|
|
Enron Mail |
I don't want to disrupt building a more collegial relationship here, but I
have some concerns about their reticence to sound more positive about reaching agreement on our two key issues. Can we put the question differently: what are the barriers to their concurrence and what can we do together to address those barriers? If the barriers for EEI are insurmountable because of the recalcitrance of a few members, can they facilitate a dialogue between us and a more progressive group? James D Steffes 11/01/2000 05:25 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: EEI/ Enron consensus- building process Sounds positive. I think that both sides are realistic but willing to work together. I think we need to keep this going forward. If we let this hang out too long, we could lose the momentum. Jim ----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 05:24 PM ----- "Ed Comer" <EComer@eei.org< 11/01/2000 04:54 PM To: <Richard_Shapiro@enron.com< cc: <James_D_Steffes@enron.com<, <Steven_J_Kean@enron.com< Subject: Re: EEI/ Enron consensus- building process Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I think you did a good job of summarizing our discussions, both as to content and context.. I fully understand what your two most important issues are and that you are optimistic we can come together on the other issues. Nevertheless, the details are important as to all of those issues. I look forward to talking more both about the details and about the business elements that underlie our views of the issues. I agree that whatever happens as to outcome, these kinds of discussions are far more beneficial than mutual demonization. I expect to be able to talk to my principles at EEI next Monday (our Financial Conference is just finishing up in San Francisco - I understand Enron had someone there). Once I do, I will get back to you. In the meantime, I 'm absorbing the California Order and would be glad to share impressions with you when we talk. Ed <<< "Richard Shapiro" <Richard_Shapiro@enron.com< 10/31/00 03:51PM <<< Ed- Thanks again for breakfast and for the very good discussion we had on a wide- ranging set of issues. Here's where I believe we ended the discussion: 1) On the range of issues( that were addressed in the document we forwarded to you and that we worked from) that would likely be addressed next congress relative to electricity reform, the bottom line was that while there were many issues on which we voiced our diffrences, mandatory RTO participation and non-discriminatory access to transmission,i.e;unbundling, are the two critical issues from our perspective. While our discussion revealed the continuing diffrences we have on the resolution of those issues and the " political" hurdles EEI faces with certain of its members to reach consensus on them, we both felt further meetings and continued discussion were warranted . On the remaining issues ( other than the two just mentioned) for which diffrences were articulated and discussed, I indicated that we fully understood your concerns and that Enron was sufficiently flexible on those issues to have a high degree of confidence that they would ultimately be removed as a source of disagreement between us. Again, I come back to the two critical issues mentioned above - those issues must be adequately addressed as laid out in our earlier document for this process to come to fruition and for comprehensive federal legislation to make any sense for us. With that said, remember that we were quite receptive to appropriate incentives being included as part of mandatory RTO particpation as well as to tax concerns your members must have addressed. We also discussed the joint CEO letter that would be sent post - election that would jointly affirm our mutual desire to get competitive electricity markets functioning well in the next administration and continued to agree on the value of that effort, Next steps( my proposal): 1) EEI prepare first draft of CEO letter for discussion. 2) Schedule next meeting for more intensive discussion on key issues ( 4- 6 hour meeting) Ed, thanks again for taking the time to continue the dialogue- despite the distance( on issues) that still exists between our respective organizations, I feel that this is a doable exercise if the necessary commitment is made to the process. No matter the ultimate outcome, I believe that one positive result that has and will continue to come from this process is a better understanding of our respective viewpoints and a recognition that the mutual demonization that has occoured in the past is completely counterproductive. Talk to you soon.
|