|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached is a ruling issued yesterday by Commissioner Wood directing that E=
SPs and customers file copies of direct access contracts with the Commissio= n by December 3. The contracts will be available to ALL other parties who = sign a "suitable" protective order. The Ordering Paragraphs read as follow= : 1. By December 3, 2001, any party who believes that it has a direct acc= ess contract or agreement potentially affected by an order to suspend direc= t access as of July 1, 2001 or a date earlier than September 20, 2001, shal= l submit a true and correct copy of each of the actual contracts or agreeme= nts along with any arguments as to the impact of such an order. A failure = to submit this information for the Commission's consideration will be consi= dered a waiver of the arguments related to claims involving the contracts a= nd agreements. Initially, the true and correct copy of each of the actual = contracts or agreements shall be filed under seal with the Commission's Doc= ket Office and served on Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Barnett. 2. Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall work with the parties who have e= xecuted direct access contracts or agreements to develop a proposed protect= ive order and nondisclosure agreement for Commission staff, which shall be = submitted to ALJ Barnett by December 3. =20 3. The electric service providers and customers who are parties shall w= ork with other parties and shall jointly submit a proposed protective order= and nondisclosure agreement that will cover parties other than Commission = staff by December 11, 2001.=20 4. Parties' supplemental comments to the comments they filed in respons= e to the October 23rd Assigned Commissioner Ruling shall be submitted by Ja= nuary 4, 2002. As a preliminary matter, of course, AReM and WPTF do not, in their own name= s, have direct access contracts. However, certain members of AReM and WPTF= are direct parties to the proceeding and need to consider what course they= wish to take. The group also needs to consider if they wish to fight this= Order on Constitutional or procedural grounds. I will be considering our = options and get back to you with more detail. However, as a very prelimina= ry analysis, it is evident that the Commission does not have jurisdiction o= ver either ESPs or the customers they serve. The request is also particula= rly outrageous because of the statements that, "A failure to submit this in= formation for the Commission's consideration will be considered a waiver of= the arguments related to the claims involving the contracts and agreements= " and "Parties to this proceeding may have access to these contracts and ag= reements after the appropriate protective order and nondisclosure agreement= s are in effect." The former is a likely denial of due process and the lat= ter exposes proprietary contracts and pricing information to ESP competitor= s and exposes sensitive pricing information to competitors of energy-depend= ent customers. =20 =20 Your thoughts would be appreciated. My initial reaction is that this is t= ime for ESPs and customer groups, such as CMTA, ABAG, CLECA, CIU, EPUC, SPU= RR, etc., to band together and fight this at multiple levels, from the Gove= rnor's Office on down, including in the media. Your thoughts would be very= much appreciated. =20 Dan =20 Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 596-2201 Fax: (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com<
|