|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Elizabeth Sager X-To: Leslie Hansen, David Portz, Janet H Moore, Christian Yoder, Genia FitzGerald, Jeffrey T Hodge X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: Sager-E X-FileName: esager.nsf A huge debate has been ongoing in he battle whether to include language in the EEI Contract that would provide that a confirmation that contains "substantive" terms not discussed by the traders is subject to the "deemed accepted" language. I have been very vocal against adding this language. The politics as you can tell from this email have been fierce, and as in much of successful politics, dirty. I'm not sure where this will end up, but feel like it is important that we all are aware of the history here as well as Enron's position (Confirmation needs to be the final, best evidence unless objected to in a timely manner). I will keep everybody posted on the results of the vote. ---------------------- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 02/28/2000 10:29 AM --------------------------- "Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org< on 02/25/2000 03:52:18 PM To: fmdutton@aep.com, hemu@dynegy.com, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT, mroger3@entergy.com, wfhenze@jonesday.com, dperlman@powersrc.com, rosteen@powersrc.com, drusso@reliantenergy.com cc: Subject: FWD: Today's Decision I am passing on the following message from Patty expressing her concern with today's decision to limit the choice on the ballot to optional language or no language. Cutting through the "edge" of her comments, no doubt brought on by the frustration of being outvoted, I believe she has some valid points on our process here. I have avoided taking a position on substantive questions regarding the contract, but I too have a process concern which I have raised with some of you individually. I apologize for not vocalizing these concerns this morning. Nevertheless, this is what I intend to do . Given that Mitch was not available for the discussion and knowing Mitch's position on this issue compels me to release the comments he wanted circulated before going on vacation. If there is a consensus from the balloting that the language should be included, but not as an option or as an "opt out" provision, this drafting committee should respect that sentiment. The attention of many members of the Drafting Committee has waned and EEI members (electric utilities which conduct wholesale power transactions) are no longer represented on the Drafting Committee. Mitch, in his email, did not think EEI member views were considered on the Tuesday call. And today's call by Constellation, Enron, EPMC (and Jones, Day and Schiff) did not even include any EEI members... The language compromise I accept, and believe that Mitch would accept, in the spirit of Drafting Committee give and take. But let's not kid ourselves. Today, a few members of the Drafting Committee made a decision that even Mitch (the only EEI member on the Tuesday call) did not think we had made or would make. Read his email. Today's decision was to not even "allow" the EEI members' vote to be heard to choose what they overwhelmingly chose in Houston --- that is, to have the provision in Section 2.3 of the Contract --- not just an option on the Cover sheet). Today's decision is just wrong. As the person who was standing in the front of the room in Houston, I feel strongly that I know what occurred, and what Comed, Dynegy, Cinergy, IPALCO, AEP, Ameren and Toni Frost's group of utilities, among others, know they voted on. I am the person that folks are going to call to ask why their views were ignored. I had become comfortable with the explanation for the revote --- to either not add the language at all, add to 2.3, or add as an option. But now Working Group is not being given the choice to vote as they did, like the result or not, in Houston. Even Fritz's suggestion that three choices be given on the ballot was ignored. Those three choices, as I understood it, would have included an even more aggressive elimination of the 2 business day presumption that the confirm, as sent, controls. The question I asked... why we are afraid of even giving the Working Group the choice to express the same views they expressed in Houston...was never answered. When EEI members call me to ask about this, I intend to suggest that they vote "YES" on the ballot, and then add an admonition to their ballot that the language be included in 2.3 and not just be an option on the cover sheet. I would hope that the Drafting Committee (or whoever remains on it) would at least consider such added comments although, again, after today I have my doubts. I intend to call some of the EEI members that I know will feel strongly about this. Since I know Mitch will not be around (and don't feel he should be disenfranchised), I also intend to call AEP as a courtesy. I no longer support the idea of not forwarding Mitch's email to the whole group, as he obviously intended. Ironically or perhaps intentionally, the Drafting Committee's failure to address this directly until almost a month after the Houston meeting means people won't even have a 2 Business Day voting window. Nonetheless, regardless of the vote, I intend to discuss this in the implementation discussion in the Houston/New York seminars. Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Voice: 202-508-5616 Fax: 202-508-5673 e-mail: akatz@eei.org
|