|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JSTEFFE< X-To: Migden, Janine </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jmigden< X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jim_Steffes_Jan2002\Steffes, James D.\Sent Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: jsteffe (Non-Privileged).pst Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Migden, Janine Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:54 PM To: Steffes, James D.; Novosel, Sarah; Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry; Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: RE: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... Thanks Sarah. Jim, consider it done. -----Original Message----- From: Steffes, James D. Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:47 PM To: Novosel, Sarah; Migden, Janine; Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry; Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: RE: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... I like it. Our argument should be that the MISO is not an Indiana public utility. I'd put it in the dialogue just to keep from having the process work out poorly. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Novosel, Sarah Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:08 PM To: Steffes, James D.; Migden, Janine; Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry; Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: RE: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... Janine: Below is a short response I have drafted if we choose to respond (although it is not clear to me that a response is necessary) to these emails. I'm a little unclear about the positions of the people in the emails. I think our best response to Ron (Cinergy) is that MISO does not serve load, so MISO is not accountable to IURC. Do we agree that MISO is considered an Indiana utility? If we agree with that statement, are they subject to any IURC oversight? Even if they are, I don't think it should be because of the "bundled" retail load issue, but rather because IURC has the right to regulate all "public utilities" (perhaps for safety reasons?) within its state. But if we agree that IURC does have some authority over MISO as an Indiana Public Utility, then we may need to revise the statement below. I did not go into the issue of whether there will be any "bundled retail load" in Indiana once MISO is operating. In a prior order, FERC says that all transmission must be under the MISO tariff. If this is the case, one could argue that the service is no longer "bundled" but I don't think we want to get into that argument with these guys. Here is some language that I put together. What does everyone else think? The MISO is a FERC jurisdictional entity that will provide interstate transmission service throughout its region. MISO will not serve retail load, nor will it operate the distribution systems that move power to retail customers. Therefore, we do not believe that MISO is or should be accountable to the IURC. Responsibility for serving retail customers will remain with the individual entities who are currently responsible for serving those customers. They will contract for transmission service with the MISO and will have the obligation to serve their retail customers. It will be these load serving entities who are accountable to the IURC, not MISO. -----Original Message----- From: Steffes, James D. Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:28 AM To: Migden, Janine; Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry; Nicolay, Christi L.; Novosel, Sarah Subject: RE: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... I think that Enron is interested supporting your idea. Let's weigh in with appropriate language that counters the below language - I think that the state-level parties (and the IURC) have an interest in the MISO acknowledging that it is an Indiana utility with SOME degree of accountability re (at least) bundled retail load to the Indiana Commission and the Indiana parties. Please work with Sarah N. to create a reasonable response and our key arguments. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Migden, Janine Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:19 AM To: Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry; Steffes, James D.; Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: FW: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... Citizens Action has been going back and forth with Cinergy on the jurisdictional question and the right for the IURC to reinsert itself after approval of transfer, ie rights of review down the road. At this point, I have stayed out of the email traffic, but we could weigh in supporting the concept that MISO is FERC jurisdictional. See below. -----Original Message----- From: MullettCAC@aol.com@ENRON Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:40 PM To: Ron.Brothers@cinergy.com Cc: mork@ucclan.state.in.us; jlyle@mullettlaw.com; tstewart@lewis-kappes.com; jmigden@enron.com Subject: Re: FW: Midwest ISO Joint Petitioners' Proposed Settlement Agreement - IURC C... Ron: It seems to me that the IURC cannot approve transfer of operational control to an RTO which does not have FERC approval, but it also seems to me that the IURC is not required to approve transfer of operational control to an RTO which does have FERC approval. In other words, come December 15, or January 1, or January 15, we could have Indiana utilities still being operated in accordance with their own Open Access Tariffs just as they are today. Do you agree or disagree with that proposition? If my proposition is correct, then the issue becomes whether the proposed transfer of operational control to MISO meets the requirements of Section 83, i.e. a "public interest" standard. As you know, I think that MISO has done a creditable (although by no means perfect) job in considering and balancing the interests of affected parties and has a meaningful stakeholder input process. So, I think that it would be a mistake for Indiana parties to try and "load up" the IURC approval process with a lot of party-specific "Christmas tree ornaments." By the same token, I am quite concerned about a "rubber stamp" approach to IURC review. I think that the state-level parties (and the IURC) have a significant interest in the transfer being for a term of years which does not exceed five. I think the State should retain the ability to withdraw its approval of the transfer of operational control and investigate the effects of MISO operation on Indiana retail load. I think that the state-level parties (and the IURC) have an interest in defining the goals or standards for MISO performance during the initial transfer period, based on which an extension of the authorization would subsequently be granted or denied. I think that the state-level parties (and the IURC) have an interest in the MISO acknowledging that it is an Indiana utility with SOME degree of accountability re (at least) bundled retail load to the Indiana Commission and the Indiana parties. And, I do not see those interests being recognized or accommodated very much, if at all, in your settlement proposal. Do you disagree? If so, tell me how you see those interests addressed in your proposal. I want to hear what others say, but as matters stand my inclination would be to pursue these issues in the hearing, brief them, and then let the Commission decide. Do you think that this approach would delay the IURC decisional process enough to make a difference? If so, how much delay with what effect? Thanks. Mike Michael A. Mullett Mullett & Associates 309 West Washington Street, Suite 233 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-5165 Fax: (317) 636-5435 E-mail: mullettcac@aol.com
|