Looks good to me.  One remaining concern is that section (d) may not provide much protection.  According to the power trading lawyers who have worked with the FERC in the past, they never provide protection for what we would consider confidential commercial information even when they have the authority to do so.  If we want that kind of protection, it should be mandated, not made possible by regulatory action.  I'm not necessarily recommending a change, I just don't want anyone to be taking any comfort from section (d).

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Yoho, Lisa  
Sent:	Monday, September 17, 2001 11:37 AM
To:	Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:	FW: Transparency language

This is the language that I referred to in my email.  I have sent this to Brad and Greg as well.  I have been working with Brad to refine the language in a way that gives them the least amount of heartburn.

Let me know what you think.

Lisa

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Yoho, Lisa  
Sent:	Monday, September 17, 2001 11:34 AM
To:	Taylor, Mark E (Legal)
Subject:	FW: Transparency language



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Long, Chris  
Sent:	Friday, September 14, 2001 3:29 PM
To:	Robertson, Linda; Shelk, John; Yoho, Lisa
Subject:	Transparency language

Linda  - Here is the draft changes to the Bingaman electricity bill for your discussion with Louise.  They draw from Ken Raisler's comments and Lisa's review.  Houston would prefer to have the language deleted, which John reports is highley unlikely.  John also reports that the changes should be simple and clean - we think these meet that criterea.  

 << File: transparencychange.doc >>