NAESB EC Meeting ,
 The February EC meeting (wholesale gas quadrant) will be held Thursday, Feb 21.  The agenda is light; I'll attend via conference call.  I want to mention a couple of items.

A vote will be taken to change the version 1.5 'GISB' standards to 'NAESB' standards.  There's been some discussion on the proper way to vote (e.g., 17/2, procedural).  It will probably be a 17/2 vote.  I don't think it matters.  The only issue I see is that people will want to make it clear that this 17/2 vote should not be interpreted as a vote in favor of each and every standard.  It is only a vote in favor of changing the standards to NAESB.  A comment can be made on the record.

The 'Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas' will be voted.  We have not been involved with or concerned about this document since we will not use it.  If a motion is made to accept it, I plan to vote in favor.  Comments have been submitted and it appears that this recommendation may be sent back to subcommittee for further work.  I'll go along with this if motioned.

Last December the EC adopted revisions to standards based on the recommendations in the Sandia Labs Report.  These revisions have been incorporated into GISB's response document, which has been distributed to the EC.  This response document was received earlier this week; I have not verified GISB's work.  This item is not on the EC agenda, so I don't know the specific intent.  They may want the EC to approve the final version -- which means approving GISB's work.  I have a concern with that type of vote.  They may want the EC to approve the 'Executive Summary' and 'Conclusion' (total 3 pages).  I have no problem with that vote except that these documents have not been updated since the December revisions were made and are no longer correct.  I'll take care of during the EC meeting.  (NOTE: The revisions to standards have not been distributed for ratification.)

The plan is to bring the response document before the Board at their March meeting for "approval".  The response should also be reviewed by the Editorial Review Board.


Thanks,
Theresa
shelley.corman@enron.com, bradley.holmes@enron.com