I suspect this didn't get to you as I originally used your MSN address.  DF
---------------------- Forwarded by Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron on 08/14/2000 
08:59 AM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           08/13/2000 01:25 PM
	

To: Maria Pavlou/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven 
Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy 
Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sheila 
Nacey/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, darveaux@tconl.com, 
jeffery fawcett@msn.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com, Sstojic@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Re: TW's 637 Filing  

Attached is my redline of your Sat. draft.  In addition to the revisions in 
the doc, I have a few questions and concerns:
1.  On the segmenting section, I think it is a fine legal argument, but it 
lacks something.  What is our "or else" position?  Does the Global Settlement 
give us any FERC-out rights or colorable argument that the entire deal should 
be unwound if FERC screws up the segmenting issue?  I'm not suggesting that 
we should trigger a FERC out if we have one, but if we arguably do, we should 
consider threatening to use it.  I'm afraid we come across as whiny and 
FERC's position will likely be "so what, what are you going to do about it?"  
If we have no arguable "FERC-out" and the only  "or else" we have is that 
we'll take them to Court and force them to adhere to the original deal, I'm 
for leaving the draft as-is.  We can make our appeal threat more direct on 
rehearing if they hose us in the initial order.
2.  On the arbitrage argument, I've taken out any reference to an example and 
softened the verbiage a bit.  I want to leave in the references to the 
arbitrage issue, however, because FERC understands the problem and believes 
it is widespread.  We don't need to prove exactly how big a problem it is on 
our system (although it would have been very effective if we had clear facts).
3.  Do any of the OBA changes arguably conflict with the Global Settlement?  
If so, we'd  better be prepared to eat our words from the segmenting 
section.  Covering ourselves in the sanctity of that Settlement in section 1 
and then fiddling around with it in section 2 won't play well.  It is my 
understanding that the OBA system on TW was not part of the turnback 
resolution deal so I hope this won't be a problem.  
4.  On FN 20, I'd suggest we use Vig's data and chart for May of 2000.  The 
arb opportunity is huge and clear.  We reference in the FN that we use all 
six of the Gas Daily price points, and I think Vig used just 3.  What's the 
right answer?     

Good work everyone--please give it one more careful look on Monday AM and it 
should be good to go.  DF     










Maria Pavlou
08/12/2000 08:33 AM
To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary 
Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan 
Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Jeffery 
Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Lindy Donoho/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Julia 
White/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Sheila Nacey/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Shelley 
Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, darveaux@tconl.com, jeffery fawcett@msn.com, 
fkelly@gbmdc.com
cc:  

Subject: TW's 637 Filing

I have tried to incorporate comments from our meeting last Thursday as well 
as written comments provided to me.  There are still some areas that we need 
to decide on.  For example, we need to determine if arbitrage argument works 
and finalize related Exhibits.  Also, re:  daily imbalance pricing at points 
that have EFM, are we keeping the 25,000 Dth??  Also, I'm not sure whether we 
confirmed that we have only called one Alert Day since 1994.  Finally, we 
need to double check the tariff language on autobalancing per note on page 29 
of draft.  Please review and provide me with comments early on Monday.  
Thanks.  Maria