Enron Mail

From:drew.fossum@enron.com
To:mary.miller@enron.com
Subject:Re: TW Unsubscribed capacity & ROFR
Cc:glen.hass@enron.com, susan.scott@enron.com, rita.bianchi@enron.com,mary.darveaux@enron.com
Bcc:glen.hass@enron.com, susan.scott@enron.com, rita.bianchi@enron.com,mary.darveaux@enron.com
Date:Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:18:00 -0800 (PST)

I agree with MKM--I think we either said or at least implied in the options
conf. and filings that ROFR cap. isn't posted as available until the ROFR is
waived. I think that approach is the logical way to handle postings and that
we are pretty much locked into that approach. On the commercial issue Rita
mentions below, it seems to me that Elizabeth Brown has the commercial
impacts backwards--the marketers have always told us they are able to
negotiate higher rates if LESS CAPACITY is posted as available because of the
appearance of scarcity. On that logic, we should want to keep ROFR capacity
off the EBB until the right is waived. DF





From: Mary Kay Miller 01/26/2001 07:33 AM


To: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew
Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Rita Bianchi/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: TW Unsubscribed capacity & ROFR

My thoughts on that we just filed to state that ROFR capacity isn't posted as
available. Yet, this , as I understand it leads the market to think it is,
and then when a market requests the service, we'll tell them it isn't
available. Seems to head us to bad customer relations and false impression
on capacity available. If its under contract, we shouldn't falsely advertise
it as available in my opinion. What are others thoughts? MK





From: Glen Hass 01/25/2001 06:36 PM


To: Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Rita Bianchi/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON

Subject: Re: TW Unsubscribed capacity & ROFR

Mary Kay,

Are up OK with this footnote idea instead of changing the capacity posting to
reflect ROFR rights?




Rita Bianchi
01/22/2001 08:17 AM

To: Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Darveaux/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: TW Unsubscribed capacity & ROFR

According to Elizabeth Brown, TW Marketing does NOT want to change their
Unsubscribed/General capacity posting to exclude ROFR. They would prefer a
footnote that capacity may be subject to ROFR. As I understand it, TW
Marketers feel that they can negotiate better prices for capacity if it
isn't widely known that the capacity is under ROFR. Elizabeth suggested that
they talk to Susan Scott.

I confirmed with Bob Johnson & Doug Aschwege that NNG's posting excludes
capacity that is subject to ROFR.