Message-ID: <6977939.1075860386340.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:10:00 -0800 (PST)
From: christi.nicolay@enron.com
To: mary.hain@enron.com
Subject: Gas Marketing Affiliate Rule
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Christi L Nicolay
X-To: Mary Hain
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Mary_Hain_Aug2000_Jul2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: Hain-M
X-FileName: mary-hain.nsf

---------------------- Forwarded by Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT on 01/17/2001 
05:05 PM ---------------------------
From: Leslie Lawner@ENRON on 01/17/2001 09:24 AM
To: Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron 

Subject: Gas Marketing Affiliate Rule

Joe and Christi, I would like your reaction to this notion.  On the gas side, 
FERC is revisiting the marketing affiliate rule and code of conduct.  One 
repeated refrain coming from non-affiliated marketers is that the definition 
of marketing affiliate needs to refined to include electric 
generators/merchant plants affiliated with the pipeline.  There is a concern 
that since they are not covered by the existing rule, they get preferential 
treatment (timing, info, rates) that gives an advantage to the affiliate's 
projects over those planned by third parties.  Would we object to changing 
the definition so that these entities are considered marketing affiliates?  I 
would be inclined to go along with the change, if it doesn't hurt us.  Let me 
know. Thanks.  
