Enron Mail

From:robert.frank@enron.com
To:vicki.sharp@enron.com, andrew.ralston@enron.com
Subject:Fwd: FW: Fort Meade Privatization
Cc:steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, laren.tarbet@enron.com,bill.votaw@enron.com, peggy.mahoney@enron.com, john.carr@enron.com, scott.porter@enron.com
Bcc:steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, laren.tarbet@enron.com,bill.votaw@enron.com, peggy.mahoney@enron.com, john.carr@enron.com, scott.porter@enron.com
Date:Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT)

Attached are the BGE filings at the US District Court in Baltimore. They are
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, both of which were summarily
rejected by Judge Matsch in Denver, who is treating CSU's claim as an APA
review. They are also making virtually identical legal claims as CSU - their
central claim is that they have the exclusive right to operate electric and
gas systems inside Fort Meade. BGE has also brought in the issue of state
jurisdiction over other entities such as EFSI: they cite an opinion letter
from the General Counsel of the MD PSC as an "official decision" - which it
is not. In any case, Randy Rich and I had subsequent meeting with GC
regarding that letter in which she "clarified" her position in various
respects contrary to BGE's claims. But I see that aspect of BGE's complaint
as favorable from our standpoint - the District Court can rule on this issue
instead of the state courts. Vicki/Andrew, please let me know how you want
to proceed. I have a few ideas that we could discuss with whomever handles
the case as outside counsel. -Bob 3-3180
---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Frank/NA/Enron on 09/01/2000 08:46
AM ---------------------------


"Randall Rich" <rrich@bracepatt.com< on 09/01/2000 08:34:47 AM
To: <rfrank@enron.com<
cc: "Albert Krachman" <akrachman@bracepatt.com<, "Charles McNeish"
<cmcneish@bracepatt.com<

Subject: Fwd: FW: Fort Meade Privatization


The BGE peititon is attached.
Received: from mcafee.bracepatt.com by bracepatt.com; Fri, 01 Sep 2000
08:27:05 -0500
Received: FROM smtp1.bge.com BY mcafee.bracepatt.com ; Fri Sep 01 08:28:46
2000 -0500
X-Proxy: keymaster.bracepatt.com protected
Received: from ex-ge-r01.ge.cec (unverified) by smtp1.bge.com (Content
Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <T011405c44e61c71924@smtp1.bge.com<
for <rrich@bracepatt.com<; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:18:07 -0400
Received: by smtp2.bge.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id
<R97K9V2L<; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:25:26 -0400
Message-ID: <82D020D6E0D8D311BD830004AC4CF564010F4B66@ex-ge-m05.ge.cec<
From: "Gahagan, Daniel P" <Daniel.P.Gahagan@bge.com<
Sender: "Hertsgaard, Heidi L" <Heidi.L.Hertsgaard@bge.com<
To: "'rrich@bracepatt.com'" <rrich@bracepatt.com<
Subject: FW: Fort Meade Privatization
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:25:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C01418.12A70440"

* BGE-Army Cover letter to Clerk.doc
< * BGE-Army Complaint.doc
< * BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.doc
< * BGE-Army Memorandum Table of Contents.doc
< * BGE-Army Motion for Preliminary Injunction.doc
< * BGE-Army Declaration of M. Bay.doc
<
< I have also attached the GAO decision.
<
< <<BGE-Army Cover letter to Clerk.DOC<< <<BGE-Army Complaint.DOC<<
< <<BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.DOC<< <<BGE-Army
< Memorandum Table of Contents Authorities.DOC<< <<BGE-Army Motion for
< Preliminary Injunction.DOC<< <<BGE-Army Declaration of M. Bay.DOC<<
< <<GAO Decision Case No 285209 080200.pdf<<
<
< Please forward these documents to Susan Miller.
<
< Thanks.
<
< Monika

- BGE-Army Cover letter to Clerk.DOC
- BGE-Army Complaint.DOC
- BGE-Army Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction.DOC
- BGE-Army Memorandum Table of Contents Authorities.DOC
- BGE-Army Motion for Preliminary Injunction.DOC
- BGE-Army Declaration of M. Bay.DOC
- GAO Decision Case No 285209 080200.pdf