Agree with most of what you've said.  I also would like a good handle on TRA
undercollection ##s.  We've had great difficulty getting agreement on ##s.
I'll give it a try before tomorrow.

Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com wrote:

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