Message-ID: <3764235.1075846343436.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:43:00 -0800 (PST) From: cynthia.sandherr@enron.com To: steven.kean@enron.com, joe.hartsoe@enron.com Subject: Transmission Legislation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Cynthia Sandherr X-To: Steven J Kean, Joe Hartsoe X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Dec2000_1\Notes Folders\Federal legislation X-Origin: KEAN-S X-FileName: skean.nsf it doesn't appear that you received this.... ---------------------- Forwarded by Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron on 03/14/2000 12:50 PM --------------------------- "Clarke-Koonce, Pamela R." on 03/14/2000 11:37:54 AM To: "'csandhe@enron.com'" , "'anavin@enron.com'" cc: "Wenner, Adam" Subject: Transmission Legislation <<73084_3.DOC>> Please see the attached per Adam Wenner: Cynthia -- Attached is the transmission legislation we discussed. Please note the following: 1. Revised Sections 201(a) and (b) are not particularly substantive; they simply correspond the statement of FERC's jurisdiction to our new approach. The real substance is in the amendments to Section 206. Consequently, we might want to exclude the Section 201 changes when we circulate it to those to whom we're just trying to explain the concepts. 2. Our prior draft contained exceptions to the prohibitions to the prohibition on discriminatory treatment, regarding protection of native load to protect system reliability and to preserve a utility's ability to comply with state-imposed obligations to serve. I believe these concepts, particularly the second, is inconsistent with our new approach, but before deleting these, wanted to make sure that there is not a political reason that we should leave them in. I have italicized and bolded these provisions. - 73084_3.DOC