|
|
Enron Mail |
Steve -- I received your note that you had received Dan's comments. I
thought it made sense, in any case, to pass on a few comments; Dan probably had the same thoughts, but just in case here they are: Section 2(a): the parenthetical "including the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce that is sold at retail", while technically a correct fix, is still a little troubling. Just as everyone is someone's native load customer, all electricity is ultimately sold "at retail." Nonetheless, this hasn't stopped FERC from concluding that it lacks jurisdiction over the transmission component of bundled retail service. The possibility that this ambiguity could be exploited would be avoided by using the "transmission component of bundled retail service" language, and including separate definitions of bundled and unbundled retail service (rather than "quick and dirty" approach in new section 205(g). This approach would also get rid of the possible ambiguity in new section 205(g)(1)(A), which requires the filing of a schedule for the "transmission of electric energy... that is separate from the rates...applicable to the sale of electric energy and to local distribution." It is not abundantly clear that the filed rate schedule must be for the transmission component of unbundled retail service, although that seems to be the intent of the drafters. Section 205(g) uses the "not unduly discriminatory or preferential basis" standard. That language, as with the existing Federal Power Act language, can be interpreted as permitting native load service to maintain its priority status in all situations, on the basis that it is not "undue" discrimination to favor those who paid for the system or the other usual defenses of this approach. Language similar to that we have worked on previously, which makes it absolutely clear that no native load preference is permitted, would eliminate this possible result. Similarly, it would be useful, in section 205(g)(5), to make it clear that the transmission of bundled service must be reserved and scheduled on exactly the same basis as unbundled service; as written, this provision might be interpreted as not so requiring. If Enron accepts the preference for "firm wholesale and retail customers" in Section 205(g)(6), it should revise the language to make it clear that this is a "one-time" preference, and that, with respect to future service, transmission customers are to be placed on equal footing. This might be done be including a specific cut-off, such as "Any such rule shall cease to be applicable no later than one year after the date such rule takes effect." Section 2(f) permits transmission rates to be capped at the rate set by the State commission. This approach leaves open the option for States which have, or which, as part of the establishment of retail competition, to set transmission rates at a higher than cost-justified level, and to subsidize the sale price of their owned generation or purchased power from that subsidy. Such an approach would put marketers at a severe disadvantage. I suggest including a prohibition against such subsidization. Adam Wenner Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1008 (202) 639-6533 (202) 639-6604 (fax) awenner@velaw.com
|