|
|
Enron Mail |
I agree-- I also thought we were already doing it that way. MKM and Glen:
Is this a problem on NN also??? Susan Scott 01/17/2001 04:30 PM To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Drew Fossum@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Glen Hass/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Jeffery Fawcett/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Update: posting of available capacity on TW In representing to participants at the TW Options technical conference that shipper call options will not be sold on capacity that is subject to a ROFR, our underlying assumption (I believe) was that capacity subject to a ROFR isn't posted as generally available either. Jeff, Lorraine and I just learned that this is not the case. Our "generally available" posting system does not distinguish between capacity rolling off of a contract and capacity that is subject to a ROFR; all it recognizes is the expiration of the initial contract term. Therefore, we have capacity posted on our website that is subject to the current shipper's ROFR and that is therefore not really available. We found this out when a shipper called asking about some posted space. Jeff's initial reaction was "no, that space isn't available." But when we checked the posting, there it was. The commercial people instantly recognized it as space currently subject to a contract that contains a ROFR. My recommendation is that we modify the posting procedure to NOT post capacity until we know that capacity is unsubscribed after we jump thru all the ROFR hoops. The premature posting of that capacity is, at best, confusing to our customers who might count on getting the space by bidding maximum rate. I realize that modifying our system might involve additional time and cost, but I think it's misleading to leave it as is. Please let me know whether you concur.
|