|
|
Enron Mail |
Eric,
Considering the number of fires we have at Enron right now this is about the last thing on Stan's mind. Hill and Hartsoe are appropriate to be attending this meeting. Again--I think that this is a bit more of Dennis' overkill. Do you think he goes dove hunting with grenades? Dan -----Original Message----- From: Gadd, Eric Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:29 PM To: McCarty, Danny Subject: FW: Sent on Behalf of Dennis McConaghy - Washington Danny, I recommend that Bob Hill and Joe Hartzoe represent Enron in DC on 15 Nov with the Senators. Dennis probably prefers that either you or Stan appear. Please advise. -----Original Message----- From: Samantha Smith [mailto:samantha_smith@transcanada.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:34 PM To: Somerhalder John; Holm Jay; Wright Byron S.; Wadlington Jr. Cuba; Moore James C. (Jim); Carlton Cavan; King Tom; Lund Peter; Horton, Stanley; McCarty, Danny; Gadd, Eric; Hulse Darcel; John Fred; Evans Robert B.; Reese Brad D. Cc: Friesen Donna; Stewart D. Michael G.; Palmer Tony; Birch Murray; Moffatt J. Curtis; Roberts Tom; Ellwood John Subject: Sent on Behalf of Dennis McConaghy - Washington Gentleman, The two attached email items from Van Ness describe draft legislation which Senator Murkowski is considering introducing and the likely timing of such action. As the note describes, Murkowski would: ban OTT; and introduce a "trigger date concept", presently Jan. 1, 2003, for ANGTS would have filed with the Secretary of Energy a proposal which the Secretary certifies to be the substantial equivalent of a complete Section 7 application for public convenience and necessity; in the event the trigger date is not met, allow the "producer enabling" legislation, which would provide ANGTA-type expedition for any NGA Section 7 application to build a pipeline in Alaska, to come into effect. Currently, our best sense is that Murkowski could unveil this alternative as early as next week, either as part of a Republican energy bill or an amendment to pending legislation. Concurrently, the Democratic side , via the staffs of both Daschle and Bingaman, are preparing a comprehensive energy bill which will contain an Alaskan gas pipeline title. At present, we do not yet have a sense of what that title would contain, and we been assured the current "placeholder" in the draft does not indicate that Daschle and Bingaman have decided to support producer legislation. While it is not certain that Murkowski could force this issue alone, it is in our collective best interests to forestall any producer legislation by demonstrating real progress as soon as possible. This is particularly true because the current political situation could make it easier for Murkowski or others to bypass the usual process and proceed with an amendment to non-energy legislation from the floor. Based on the advice from our advisors in Washington, we believe that we should execute and publicly announce the MOU no later than November 15, and earlier if feasible. We also believe that the signatories to MOU should be available in Washington on the 15th to meet face to face with Murkowski, Binagman and Daschle to convey: progress on the re-enlistment as represented by the MOU; our commitment to the development of a commercial proposal for ANGTS that results in serious face-to-face negotiations in the first quarter of 2002; and our continued position that any legislative action by Congress at this time is premature because we have resolved, in principle, a key obstacle identified by the producers; with all parties coalescing around an Alaskan Highway project, ANGTS remains the best vehicle for expediting the actual construction of the pipeline; because we need the Producers as shippers, there is no possibility that we could exert undue commercial pressure on them; and establishing a deadline would provide the producers with the incentive to simply run out the clock. Although circumstances politically might suggest our being in Washington ahead of the 15th, I recognize that the 15th better conforms to the reality of commercial progress. I plan to speak to this on the Wednesday commercial meeting in Calgary. I would hope that at the Wednesday meeting your representatives would be able to confirm your participation for meetings on the 15th with the three Senators. Obviously, it is our view, at Foothills/ANNGTC, that we want to deflect the Congress from enacting any legislation at this time, and particularly anti-ANGTS legislation like that Murkowski is considering. We need the help of Murkowksi and others to cause the Producers to match the serious steps and compromises we have made, not to enact a statutory scheme that encourages and rewards their unwillingness to develop a comprehensive pipeline package. Dennis McConaghy 403-920-2011
|