![]() |
Enron Mail |
Dear Jeff and Sue,
As you are probably aware, the Commission voted out an OIR last week to open "relook" at the affiliate rules adopted 3 years ago. Last year, under Mona's direction, Enron filed comments and attended a workshop in which the utilities attempted to eliminate most of the affiliate rules. At that time, Enron was the only major proponent of the old rules remaining at the table. Subsequent to the workshop, ARM submitted comments. Now, many months later, the CPUC has released the OIR and has identified specific rule changes that they will consider in the OIR. Many of the changes are relatively innocuous, but several would undermine key provisions of the original rules (e.g., name/logo, corporate support, employee sharing) Procedurally, the CPUC will receive comments and/or prepared testimony on March 1, 2001 on the issues identified in the OIR, followed by a PHC on March 14, 2001. The OIR also projects hearings in June leading to a Final Decision in October 2001. The specific issues raised in the OIR include: Rule 1 -- The Commission will look at steps to conform the definitions in the affiliates rules with those contained in R.92-08-088 [Affiliate Transaction Reporting Requirements]. Rule II -- The Commission will consider an expansion of the applicability rules to include telecommunications affiliates. Rule IV.C -- The Commission will consider omission of the service provider list requirement contained in the original rules. Rule IV.D -- The Commission seeks to clarify the supplier information rules to avoid redundancies and/or conflicts with other rules. Rule IV.F -- The Commission will consider changing record keeping requirements for affiliate transactions. Rule V.E. -- The Commission will consider clarifications of corporate support "to reduce confusion regarding oversight, governance, support systems, and personnel. Rule V.F.1 -- The Commission will investigate whether the name/logo rule is needed or should be strengthened. Rule V.G2b -- The Commission will investigate whether the sharing of employee rule needs to be relaxed. Rule VI.B. -- The Commission will consider problems identified with the new affiliate compliance plan. Rule VI.C. -- The Commission will review whether yearly audits remain necessary. Rule VII -- The Commission will bifurcate this rule into another OIR. Significantly, the Commission declines to make so-called "style" changes proposed by the utilities. At the workshop, we were quite alarmed to see a rewrite of all the rules under the guise of "stylistic changes." We opposed that noting that the rules were the result of extensive negotiation and compromise. This, of course, leads to the question of whether Enron wants to participate in this proceeding, and, if so, to what level. I will need to know, for example, whether you will want me to prepare comments for March 1, 2001 or to attend the PHC on March 14, 2001. We would also need to identify the issues, if any, on which Enron would take an active position on in this proceeding. From the earlier phase, Mona had highlighted concern over the utilities sharing engineering services as a corporate support function. If you have questions, please call me at 765-8409. Jim McTarnaghan
|