|
|
Enron Mail |
FERC will be the ultimate decider on Admin Cost Adder, not the IURC. Not s=
ure why this is even in the Settlement except to ensure that IURC won't int= ervene at FERC. We should not sign based on this information. Jim -----Original Message----- From: =09Migden, Janine =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, November 07, 2001 8:59 AM To:=09Roan, Michael; Stroup, Kerry Cc:=09Steffes, James D.; Nicolay, Christi L.; Merola, Jeff Subject:=09IURC - MISO SETTLEMENT I reviewed the settlement document last night and quite frankly do not see = a whole lot of reason to sign on at this point as it is a rehash simply of = things MISO is already required to do. Moreover, the settlement would not = limit MISO in any future amendment to the MISO agreement, leaving them free= to do as they please, post settlement. The language in parts is a little = troublesome, things like, MISO "has an impressive infrastructure"; that tr= ansmission owners and marketers "will need to learn through experience" thu= s providing them an out for unacceptable behavior; acknowledgements that "i= t is important not to delay progress indefinately in the hope of making tra= nsmission system operations perfect in the Midwest for Day One," which whil= e we may conceptually agree with, I'd never want in writing in this context= because it gives them an excuse not to adopt anything we may propose in th= e name of expediency; etc. Etc. The settlement also acknowledges the reaso= nableness of the MISO Administrative Cost Adder but allows us to challenge = it in a proceeding. This shifts the burden of proof by creating a rebuttal= presumption of reasonableness which will be more difficult to litigate. I have calls into a number of intervenors to get their take on this and wil= l keep you apprised.
|