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