|
|
Enron Mail |
-----Original Message----- From: Yoder, Christian=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:45 PM To: 'Stack, Shari'; 'esager@enron.com'; 'cyoder@enron.com'; 'Russo, Dianne H'; 'jeremy.weinstein@pacificorp.com' Subject: RE: Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings Shari,=20 I'm not sure of what to do about the informal, irregularity of the WSPP pro= cess. I agree with you that there seems to be a lack of basic due process = going on, but, it has always been difficult to understand how and why they = do things the way they do. History and personality seem to explain it best= .=20 Right near the end of the Thursday session, I believe it was Jeremy Weinst= ein of PacifiCorp, tried to focus Mike on what to me seems to be a crucial,= and potentially fruitful question: Is the WSPP becoming more and more lik= e the EEI, and if so, does anybody care? Mike seemed to feel that there wa= s a vast difference between the two agreements and that this vast differenc= e mattered a lot. I think if anybody would take the time to dispassionatel= y examine the steady stream of changes that have been made to the WSPP over= the past couple of years, the result would be that the two agreements woul= d be seen to be converging rather than diverging. I would even take a furth= er step and argue that the convergence has been so steady and effective, th= at the time has now arrived for a Joint EEI/WSPP Drafting Committee to harm= onize the agreements. However, I think my suggestion is still premature. A= t this moment in the process, it would seem that a comparative document, pa= instakingly showing each amendment of the WSPP agreement and what it looked= like in comparison to the EEI needs to be created. If convergence is what= this objective study shows, then, at some point, the question fairly becom= es: why not get it over with and merge the documents? Is a Joint Drafting= Committee a good idea? I may be wrong, and an academic look at my thesis is certainly required, b= ut my instinct is that Mike's notion that a group-adopted agreement is fund= amentally different than multiple bilateral agreements is a classic distinc= tion without a difference. Why does how the agreement is derived matter if= the two agreements are becoming inexorably more and more alike? Why should= I fly up and down the west coast attending a steady stream of meetings and= pay $25K a year to use one agreement when it is steadily becoming more and= more like the other agreement which involves neither inconvenience? The c= reeping imitation of the WSPP process needs to be recognized for what it is= . I would argue that this approach might bear more fruit than wrangling over = process, although, that too is probably going to be an enduring necessity. = ----cgy =20 -----Original Message----- From: Stack, Shari [mailto:SStack@reliant.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:19 PM To: esager@enron.com; cyoder@enron.com; Russo, Dianne H; jeremy.weinstein@pacificorp.com Subject: FW: Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings I don't know who has had time to read the latest WSPP email - but the provision below was NOT adopted in accordance with std. procedure. At the Contracting Committee meeting in Colorado Springs on Aug. 10- this provision did not get the requisite percentage to pass on to the Operating Committee (in the meeting summary, he noted that it got a "supermajority" - whatever that is.) At the Operating Committee meeting in Idaho, Mike Small again proposed this change but said that there did not need to be a vote since it was going to be part of the "operating procedures". Now it appears that he has "snuck" it into the WSPP Agreement and took advantage of the fact that many did not attend the meeting in San Diego in reliance on being able to attend via conference call. As we all know, Mike Small arbitrarily canceled the call that would have allowed us to participate in the Executive Committee meeting. I suspect he did so because he knew we would object to this clause and therefore the 90% would not have been achieved.=20 Any thoughts on what to do about this?? S =20 _________________________________________________________ A new Section 32.5 to limit changes to the WSPP Agreement that may be made automatically through the confirmation process after the five day was adopted. Under this new provision, non-standard confirmation provisions (e.g. changes to the basic terms of the WSPP Agreement) may be adopted only if there is explicit agreement to those changes and not by operation of the five day rule. The modification adopted at the Executive Committee was to limit the oral agreements allowing such modifications to transactions of less than one week. This provision as modified was adopted with only one dissenting vote. =20 < -----Original Message----- < From: =09WINNIE HOWARD [mailto:HOWARD@wrightlaw.com]=20 < Sent:=09Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:45 AM < To:=09Russo, Dianne; Stack, Shari < Subject:=09Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings <=20 < <<WSPP 11-1 & 2-01 MEETINGS IN SAN DIEGO.doc.doc<<
|