One additional point.  If we aren't going to try to rebut the "funny money" 
argument on the merits, can we at least have Leslie Lawner or someone loaded 
up to dispute their circumstantial case?  Both Amoco and Dynegy argue that 
marketing affiliates hold a much higher percentage of the capacity on their 
sister pipelines than they do on non-affiliated pipes.  They argue that 
unfairness or abuse can be inferred from that fact alone.  The Enron pipes 
may be a statistical oddity on this.  A very small percentage of NN and TW 
capacity has been held by affiliates.  I think the same is true on Border and 
to a lesser extent on Florida.  Amoco and Dynegy can't have it both ways.  If 
they want to infer abuse from a large percentage of a pipe's capacity being 
held by marketing affiliates (i.e., El Paso) then they also have to infer an 
absence of abuse from a small percentage (i.e., the Enron pipes).  Can we 
argue this???  DF    




Shelley Corman
01/19/2001 09:32 AM
To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: danny.mccarty@enron.com, Robert Kilmer/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Ray 
Neppl/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Bambi 
Heckerman/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Teb Lokey/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Drew 
Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dorothy McCoppin/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Janet 
Place/NPNG/Enron@ENRON, Frazier King/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Maria 
Pavlou/ET&S/Enron, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Janet 
Butler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Nancy Bagot/OTS/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Update on Marketing affiliate Conference  

I think Joan will do great at addressing the issue that there is no evidence 
of abuse.  I'm not as confident  that she will be as indignent as I would be 
about why we spent so much money on transactional reporting if nobody is 
going to use it.    I'm going to write up a q/a for her on this points.  We 
probably should make transparency a focal point in our follow-up comments.