Susan,
I'm assuming that Ms. Corman is "all over this."  I was wondering whether you 
intended to go to D.C. also to represent TW's interest in the proceeding?  If 
not, may we assume that Shelley will give us a complete report on the meeting 
and FERC's next steps?

I note with curiosity the reference in the GD article to the fact that 
parties apparently were asking whether pipelines "needed" to offer new 
services?  Do you know the background behind this issue?  It may have some 
bearing on the Transport Options filing as at least one party I believe 
questioned why TW was even offering this new service.  In addition to the 
question of affiliate relationship/behavior, the question of market power 
(ie. capacity hoarding) apparently is ripe for discussion also during the 
Jan. 31 meeting.  

Do you know if we are working to prepare comments or a position paper to 
submit to FERC by Jan. 5?

One last thing, how should we proceed with respect to coordinating the timing 
of our technical conference on Transport Options with this pending meeting at 
FERC?  Do we gain more by attempting to schedule a technical conference 
before the FERC meeting or after?   It seems to me that if the technical 
conference was held before the FERC meeting, all protest issues related to 
affiliate marketing rules and/or capacity hoarding questions could easily be 
set aside pending the outcome of the FERC meeting and/or any subsequent FERC 
rulemaking on the matter.  However, I question FERC's appetite to conduct the 
technical conference prior to the Jan. 31 meeting when it is known in advance 
that the affiliate marketing rules figure so prominently in the case.  What 
do you think?

Regulatory roundup
FERC is getting ready to resume the industry dialogue on promoting 
competitive interstate
transportation markets. In an order issued last week, the commission fixed 
the date for a
staff conference on one of the most contentious topics in the industry: 
affiliate transactions.
The meeting * the second in a series of three * is scheduled for Jan. 31. 
Comments
and requests to participate are due by Jan. 5.

Commission staff will have their hands full with this one. At the first 
roundtable on
Sept. 19, FERC tackled efforts to promote greater market liquidity following 
the introduction
of Order 637 (GD 9/20).  The discussions were polite, but they failed to 
yield a consensus
over the extent to which FERC needs to overhaul rate design.  Likewise, many 
in the
energy industry are not in agreement about the need for new pipeline services.
A discussion of affiliate issues promises to be more rancorous.  At the Sept. 
19 meeting,
in fact, some audience participants were eager to call attention to affiliate 
problems on certain
interstate pipelines.  FERC staff, however, kept a lid on those discussions, 
and did not
allow comment on any ongoing case.

On Jan. 31, the discussion will focus on &whether the regulatory policy with 
respect to
pipeline affiliates and non-affiliates, as well as asset managers and agents, 
should be revised
to reflect the changing nature of the gas market8 and &whether there needs to 
be revisions to
the regulations relating to pipeline affiliates.8

At present, affiliate relationships are governed by certain standards of 
conduct.  Other
market participants can monitor those transactions through various posting 
and reporting
requirements.  But not all pipelines are subject to the same requirements, 
and the upcoming
discussion is intended to open a dialogue about the market power implications 
of transactions 
between pipelines and their affiliates.  The panel will also examine the 
relationship
between non-pipeline capacity holders and their affiliates.