Message-ID: <9810041.1075844242084.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: sarah.novosel@enron.com
To: linda.robertson@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, 
	james.steffes@enron.com, christi.nicolay@enron.com
Subject: First EPSA FERC Lunch
Cc: donna.fulton@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: donna.fulton@enron.com
X-From: Sarah Novosel
X-To: Linda Robertson, Richard Shapiro, James D Steffes, Christi L Nicolay
X-cc: Donna Fulton
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Shapiro_June2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: SHAPIRO-R
X-FileName: rshapiro.nsf

A couple of months ago, we formed a new group within EPSA called the 
Regulatory Affairs, Washington Staff, group (the name needs some help).  We 
discussed many things the group can do to increase our EPSA presence at FERC, 
including establishing monthly lunches featuring a different FERC 
guest/speaker per lunch.

Yesterday, Donna and I attended the first lunch of the group, sponsored by 
Mirant (Enron will be sponsoring the July lunch).  The FERC guest speaker was 
Don Gelinas.  (We believe Don had a big part in the Entergy Source & Sink 
order, so he is an important person to know.)  There were about 12 people at 
the lunch, which was a good number because it gave us all a chance to speak 
with Don and get to know him a little better.  The group was relaxed and 
festive, and I think this put Don at ease as well.

Don made a few remarks at the end of the lunch.  He said the Commission's 
main focus (other than California) was on the RTOs and getting them up and 
running by the end of the year.  He said FERC's main concerns are on:  
1)independence, 2) appropriate incentives, and 3) appropriate scope.  

Don acknowledged that having sufficient scope is a problem with a voluntary 
program, but he believes the Commission, under Hebert's leadership, will be 
able to gradually expand the scope of the RTOs so that ultimately there are 
only a handful of RTOs in the country.  Furthermore, Don said there are 
certain issues he believes must be included in RTO filings, including putting 
native load under the RTO tariff.   However, he says that phase-in may be 
necessary, and the trick will be in finding a reasonable phase-in period.

Other issues that Don said may require actual FERC decisions (FERC calling 
balls and strikes) will be on issues such as ATC, CBM and curtailment.  Don 
said ATC should be calculated the same way by all RTOs and that the question 
of retaining CBM must be decided by FERC.  

Based on these comments, these three areas may be places where we could get 
some FERC support for our views.  We should keep this in mind as we comment 
on future RTO filings.

Let us know if you have any questions or comments.

Sarah and Donna