Message points are fine.  Here's a point or two more:

It doesn't make sense to return resource construction and procurement to 
utilities.  
Resources owned by the utility stay in the utility's rate base (and, 
accordingly, in rates) well beyond the time in which market prices drop and 
cheaper alternatives exist.  
The empircal evidence is unequivocal.  Stranded costs were paid for by 
California consumers because the resources utilities had in their rate base 
were above market prices.   SDG&E consumers paid ____ dollars; PG&E ____ 
dollars to date, etc.  
If merchant plants are built, the merchant plant's owners take the risk  of 
dropping market prices, not the utility's ratepayers.

Mid-west also experienced price spikes.  However,
Market responded with resource construction.
Prices dropped through the floor.
Note:  Tim Heizenreider provided tons of articles to me on this point.  We've 
not used it very much and I don't know why.  You may want to check with Jim 
Steffes.  Also note that the spikes were much more pronounced than we're 
seeing in California--possibly due to the reliance on spot markets.  


From: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON on 10/31/2000 11:28 AM CST
Sent by: Jeff Dasovich@ENRON
To: Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J 
Mara/SFO/EES@EES, Mona L Petrochko/NA/Enron@Enron, Sandra 
McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron
cc:  
Subject: DRAFT Talking Points for Cal Energy Markets Talk

Attached for your review are draft talking points for the Cal Energy Markets 
conference I'm speaking at on Thursday in SF.  All comments, suggestions, 
etc. are appreciated.  Thanks.