|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks, Kay. Ryan is sending you the proposed Response to Notice of
Change, for your review and approval. -----Original Message----- From: Mann, Kay [mailto:Kay.Mann@ENRON.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:16 PM To: BarshK@gtlaw.com; Krimsky, Steven; Jacoby, Ben; OrshefskyD@GTLAW.com Cc: ReetzR@gtlaw.com; Pais, Randy Subject: RE: Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach/Air Permitting Update I predict that we will not prevail in an objection to consolidation. Judges love to consolidate unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. A one month delay will not be enough to persuade the AJL to not consolidate if you consider the advantages to the judges, so we would need a better reason. Do we have anything else to go on? (I don't think the Margate issue is enough, either.) I doubt we will have the settlement buttoned up by the second week of December, which could leave us in the position of needing to continue the hearing until January anyway. Kay -----Original Message----- From: BarshK@gtlaw.com [mailto:BarshK@gtlaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 5:00 PM To: Mann, Kay; Krimsky, Steven; Jacoby, Ben; OrshefskyD@GTLAW.com Cc: ReetzR@gtlaw.com Subject: Pompano Beach and Deerfield Beach/Air Permitting Update Kay, Steve, Ben, and Debbie -- I spoke with Martha Nebelsiek today and she indicated that DEP is intending to file a motion for consolidation of the two air proceedings into a single proceeding. To that end, Martha believes that the proceedings should be heard sometime in January 2002, depending upon which of the cases is consolidated into the other. Martha believes that consolidation is appropriate now because the permit conditions recommended by DEP are consistent and that, for evaluation purposes, the DEP considered the sites as one. Martha will be filing a motion for consolidation and wanted our position on the proposed consolidation. I told her that we would likely oppose such a motion but that I would check with you before finalizing our position. Consolidation has its advantages and disadvantages. The cases, if consolidated, may be less expensive to try. Yet, the hearing in December may be at risk if consolidation occurs. In addition, the parties are not exactly the same in each proceeding (Margate is not a participant in the Deerfield proceeding). I need to get back to Martha as soon as possible with Enron's position on the proposed consolidation. If she does not hear back from me soon, then Martha will likely file the motion and indicate that Enron objects to the consolidation. Ryan and I also need to get approval to submit Enron's response to DEP's Change of Position on the Pompano Beach air permit. I promised not to file any response last week, given the pending settlement negotiations but we need to respond to the Change in the next few days. Please advise me of your thoughts on the consolidation. --Kerri . _______________________________________________________________ The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@gtlaw.com. ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________________________ The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.
|