---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 03/08/2000 
08:21 AM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           03/07/2000 06:05 PM
	

To: Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew 
Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dari Dornan@Enron, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Order 637: TW Comment on Rehearing Request

With regard to the Commission's limitations on the right of first refusal, 
Order 637 provides for grandfathering of discounted long-term contracts that 
are now subject to ROFR.  The Commission's rationale was that grandfathering 
gives all shippers notice of the new limitation and the opportunity to 
re-execute current contracts.  The TW Commercial Group has asked whether we 
should challenge the grandfathering of existing contracts.  In limiting the 
right of first refusal, the Commission has expressly acknowledged that if a 
customer is truly captive and has no alternatives for service, it is likely 
that its contract will be at the maximum rate.  Shippers that are not captive 
and have alternatives in the marketplace do not need the protection of ROFR, 
and the pipeline should be able to negotiate with other interested shippers 
upon expiration of the contract. 
 
In light of these conclusions, there should be no reason to grandfather the 
ROFR rights of shippers under existing discounted contracts.  Such shippers 
would not be harmed by removal of the right immediately upon the effective 
date of a pipeline's tariff filing to limit the right of first refusal 
(assuming the service contract incorporates tariff terms on an "as amended" 
basis).  Consistent with the Commission's order, it would not be unfair to 
make these shippers compete with others for the capacity upon expiration of 
the contract.