Message-ID: <6977939.1075860386340.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:10:00 -0800 (PST) From: christi.nicolay@enron.com To: mary.hain@enron.com Subject: Gas Marketing Affiliate Rule Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Christi L Nicolay X-To: Mary Hain X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Mary_Hain_Aug2000_Jul2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Hain-M X-FileName: mary-hain.nsf ---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001 05:05 PM --------------------------- From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 01/17/2001 09:24 AM To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Gas Marketing Affiliate Rule Joe and Christi, I would like your reaction to this notion. On the gas side, FERC is revisiting the marketing affiliate rule and code of conduct. One repeated refrain coming from non-affiliated marketers is that the definition of marketing affiliate needs to refined to include electric generators/merchant plants affiliated with the pipeline. There is a concern that since they are not covered by the existing rule, they get preferential treatment (timing, info, rates) that gives an advantage to the affiliate's projects over those planned by third parties. Would we object to changing the definition so that these entities are considered marketing affiliates? I would be inclined to go along with the change, if it doesn't hurt us. Let me know. Thanks.