Becky --

My only question is one of emphasis.  Are points 3&4 the key for Barry T.?  If so, should we move them up higher?  Also, why the very lenghthy discussion of pooling points?  The length makes the points after that discussion hard to appreciate.  Maybe a list of bullet points up front?

Jim


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cantrell, Rebecca W.  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 03, 2001 5:27 PM
To:	Alvarez, Ray; Comnes, Alan; Frank, Robert; Gahn, Scott; Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Perrino, Dave; Sharp, Greg; Shireman, Kristann; Smith, Matt; Steffes, James D.; Stoness, Scott; Thome, Jennifer; Walton, Steve; Allen, Phillip K.; Black, Don; Calcagno, Suzanne; Courtney, Mark; Dasovich, Jeff; Ermis, Frank; Fulton, Donna; Gay, Randall L.; Grigsby, Mike; Hewitt, Jess P.; Holst, Keith; Kaufman, Paul; Kuykendall, Tori; Mara, Susan; McMichael Jr., Ed; Miller, Stephanie; Nicolay, Christi L.; Smith, Matt; Sullivan, Patti; Superty, Robert; Tholt, Jane M.; Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	PLEASE RESPOND BY FRIDAY, 10/5 -- El Paso Comments RP00-336

Please review the attached filing and provide any comments you may have by COB Friday, 10/5.  

The filing is ENA's comments on El Paso's proposal for receipt point allocation, focusing on discussions at the two technical conferences in the proceeding.  Also, it may be that, based on further discussion with certain other shippers, we will modify our statement in Item No. 1 to to support a different version of the method for allocating receipt point rights, but only if there is strong opposition to our method.  We don't want FERC to select the method that El Paso proposed originally.

   << File: RP00-336-002 Conf Comments Drft8.doc >>