RE: Illinois ,
 I don't think that it is one of our top issues.  I'd recommend that we stay out.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Migden, Janine  
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:36 AM
To:	Kingerski, Harry; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Boston, Roy
Subject:	RE: Illinois

Thanks.  
I concur, but I wanted to get the issues out there for discussion.  What is your view on intervening in the City of Chicago's investigation case?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kingerski, Harry  
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:12 AM
To:	Migden, Janine; Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.
Cc:	Boston, Roy
Subject:	RE: Illinois

Janine - my thoughts -

On the rate cases, I don't think we need any change of direction.  For the IP case, our argument is just the legal one of whether they can discriminate.  And there were a lot more parties involved with ComEd than IP, even though the issues are basically the same, so I wouldn't worry there about perception.

The bigger deal may be our protest of Dynergy's protest of Com Ed's treatment of Firm LD for marketers.  The filing has already been made, so we should stay on track.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Migden, Janine  
Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:15 PM
To:	Shapiro, Richard; Steffes, James D.; Kingerski, Harry
Cc:	Boston, Roy
Subject:	Illinois

Given the recent developments with the potential merger between Enron and Dynergy, there are a few policy questions in Illinois for which we would like guidance:

Illinois Power

We have intervened in the delivery service tariff case and are handling it primarily inhouse and solo - no other marketers.  Yesterday, we filed a Reply (greatly toned down - sticking to the facts only) to IP's memo contra our Motion to Dismiss.  URM decided not to do testimony so at this point we contemplate not showing up at the hearing and briefing only.  Recall that the issue is that to raise distribution tariffs for only unbundled customers taking service from an alternative supplier is unlawful and also anticompetitive and discriminatory, etc.  Our book impact could be around $2 million, I believe should IP get the full increase.  Moreover, it would stifle future competition.  

query:  Should our course of action be altered?


ComEd

ComEd parallels IP except that it is going forward first.  We made the same arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by the Judge.  Our plan is to seek rehearing with the full Commission and to point out that the ICC filed comments at FERC with respect to increasing only unbundled transmission rates that were fully consistent with our arguments respecting distribution!

The case is currently in hearing and we have an Enron witness testifying.

In a separate move in this case, the City of Chicago and Cook county have filed a separate action requesting an audit and investigation of ComEd's books and records alleging basically that ComEd is seeking double recovery of costs.  If we intervened it might be possible to do so without paying any of the costs, assuming Blackhawk and AES/New Energy agree (we have done this for them in the past).
Upsides are that it would be viewed positively by the City of Chicago and Cook County as supporting them.  Downsides are that this really gets into rate issues that in previous RCR discussions we were told to stay away from and secondly, do we really want to be supporting an audit and investigation of another utility's books and records right now, given Enron's position?  

The last point is whether there is a perception problem in being more aggressive with Com Ed than IP on the rate discrimination issue, should we decide to take that path.

Janine
janine.migden@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, 