Subject: HB 1692 Talking Points
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 04:14:00 -0700 (PDT)

As I understand Rick's message and discussion with Harry.......... can you 
try something like this:

1)  Legislatively blocking open-access is a radical response to a perceived 
"short-term" problem and is not necessary to achieve the goal of HB 1692.  
The legislature has found that competition is an appropriate remendy 
(alternative) to regulation through the passage of SB7.
2)  The legislature recognized that certain areas of Texas requires a more 
"structured" schedule than that required for the rest of the State and 
nothing that has happened in the recent past should change that recognition.
3)  If price protection is the legislature's concern (an the purpose of HB 
1692), we can provide language in HB 1692 that meets their concern by; a)  
continue cost-based regulation for utiity service with no additional costs 
due to limited open-access, b)  allow limited open-access as an alternative 
to utility service (more options available to customers are better than no 
options if price protection is the goal) and c) there are no guarantees that 
cost-based rate regulation will meet the objective of HB 1692 (rates can go 
up due to load growth, load decline, fuel price volatility and other economic 
factors).
4)  Customers (wholesale and retail) should support this.  Certainly gives 
them leverage against potential rate increases under regulation.
5)  SPS will likely want assurances that their shareholders are not adversly 
affected (dollars spent to implement customer choice are allowed to be 
recovered in HB 1692).  This should be a non-issue.  
5)  Enron will be more than happy to assist SPS to dispose (market) any 
excess capacity/energy as a result of limited customer choice in a manner  
which may result in a better return to shareholders (amending 1692  may 
actually help SPS).

Jean, call Rick, Harry or myself if this is confusing.