|
|
Enron Mail |
Dear Mike,
As various companies have expressed on several occasions, Enron, Reliant and Constellation strongly believe that the WSPP should provide some guidance to the membership as to the various issues that are unique but must be addressed when dealing with municipalities in the west (such as Public Utility Districts, Cities, etc...). As was evident during the Las Vegas meeting, several members do not seem to have any experience in this regard and therefore should at the very least be apprised of the issues that might confront them when entering into transactions with such entities. While we agree with you that an amendment might not be the appropriate mechanism at this time for addressing this issue, we think that it is imperative that the WSPP educate its membership as to the potential pitfalls involved. Therefore, we propose that Wright and Talisman draft a memo that describes the authorizations that entities involved in trading other commodities commonly request (i.e. statutory authorizations to transact, signature authorizations, resolutions setting forth transaction parameters, board resolutions, city council approvals, etc.). We would also request that W&T point to some relevant examples over the last few years - specifically, City of Springfield, Illinois and Orange County - as well as any other guidance that W&T might be able on the topic. Therefore, this issue is different than what Morgan Stanley proposed during the Las Vegas meeting. With regard to bringing up issues which have already been addressed, it is our understanding that the WSPP Working Group overwhelmingly voted not to incorporate East product definitions into the WSPP. Therefore, we wonder why it appears in the agenda for SFO meeting. Thank you, Shari Stack, Enron Randy Osteen, Constellation Dede Russo, Reliant
|