proposal
Cc: mbaldwin@igservices.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mbaldwin@igservices.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Jeffery Fawcett
X-cc: mbaldwin@igservices.com
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\'sent mail
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

I'm a little uncomfortable with saying "TW defers to the consensus position 
of the non-SoCal settlement parties" so often.  Could we just not say 
anything on those items?  Or say TW has no comment at this time.  Would the 
other parties be put off if we were silent on these issues?








Jeffery Fawcett
02/28/2000 03:43 PM
To: mbaldwin@igservices.com
cc:  (bcc: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron)

Subject: TW position in All-Party Settlement Proposal

Attached see my marked-up version of your work product.  Mark, I think you 
did an excellent job of identifying TW's position in all of the issue in the 
GIR.  However, on editing, you'll see that I truncated some of the TW 
comments in favor of a slightly shorter document -- particularly in those 
areas in which it was questionable whether we have a direct interest or not.  
Look over and give me your feedback.  Thanks.

I understand we're supposed to offer these comments to Craig as soon as 
possible for possible inclusion in a 2nd generation "issue matrix?"