|
|
Enron Mail |
great news! Keep up the good work.
Stephen D Burns To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES cc: Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Donald Lassere/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Sue Nord/NA/Enron@Enron, Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: Fiber Optic Public Lands Right-of-Way Status The fat lady hasn't quite sung yet, but I thought it would be a good idea to give you a readout on the current status of the BLM/USFS fiber optic right-of-way issue. In a nutshell, our strategy seems to have worked and we've won all the concessions we sought. As you'll recall these were: a) to get the BLM to withdraw any "interim" policies, the first of which split fiber cables into 144 different ROW certifications, and a later version that re-packaged the issue, mandating that ROW certificates be issued each time a fiber owner subleases or sells capacity on its line, with a retroactivity clause that added extra sting; b) to get the Forest Service to retract its May 2nd memorandum which changed its fiber optic ROW policy from published fee schedules to individual "comparable" assessments (the first such assessment, which compared ROW fees in urban centers in downtown Portland and Seattle to Oregon forest lands, increased the cost of a segment of our FTV fiber build 150 fold); c) to block both agencies from implementing any proposed or final rule in FY 2001; and d) to create an open rule making process that involves all interested stakeholders, including Enron. Thanks to the considerable pressure we orchestrated from Congress and the Administration, BLM Director Fry and USFS Chief Dombeck have backed away from points a and b above, and have agreed to points c and d. The language we inserted in the Interior Appropriations Bill, which has been agreed to by the Conferees, forces both agencies to revert back to the published fee schedules, prevents them from implementing any new policies in FY 2001, and forces them to work with industry and to come up with a common policy for future rent determination. The reference in the opening sentence to gravitationally-challenged women is because the issue still hasn't quite closed. The Interior Appropriations Bill may very well be vetoed. But since our issue was settled at the staff level, and is now off the table, we're likely to remain safe from being re-examined and challenged. In fact, any changes would likely only increase the strength of our hand: some members of our coalition are trying to insert even more detailed language in the report that prescribes exactly how the agencies will proceed to determine the new rental fee schedules over the next 18 months. Through outside consultants, we've had a series of constructive discussions with the agencies over the past two weeks that have forged agreements on timing and specific ways forward. Details are forthcoming, but Enron would be involved closely in the process. The agencies were clearly surprised by the clout we wielded, and are now more than willing to negotiate. But the bottom line, again, is that we have stopped both agencies from implementing their costly interim policies or launching a rule making process either now (which they originally intended to do) or in the coming fiscal year. And by engaging key Members of Congress and the White House, and organizing and leading the 20-member Fiber Optic Public Land Right-of-Way Coalition, we've succeeded in branding Enron as a leader in the communications field. Steve
|