|
|
Enron Mail |
Rick: unfortunately, the stand alone reliability legislation DOES have a
"reasonable chance of passing." To block this possibility, we are pursuing two strategies simultaneously. #1 the Stakeholder letter with the message that the bill does little for reliability and provides no real political inoculation so should not be passed; and #2 the lack of consensus on the technical language contained within the bill makes passage problematic. If the bill were to be able to move, the bill must be considered "consensus" otherwise it will pose political problems for the Calendar. Today, there is still lack of bill consensus. We should consider a strategy of asking for reasonable legislative provisions beyond the current language which would improve the bill (and continue to keep true consensus from occurring.) Of course, we cannot be obvious on this approach. Part of the reason I was pushing to get one or our CEO's to play golf with Congressman Tauzin on the 22nd is he is the key Member pushing the House Leadership to pass the stand-alone bill now to "politically inoculate Republicans." As the likely new House Commerce Committee Chairman; he carries sway. Another approach would be for us to call Entergy to give Congressman Tauzin the same message. And our #3 strategy.....pray that the temperature cools down so the issue dissipates.....and/or they run out of time...... Richard Shapiro@EES 08/10/2000 09:16 AM To: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation Why are we communicating technical problems ?( do we think it has a reasonable chance of passing?) Reliability-only legislation is bad policy. I Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON 08/09/2000 07:09 PM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, dwatkiss@bracepatt.com, cingebretson@bracepatt.com, ed@buckham.com, bpaxon@akingump.com, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation As discussed, should Congress upon its return after the Labor Day recess appear ready to move H.R. 4941, Congressman Wynn's stand-alone reliability legislation; a large group of stakeholders would sign and send the attached letter. Although Enron would like the letter to be stronger, this letter went through many revisions to reach the consensus language necessary for a larger group to sign. Thus, while not a perfect letter, it would send a stronger message with a multitude of signatures. The status of the letter is that it is being "held in our back pocket" should it become necessary. Pre-approval has been given and it stands in an "almost" final form. Should you have any grave problems with the letter, let me know, and I will see what's possible given the constraints posed by the group. On a separate but related note, we are working with Joe and Dan to prepare a short white paper to detail the "technical problems" still remaining with the Wynn legislative language and will communicate these problems, Enron's opposition and lack of bill "consensus" to the Hill shortly (as soon as this paper is ready.) I believe ELCON, EPSA and CMA will continue to share our opposition although confusion remains on the Hill as to the exact reasons for our opposition given the numerous versions of the legislation circulating. thanks. - 08_04_00_Draft_Stake_ltr_WJL.doc
|