|
|
Enron Mail |
He has started work. Basic scope of two papers is already identified. I
scheduled meetings for him all day in London on Monday with colleagues covering various EU countries, including Paul and Paul. I have tentatively arranged to see him again myself in Brussels or Amsterdam on 1 June, but we could try to postpone that to 6 June. I am not personally convinced that, with Michael Brown intending a blitz on consultants, Littlechild is particularly good value for money - a potentially potent missile, but clumsy to target! We can terminate him as from end August. I will call you about your schedule of visits/ itinerary. Richard Shapiro@ENRON 05/24/2001 05:09 PM To: Paul Dawson/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Doug Wood/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Paul Hennemeyer/Enron@EUEnronXGate, Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Stephen Littlechild Let's discuss on our next group (the five of us) call. I've met Littlechild and read his recent work...I want to make sure we get full value out of him. Perhaps, we can bring him into the office the week of June 4th when I'm next in London. Thanks. From: Stephen Littlechild [mailto:littlechild@tanworth.mercianet.co.uk] Sent: 29 March 2001 12:08 To: Mark Schroeder Cc: Kyran Hanks Subject: beginning work Dear Mark We had a brief but helpful meeting on 7 February, since when I have discussed and signed a contract with Annette Patrick. I was hoping to begin work before now, but two lengthy trips abroad have precluded this. I thought it would be helpful to recap where we now are and what I have in mind. You summarised the three topics where further work would be helpful to you as 1. What went wrong in California? (and why it should not preclude further liberalisation in Europe) 2. The importance of accelerated EU directives, including the importance of separation of functions. 3. The importance of retail marketing, including to residential customers. On the first topic, I have recently published a paper in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Winter 2001 edition (which incidentally features Enron in a couple of the other articles). Copy attached. Most of it is familiar stuff but there is a concluding section on California which answers the What went wrong question. We could aim to bring this to a wider audience, but there are lots of papers on this topic now, and the situation changes almost daily, so it may be better to incorporate it into a paper on Europe. On the second topic, I accepted an invitation to address an analysts' conference (UBS Warburg) this coming Monday, on the topic of regulatory policy in Europe and where it is going. I knew nothing about the topic at the time, but thought it would force me to learn. Unfortunately there has been little time to do this so far. The topic ties in with the work we discussed, and if acceptable to you I propose to spend the next couple of days working on it under the contract, with a view not just to the presentation, but to a subsequent paper and publication. I should say that the conference pays a fee, but only enough to cover travel and conference time and the presentation itself, not any underlying research time. I see from press reports that there has been some development or lack of it with respect to discussions on the EU directive. I hope to talk to Kyran on this and related topics, either today or tomorrow, and maybe he has something that he can email me. Perhaps next week we can talk about how to take this work forward, and where to aim at - either a journal like PowerUK, or as a direct input into some EU process. On the third topic, my ideas are embodied in the paper on Joskow that you have seen.The question is how best to publicise and apply these ideas - perhaps in a paper on Europe again? That is, to argue for the importance of the directives in a particular respect, namely retail competition, and to show how California failed to do this adequately? On now to European regulation. Best wishes Stephen
|