|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: joe.hartsoe@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com,
skean@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: joe.hartsoe@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, skean@enron.com X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: James D Steffes X-cc: Joe Hartsoe, Linda Robertson, Richard Shapiro, skean@enron.com X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_June2001\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Great points. Teece---and the lion's share of the folks on the participants list---are advocates of a minimalist role for government, particularly where markets are a clear and preferably option, as in the case of electricity. That said, I think we're going to have to make a fundamental decision about what the goal of this "study" would be, which will determine, to a large degree, whether we choose to pursue it. I'll throw out for comment the notion that the study should be designed to serve one purpose: to influence the policy decision currently under debate "To de-regulate or not." As such, I wouldn't see issues like "PJM or APX" or "competitive default supplier or not," or "divest generation with vesting contracts or retain the assets" being the focus. That debate over critically important implementation details, would seem to come in "Round 2," once the initial debate over "deregulate or not" is won. To try to do both, i.e., resolve in the broad policy issue AND make the case for the specific, "right" implementation plan, would arguably bog the study down, perhaps interminably. And it seems that time is of the essence in the current environment. In addition, unless the fundamental policy issue is won--and won rather quickly--debating implementation may be moot. Of course, it will be impossible to avoid some level of dicussion on "how to do it," but that would not be the emphasis. In sum, I'd suggest for comment that it only makes sense to proceed---particularly since time is of the essence---if we focus on the high level policy level question of "to deregulate or not," and address implementation in a second, or follow up, study. I think we should try to make a call on this swiftly, since the "go/no go" decision would seem to flow from resolution of this issue. Best, Jeff James D Steffes 03/16/2001 08:22 AM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@Enron, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, skean@enron.com Subject: Re: Analysis by Academics----Why De-regulation is the right policy choice Jeff -- It would be helpful to get some feedback prior to starting to deal with the fundamental question related to direct access for smaller customers. I would like to know Teece's perspective on the role of government in this marketplace. In addition, I think that the paper must deal with the drawbacks of having mixed roles - utility default supply and competitive markets. Jim Jeff Dasovich Sent by: Jeff Dasovich 03/15/2001 03:11 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, skean@enron.com, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Analysis by Academics----Why De-regulation is the right policy choice Greetings: As I've mentioned, I've been discussing with a group of academics (principally from UC Berkeley) the possibility of producing an analysis of why it makes sense to move forward toward de-regulation, and makes no sense to turn back to command-and-control regulation. Clearly, we're at a fork in the policy road---move forward, or go back. I've (finally) gotten a proposal from the group. It's attached. Please take a look. I'd like to distribute more widely internally for comment, but wanted to run it through a preliminary screen to guage whether folks think it would be useful before cluttering up folks' in-boxes with more emails to read. Few points worth mentioning: The majority of the academics that would do the report are affiliated with LECG, Inc., the consulting group that I worked with prior to joing Enron. List also includes Dan McFadden, UC Berkeley nobel prize winner who wrote the recent op-ed piece in the WSJ. The list also includes Hogan and Joskow and Borenstein. We could certainly exclude these folks should we choose to go forward with the analysis. However, the goal is to produce a high level analysis, i.e., "de-regulation is good and can work; command and control regulation is bad and we know that it does not work." Once the study is released (if it is pursued), the "authors" could tour the country, testifying before federal and state bodies to advocate the virtues of de-regulation and the pitfalls of reversing course. The analysis would not be a debate over "To Poolco, or not to Poolco, PJM, etc." In this way, including folks like Joskow and Hogan could offer the added benefit of creating a "Nixon goes to China" scenario. Please take a look at the list of participants. Again, we can add to and subtract from the list. Laura Tyson would be one of the two project leaders. (The other would be David Teece, Chairman of LECG.) None of the folks on the list occupies either extreme of the political spectrum. It's a mix of D's and R's who are arguably centrist economist and strong believers in markets (I won't vouch for Joskow and Hogan). The idea would be to get a wide array of industry participants from across the country to support the project. This is for two reasons: 1) the more diverse the group supporting the effort, the greater the credibility, and 2) they are asking for about $1 million to do the study. If you think it would be useful to pursue the study as part of our national campaign to minimize the damage created by California, I would like to start immediately to approach trade associations, companies, customers, etc. nationwide to garner support for the project. Let me know if you think the effort would be worthwhile. Appreciate your comments. Best, Jeff ----- Forwarded by Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron on 03/15/2001 02:43 PM ----- - REAFFIRMING THE CASE FOR ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION.doc
|