Message-ID: <8388038.1075862242371.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) From: l..nicolay@enron.com To: richard.shapiro@enron.com Subject: FW: Enron Motion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Nicolay, Christi L. X-To: Shapiro, Richard X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged)\Shapiro, Richard\Deleted Items X-Origin: Shapiro-R X-FileName: RSHAPIRO (Non-Privileged).pst -----Original Message----- From: Novosel, Sarah Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 11:09 AM To: Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: FW: Enron Motion -----Original Message----- From: Nicolay, Christi L. Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:46 AM To: 'sbehrend@llgm.com' Cc: Novosel, Sarah; Robertson, Linda; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D. Subject: Enron Motion Sam -- Here are some thoughts we had for the Motion (plan to file 9/4/01). For those not committing to join a big RTO: No market based rates Lower rate of return No further stranded cost recovery FERC opines on allowing a "safe harbor" on tax issue for those divesting No innovative rates (could be a carrot too for those that join) For non-jurisdictionals -- loss of all reciprocity tariffs/ subject to pancaking Loss of native load exception May be some other items that Pat Wood used as incentives in Texas I have to respond in the SE RTO at 3:30 Houston time today and have a brief 4:00 conf call, but Sarah and I could either chat after that or on Monday (my cell 713-301-3421). Thanks and we are happy to have you helping us! Christi