|
|
Enron Mail |
I believe it is timely to discuss this again and I agree with Cynthia that
stand alone legislation does nothing to address the essential transmission structural issues. I am open minded on the issue if someone can make a compelling case to support stand alone legislation, BUT my gut reaction is that it would be a serious mistake. Congress would happily put off dealing with this issue for years if it passes reliability only legislation. I think the legislation itself makes little or no progress on our issues and may even set us back on making progress at FERC and in other fora. I realize that if this gets going it may be hard to stop, but it would be such a cynically ineffective approach to the real reliability problems that we should help whomever we can to put a stop to it. If it gets through committee, I have no confidence in this Congress to actually amend it into something better and broader, so, again, I have difficulty seeing why we should go that route. I look forward to the discussion. Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON 07/17/2000 02:20 PM To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON I cc: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com, cingebretson@bracepatt.com, Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, ed@buckham.com, Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: Stand-alone Reliability Legislation Joe: thanks. Allison is arranging a brief (thirty minutes) Conference Call for sometime tomorrow so we can assure that we are all on the same page on this issue. Although we had supported the policy agreement, we had been on record to oppose for political reasons the bill's movement on a stand-alone basis since policing the grid does nothing to address the essential transmission structural changes the market is crying to have addressed in order to provide reliability. However, given Jeff Brown's efforts, the political need for inoculation and other political developments, it is timely to once again discuss Enron's position. I look forward to our call sometime tomorrow. Cynthia Joe Hartsoe 07/17/2000 03:09 PM To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Stand-alone Reliability Legislation FYI. Thoughts? JOE ---------------------- Forwarded by Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron on 07/17/2000 03:01 PM --------------------------- janderson <janderson@elcon.org< on 07/17/2000 12:34:47 PM To: jhartso@enron.com cc: myacker@elcon.org, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com Subject: Stand-alone Reliability Legislation Joe, It is my understanding that you were on the call for a short time this morning of the group dealing with reliability language. The discussion covered the chances of stand-alone reliability legislation. Where do you stand on this issue? As you are aware, ELCON has been opposed to any kind of stand-alone legislation -- including reliability. At first, we were not strongly opposed to the stand-alone reliability piece. However, we have become more opposed as time has passed and we have seen how the vertically-integrated recalcitrant utilities have been able dominate NERC and stifle any progressive market-oriented movement. We think things would be as bad -- if not worse -- with the stand-alone creation of NAERO. The establishment of NAERO -- alone -- would not be good for the development of markets. Given this, we are concerned about how things are going. However, we aren't doing much on our own since we would be very ineffective. We are open to ideas. John
|