|
|
Enron Mail |
I am ok with your proposal. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Harris, Stephanie J Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:52 AM To: Derrick Jr., James Subject: Massachusetts Venue Question ----- Forwarded by Stephanie Harris/Corp/Enron on 05/01/2001 08:49 AM ----- Robert.C.Williams@enron.com 02/12/2001 05:18 PM To: Stephanie.Harris@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com cc: vsharp@enron.com Subject: Massachusetts Venue Question As you know, EES is positioning itself to supply power to retail customers in Massachusetts. In order to do so, it must enter a Competitive Electric Service Supplier Agreement with a local utility, Western Mass. The agreement governs the relationship between EES and the utility (subject to the utility's tariff and PUC regulations), and mainly concerns billing and other administrative matters. I would not expect large dollar disputes to arise under the agreement (barring another California situation). The agreement presently calls for arbitration in Boston of any disputes. There are no rules specified. I recommend that we agree to arbitration in Boston but specify that: (1) the Federal Arbitration Act will apply (to give a legal framework to the arbitration and to enable EES to invoke federal court jurisdiction); (2) the arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the CPR Rules for Self-Administered Arbitrations (although AAA or JAMS would also be acceptable); and (3) one arbitrator will be used in the amount in dispute is less than $1 million but if greater then the parties will use a panel of three arbitrators, with each party selecting one (under CPR Rules the two party appointed arbitrators select the chair or, failing agreement, the CPR submits a list of 5 from which the chair is determined by the highest order of preference of the parties). Please let me know if this meets your approval. Thanks.
|