|
|
Enron Mail |
---------------------- Forwarded by John Shelk/NA/Enron on 07/12/2001 10:12= AM --------------------------- Carin Nersesian 07/12/2001 07:47 AM To:=09John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Pat Shortridge/Corp/Enron@Enron cc:=09Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON=20 Subject:=09Barton,Tauzin letter to Gov. Davis Committee News Release The Committee on Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Ta= uzin, Chairman Chairmen Tauzin, Barton Urge Gov. Davis To Respond Immedia= tely to Inquiries Washington (July 11) - House Energy and Commerce Commit= tee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Ch= airman Joe Barton (R-TX) today sent the following letter to California Gove= rnor Gray Davis: July 11, 2001 The Honorable Gray Davis Governor State o= f California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Da= vis: As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee recently c= onsidered legislation containing several targeted measures to assist Califo= rnia in resolving its energy supply crisis. One of these measures was a te= mporary "safe harbor" provision, effective only upon the California Governo= r's request, to protect critical extended emergency operation of powerplant= s from challenges under the Clean Air Act. During the course o= f six hearings the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held on the Calif= ornia electric crisis, including two hearings on draft legislation, Members= of the Committee repeatedly told California officials that these plants we= re vulnerable to legal challenge, even with written "agreements" for extend= ed operation between state air officials and the powerplants. Nevertheless= , California officials testifying or providing information on behalf of you= r state and your citizens claimed that such a safe harbor was not necessary= . I fear events have proven that on this important matter, the= concerns expressed by Members of our Committee were valid and that our int= erpretation of the legal jeopardy faced by California was accurate. On Jun= e 19th, several community groups filed a lawsuit in federal court against t= hree electric generating units in California (all located at the Potrero po= wer plant site) alleging multiple violations of the Clean Air Act for emerg= ency extended operation. On the same day, the City and County of San Franc= isco filed formal notice that it would also pursue legal action against the= three Potrero units. All parties involved in the litigation strongly asse= rt that the extended operation agreement between state air officials and th= e Potrero power plant does nothing to prevent them from pursuing all availa= ble legal remedies under federal and state law. The legal acti= on against the units located at the Potrero power plant claims that extende= d operation violates limits contained in federal air permits and seeks fine= s potentially amounting to millions of dollars. Understandably, as a resul= t of this potentially huge fine, the operator of the Potrero power plant ha= s filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to clarify t= hat it will not be required to operate the three generating units, even dur= ing periods of electrical emergency. Thus, the mere filing of this lawsuit= could have a near-term impact of the amount of power available in Californ= ia. Perhaps even more troubling is our understanding that subs= tantial amounts of electric power produced by peaking plants and other faci= lities in California could also be subject to similar legal action. The Ca= lifornia Independent System Operator lists 31 units representing 1,430 mega= watts of peaking units which are subject to legal limits on their total hou= rs of operation. In addition, several new units are being brought on-line = this summer without required Clean Air Act control equipment. According to= incomplete information we received from the California Air Resources Board= (CARB), 37 generating units have been identified in California which may e= xhaust allowable annual operating hours contained in their air permits prio= r to this summer's peak demand period. These units may represent up to 2% = of generation, approximately the critical operating reserve shortfall of a = Stage III electric emergency. Although presented with written = requests for information from the Committee on April 2, 2001, CARB could no= t or would not provide the Committee with precise information on units that= may have been off-line due to permit limits, a projection of the number of= generating units that will face permit constraints that could cause such u= nits to be off-line, the amount of generation associated with these facilit= ies, the possible impact of these units on system reliability, and addition= al information related to air emissions from facilities that will be operat= ing under "modified" conditions. We believe that in the face of the pendi= ng legal action, it is even more important that such information be accurat= ely and objectively determined. As we mentioned above, over se= veral months in the spring and early summer of this year, the Committee sou= ght California's support of an extremely narrow safe harbor provision to pr= otect the extended operation of certain powerplants. Regrettably, the Comm= ittee did not receive any support from your administration for such changes= to the law, as represented by the testimony and responses attached to this= letter. Instead, witnesses representing California claimed such a legal s= afe harbor for emergency generation was unnecessary -- even if it could onl= y be granted during periods of emergency and upon your personal request to = the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It appears now tha= t citizen groups in California -- as well as the City and County of San Fra= ncisco -- do not believe that the actions taken by you, your state agencies= and local air quality districts are legal. The pending litigation challen= ges the very agreements which California previously claimed granted suffici= ent legal "flexibility" to keep these units running during times of emergen= cy. It is time, then, to reconsider this issue. So that the C= ommittee may understand the extent of this critical situation and respond a= ccordingly, we would ask for your consideration of the following: (1) We w= ould urge you to reply fully to the Committee's earlier requests that CARB = specifically identify each generating unit and power plant that is in jeopa= rdy of exceeding limitations contained in the Clean Air Act and thus potent= ially subject to the citizen suit provisions of the Act. We should have a = clear idea of the power production which is at risk. (2) In view of the fa= ct that we have moved from the world of legal theory into the world of lega= l fact and several California generating units are now being sued under aut= horities contained in the Clean Air Act, we ask whether you will now favor = creating in federal law a limited, environmentally-neutral safe harbor for = these essential units which could only be effectuated upon your request to = EPA. (3) Finally, we would ask that if you support such legislation, that = you work with our Committee so that we can truly try and resolve this issue= in a targeted provision which helps ensure the lights stay on in Californi= a this summer. Thank you in advance for your consideration of = our requests. Sincerely, W.J. (Billy) Tauzin Chairman Energy and Commerce C= ommittee Joe Barton Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Peter= Sheffield 202.225.5735 =09 Carin Nersesian Legislative Coordinator Enron Corp. 1775 Eye St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 202-466-9144 (ph.) 202-828-3372 (fax)
|