|
|
Enron Mail |
We need to talk further. As I discussed yesterday, our concern goes well b=
eyond the limited question of NSR. I did not even raise a concern about ho= w this representation might impact the multi-pollutant legislation, althoug= h I believe Jeff Keeler may have raised this issue in his conversation with= Scott. My concern is that Bracewell's representation of this coalition cr= eates a real and, at a minimum, practical conflict with Enron's interest in= electric transmission access and the full range of topics we have worked o= n under Enron's retainer. All of our electric power and, for that matter, = naural gas legislative and FERC issues are in direct conflict with EEI and = Southern Co. I readily foresee a scenario where Enron's issues are in the = very same legislative negotiations as NSR. I also am uncomfortable that du= ring our strategy sessions we constantly discuss global energy (thus enviro= nmental) strategy in conflict with Southern. Thus, at present, I do not se= e how a "Chinese Wall" or any other conflict-related strategy can adequatel= y protect Enron. Thanks for looking into this. Please let me know how we = should resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. =20 -----Original Message----- From: Marc F. Racicot [mailto:mracicot@bracepatt.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:02 PM To: Robertson, Linda Subject: Potential Conflict-Multiple Pollutant Legislation Linda: Scott, Gene and I met this morning to discuss the potential conflic= t issue you raised with me yesterday. I want to advise that Bracewell & P= atterson does not represent a client or interest adverse to the passage of = multi-pollutant legislation. If you want to discuss this further, please a= dvise. Marc
|