I've a couple of suggestions here.  First, given the excruciating experience 
we had last time with one-tenth increments, should we consider two-tenths 
(I'd like to use 1/4 cent increments but we're limited to 3 decimal places)?  
Secondly, I've tried to respond with a language fix for paragraph 5 
consistent with your concern of how to handle alternate rights.  Finally, 
I've done a little tinkering with the terms sheet.  Ya'll are free to do with 
these what you will.




   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           08/03/2000 11:21 AM
	

To: Christine Stokes/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin 
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, TK 
Lohman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Michelle Lokay/ET&S/Enron@Enron 

Subject: Re: TW IOS Posting PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL  

Christine, see the attached.  I've changed paragraph 8 to be like our last 
posting, and added in a sentence saying ties will be decided by lottery (but 
omitted reference to the lottery provisions of our tariff this time).

My only other comment is that I think the group needs to discuss beforehand 
how a shipper's request for alternate points is going to be treated.  As 
currently drafted, this notice prohibits shippers from conditioning bids on 
use of alternate points at the bid rate, which calls into question our 
granting the winning bidder use of alternate points at a discount.  If we do 
intend to let the winning bidder shippers use alt. points at a discounted 
rate, we should take this statement out (end of paragraph 5).  

If we're still living in a max. rate world, though, this really is not much 
of a concern since use of the alternate points would also be at max. rate.

Any questions -- give me a call.

S.




Christine Stokes
08/03/2000 09:26 AM
To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: TW IOS Posting

Susan, please review the following IOS posting.  Thanks.