Attached is the latest draft of the Transport Option Program filing.
There are a couple of important changes from the last draft.
One is that we're no longer stating that the option fee is going to be  "market-based."
At FERC, the term "market-based" has connotations of having  to prove to FERC that a non-cost-based rate is appropriate because we lack  market power.
While we probably do lack market power, the consensus of the  legal/regulatory team was to try to portray the option fee as a built-in  feature of the transport rate, which is simply being disaggregated into a  separate option fee.
If this theory is not clear to you after you read the  filing letter, let's discuss how it should be improved.
The other significant change (also based on my meeting with legal/regulatory)  is that I've structured the tariff language and the agreement so that every  shipper, regardless of whether they currently use transport on TW, will have  to have a firm transportation agreement when they buy an option.
In other  words, a shipper that does not currently have a service agreement will simply  execute an agreement with a MAXDTQ of zero.
This structure has two  advantages:  1) it's consistent with our option-fee-as-part-of-transport-rate  theory, and 2) it will help support that theory in our next rate case.
I'd like to meet next week, either Wednesday afternoon or Thursday, to  discuss the following topics:  1)  Your comments and questions on this draft, 2)  Some examples of options, to make sure the tariff provisions and contract  work from a logistical standpoint, 3)  The bidding process, and how bids for options will be evaluated, and 4)  Comments received from shippers thus far.
I'll be working on 41 tomorrow; let's talk about what would be a good meeting  time.
I will be out Mon.
and Tues.

Transport Options Program
Attached is the latest draft of the Transport Option Program filing.
There are a couple of important changes from the last draft.
One is that we're no longer stating that the option fee is going to be "market-based."
At FERC, the term "market-based" has connotations of having to prove to FERC that a non-cost-based rate is appropriate because we lack market power.
While we probably do lack market power, the consensus of the legal/regulatory team was to try to portray the option fee as a built-in feature of the transport rate, which is simply being disaggregated into a separate option fee.
If this theory is not clear to you after you read the filing letter, let's discuss how it should be improved.
The other significant change (also based on my meeting with legal/regulatory) is that I've structured the tariff language and the agreement so that every shipper, regardless of whether they currently use transport on TW, will have to have a firm transportation agreement when they buy an option.
In other words, a shipper that does not currently have a service agreement will simply execute an agreement with a MAXDTQ of zero.
This structure has two advantages: <NUMBER>) it's consistent with our option-fee-as-part-of-transport-rate theory, and <NUMBER>) it will help support that theory in our next rate case.
I'd like to meet next week, either Wednesday afternoon or Thursday, to discuss the following topics: <NUMBER>) Your comments and questions on this draft, <NUMBER>) Some examples of options, to make sure the tariff provisions and contract work from a logistical standpoint, <NUMBER>) The bidding process, and how bids for options will be evaluated, and <NUMBER>) Comments received from shippers thus far.
I'll be working on <NUMBER> tomorrow; let's talk about what would be a good meeting time.
I will be out Mon.
and Tues.
number comments changes draft longer ferc term lack market power maxdtq zero connotations having prove wednesday afternoon thursday shipper does based option fee transport