|
|
Enron Mail |
Jim, Ron:
We're leaning toward plain-vanilla (1). The commercial attornies like the devil they know (CDWR) more than the devil they don't (whomever would pick up the contracts if Tuscon prevailed and the BFMs were sent back to the PX). I have asked to sit down with Chris Yoder and Steve Hall to go over our positions in these charge back dockets more carefully. Alan From: James D Steffes@ENRON on 03/15/2001 09:53 AM CST To: Christian Yoder/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Interventions in Tuscon Complaint Proceeding What is your take on filing? Jim ----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 03/15/2001 09:41 AM ----- "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com< 03/15/2001 09:30 AM To: <cyoder@enron.com<, <jsteffe@enron.com<, <rsanders@enron.com<, <steve.c.hall@enron.com< cc: <acomnes@enron.com<, <jhartso@enron.com<, <mary.hain@enron.com<, <smara@enron.com< Subject: Interventions in Tuscon Complaint Proceeding Just a reminder that interventions and comments in this proceeding are due next Monday, March 19th. This case concerns a complaint filed by Tuscon Electric challenging Governor Davis' and the state of California's commandeering of the BFM contracts of SCE and PG&E. The complaint argues that the contracts belong to interstate markets and are beyond the reach of the state's eminent domain powers. While the complaint is consistent with arguments that we have made in the past on many issues, I am not clear whether, on a commercial level, EPMI is upset that the Governor commandeered the contracts. My surface analysis is that the state is unlikely to pay fair value for the contracts and thus, if this is the only consideration, we would be better off if the contracts are returned to the PX to use as collateral on SCE's and PG&E's defaults (thereby mitigating chargeback exposure). I am not in position, however, to evaluate whether EPMI sees a commercial advantage in buying these contracts from DWR as opposed to buying them back from the PX under the liquidation procedures announced by the PX before the contracts were commandeered. FYI, the PX's procedures gave counterparties (such as EPMI) first opportunity to buy the contracts; when SCE protested this method, we intervened in support of the PX's proposal. We have three courses of action: (1) file a plain vanilla intervention; (2) intervene and file short comments in support of the complaint; or (3) do nothing. Since interventions and comments are due on Monday, please advise as soon as possible which course you prefer. I am available in my office (202-828-5872) to discuss. Thanks. Ron
|