Sorry.  Been a bit crazy around here.  Thanks for the note, and thank you for 
doing such a good job at driving this process.  My thoughts on your proposal 
(and these are very preliminary):  1) politicians may not be willing to go as 
high as 25% for fear of being accused of a "utility bailout"--maybe 10-15%?  
though utility solvency may force their hands.  2) TURN will go ape-#%#$ if 
we make the "roll off" retroactive to October.  3) I'm willing to allow 
utilities to collect TRA undercollections, but feel that customers and 
utilities (not me) need to figure out precisely what that number is.

Look forward to getting closure tomorrow, though I'm very concerned that 
we've lost Edison, given Bryson's public calls to return to 1950.

Best,
Jeff



	Evelyn Kahl Elsesser <eke@aelaw.com>
	12/12/2000 06:57 PM
		 
		 To: "Jeff Dasovich (E-mail)" <jdasovic@enron.com>
		 cc: 
		 Subject: thanks

I really appreciated your participation today...very substantive and
constructive.  I particularly liked the idea of a migration "trigger",
which I included in the outline.  I personally think that the big ticket
items are rate level, rate freeze end and TRA allocation.  I wish we
could start facing that dance.  I'd play with (a) 25% immediate increase
in commodity price (explicit, rather than residual); (b) rate freeze end
on October 2, 2000 (c) pre EOF TRA undercollections to utilities,
everything after is allocated forward to procurement customers.
Thoughts?