Marcie,
 In my view, the Planning issue is more of a matter for an RTO tariff than 
for the WIO agreement.  When we created the RTGs (WRTA, SWRTA, NRTA) we put 
that kind of language into the agreement because there were no open access 
tariffs.  We no have Order No. 888 OATTs except for a few parties, so I am 
not sure that we need to retain the transmission access language in WIO.  The 
specific language could create a conflict because the RTO tariff may have 
different provisions which don 't match based on a division of responsiblity 
for lines between those on congested paths and lines within local areas.

 On ADR, I have heard all the old arguments an believe the WRTA/NRTA approach 
is better.  They both lead to quick resolution and have been show in NRTA's 
case to have resolved real disputes relatively quickly.  The approach 
advocated by SWRTA tries to avoid using FERC as the final decision maker in 
matters of transmission access.  The SWRTA process takes months before you 
can complain and then you get a mandatory outcome, even if the arbitrator 
fails to understand FERC requirements.  This could put you between a rock and 
a hard place, if there is a conflict.  We should resist the SWRTA approach, 
and vote for a short mediation, followed by either party being able to go to 
arbitration, the "last best offer first" style of arbitration and an 
appealable arbitration decision to the FERC.  

Steve


From: Marcie Milner@ENRON on 09/05/2000 03:20 PM
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard 
Ingersoll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES, Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES, 
Susan_J_Mara@enron.com, Bruno Gaillard/SFO/EES@EES 
Subject: WIO Bylaws - Feedback Requested

Following are two issues that are currently being debated to which I am 
requesting feedback in order to submit an Enron position prior to the 
Steering Committee being held this week.  

Planning:  Parties are lobbying language to disclose all planning projects 
permitting anyone to join provided the interested party pays the incremental 
cost i.e. TO #1 wants to build a 2000 MW Kv line and maintain rights to all 
2000 MW, TO #2 wants to increase the lines capability by 400 MW and retain 
rights to all 400 MW.  In this scenario, TO #2 would have to pay all costs 
associated with upgrading the line.  The argument is that in an RTO world 
this scenario is irrelevant, however, I see this as a potential seams issue.

ADR:  Parties are lobbying to change language from mandatory binding 
arbitration with limited appeal to FERC TO mandatory binding arbitration only 
if both parties agree with the ability to bypass and go directly to FERC.  
(All entities with the exception of SWRTA currently enforce the former.  
SWRTA additionally has a provision that calls for a pre-arbitration peer 
review.)

FYI:  Class definitions are such that WAPA qualifies for membership in only 
one class and the regions do not fit the affiliate definition.  Therefore, if 
each region wants to join and have one vote per region in said class, they 
must each pay $5000 and the larger entity must pay the net energy to load 
ratio of total load with the larger region collecting pro rata compensation 
from the other regions.

Any comments you have are appreciated.

Marcie