|
|
Enron Mail |
---------------------- Forwarded by John Shelk/NA/Enron on 07/12/2001 10:12=
=20 AM --------------------------- Carin Nersesian 07/12/2001 07:47 AM To: John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Pat Shortridge/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON=20 Subject: Barton,Tauzin letter to Gov. Davis Committee News Release The Committee on Energy and Commerce W.J. "Billy" Tauzin,? Chairman=20 Chairmen Tauzin, Barton Urge Gov. Davis To Respond Immediately to Inquiries=20 Washington (July 11) =01) House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Bill= y=20 Tauzin (R-LA) and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton= =20 (R-TX) today sent the following letter to California Governor Gray Davis:= =20 July 11, 2001 The Honorable Gray Davis=20 Governor=20 State of California=20 State Capitol=20 Sacramento, California 95814=20 Dear Governor Davis:=20 ??????????? As you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee recently=20 considered legislation containing several targeted measures to assist=20 California in resolving its energy supply crisis.? One of these measures wa= s=20 a temporary =01&safe harbor=018 provision, effective only upon the Californ= ia=20 Governor=01,s request, to protect critical extended emergency operation of= =20 powerplants from challenges under the Clean Air Act.=20 ??????????? During the course of six hearings the Subcommittee on Energy an= d=20 Air Quality held on the California electric crisis, including two hearings = on=20 draft legislation, Members of the Committee repeatedly told California=20 officials that these plants were vulnerable to legal challenge, even with= =20 written =01&agreements=018 for extended operation between state air officia= ls and=20 the powerplants.? Nevertheless, California officials testifying or providin= g=20 information on behalf of your state and your citizens claimed that such a= =20 safe harbor was not necessary.=20 ??????????? I fear events have proven that on this important matter, the=20 concerns expressed by Members of our Committee were valid and that our=20 interpretation of the legal jeopardy faced by California was accurate.? On= =20 June 19th, several community groups filed a lawsuit in federal court agains= t=20 three electric generating units in California (all located at the Potrero= =20 power plant site) alleging multiple violations of the Clean Air Act for=20 emergency extended operation.? On the same day, the City and County of San= =20 Francisco filed formal notice that it would also pursue legal action agains= t=20 the three Potrero units.? All parties involved in the litigation strongly= =20 assert that the extended operation agreement between state air officials an= d=20 the Potrero power plant does nothing to prevent them from pursuing all=20 available legal remedies under federal and state law.=20 ??????????? The legal action against the units located at the Potrero power= =20 plant claims that extended operation violates limits contained in federal a= ir=20 permits and seeks fines potentially amounting to millions of dollars.?=20 Understandably, as a result of this potentially huge fine, the operator of= =20 the Potrero power plant has filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulato= ry=20 Commission to clarify that it will not be required to operate the three=20 generating units, even during periods of electrical emergency.? Thus, the= =20 mere filing of this lawsuit could have a near-term impact of the amount of= =20 power available in California.=20 ??????????? Perhaps even more troubling is our understanding that substanti= al=20 amounts of electric power produced by peaking plants and other facilities i= n=20 California could also be subject to similar legal action.? The California= =20 Independent System Operator lists 31 units representing 1,430 megawatts of= =20 peaking units which are subject to legal limits on their total hours of=20 operation.? In addition, several new units are being brought on-line this= =20 summer without required Clean Air Act control equipment.? According to=20 incomplete information we received from the California Air Resources Board= =20 (CARB), 37 generating units have been identified in California which may=20 exhaust allowable annual operating hours contained in their air permits pri= or=20 to this summer=01,s peak demand period.? These units may represent up to 2%= of=20 generation, approximately the critical operating reserve shortfall of a Sta= ge=20 III electric emergency.=20 ??????????? Although presented with written requests for information from t= he=20 Committee on April 2, 2001, CARB could not or would not provide the Committ= ee=20 with precise information on units that may have been off-line due to permit= =20 limits, a projection of the number of generating units that will face permi= t=20 constraints that could cause such units to be off-line, the amount of=20 generation associated with these facilities, the possible impact of these= =20 units on system reliability, and additional information related to air=20 emissions from facilities that will be operating under =01&modified=018=20 conditions.?? We believe that in the face of the pending legal action, it i= s=20 even more important that such information be accurately and objectively=20 determined.=20 ??????????? As we mentioned above, over several months in the spring and=20 early summer of this year, the Committee sought California=01,s support of = an=20 extremely narrow safe harbor provision to protect the extended operation of= =20 certain powerplants.? Regrettably, the Committee did not receive any suppor= t=20 from your administration for such changes to the law, as represented by the= =20 testimony and responses attached to this letter.? Instead, witnesses=20 representing California claimed such a legal safe harbor for emergency=20 generation was unnecessary -- even if it could only be granted during perio= ds=20 of emergency and upon your personal request to the Environmental Protection= =20 Agency (EPA).?=20 ??????????? It appears now that citizen groups in California -- as well as= =20 the City and County of San Francisco -- do not believe that the actions tak= en=20 by you, your state agencies and local air quality districts are legal.? The= =20 pending litigation challenges the very agreements which California previous= ly=20 claimed granted sufficient legal =01&flexibility=018 to keep these units ru= nning=20 during times of emergency.? It is time, then, to reconsider this issue.=20 ??????????? So that the Committee may understand the extent of this critica= l=20 situation and respond accordingly, we would ask for your consideration of t= he=20 following:=20 (1) We would urge you to reply fully to the Committee=01,s earlier requests= that=20 CARB specifically identify each generating unit and power plant that is in= =20 jeopardy of exceeding limitations contained in the Clean Air Act and thus= =20 potentially subject to the citizen suit provisions of the Act.? We should= =20 have a clear idea of the power production which is at risk.=20 (2) In view of the fact that we have moved from the world of legal theory= =20 into the world of legal fact and several California generating units are no= w=20 being sued under authorities contained in the Clean Air Act, we ask whether= =20 you will now favor creating in federal law a limited, environmentally-neutr= al=20 safe harbor for these essential units which could only be effectuated upon= =20 your request to EPA.=20 (3) Finally, we would ask that if you support such legislation, that you wo= rk=20 with our Committee so that we can truly try and resolve this issue in a=20 targeted provision which helps ensure the lights stay on in California this= =20 summer.=20 ??????????? Thank you in advance for your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, W.J. (Billy) Tauzin Chairman Energy and Commerce Committee Joe Barton=20 Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Peter Sheffield 202.225.5735=20 Carin Nersesian Legislative Coordinator Enron Corp. 1775 Eye St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 202-466-9144 (ph.) 202-828-3372 (fax)
|