|
|
Enron Mail |
We need to be very cautious about signing on to documents that seek to delay the start date of any RTO - unless and until I hear something different from FERC, my going in assumption is that Enron will be one of the only voices on this issue. We should only give on this issue when real value is being created.
Why not file a "me too" on the issue of seating of the Board w/o agreeing to everything else? Jim -----Original Message----- From: Nicolay, Christi L. Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:11 AM To: Stroup, Kerry; Roan, Michael; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Allegretti, Daniel; Migden, Janine; Fulton, Donna; Novosel, Sarah; Lindberg, Susan Subject: RE: Motion to reject, protest and request for immediate stay.... Kerry -- I think this looks fine. Please ask Mike and see if Donna thinks this is fine (Donna -- What effect would this groups asking for the 12/15 start date to be pushed back have on AEP's merger?) Kevin is ok with Enron signing on to this, even if the start date is pushed back some. FYI to all -- Please remember to include Donna and Sarah on issues dealing with FERC. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Stroup, Kerry Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:37 AM To: Roan, Michael; Steffes, James D.; Shapiro, Richard; Allegretti, Daniel; Migden, Janine; Nicolay, Christi L. Subject: FW: Motion to reject, protest and request for immediate stay.... Importance: High We have an opportunity to join in sponsoring the attached pleading by Virginia Commission et al. The pleading protests Alliances' interim independent board proposal included in its 8/27 compliance filing as non-compliant with FERC's 7/12 Alliance Order and with Order 2000, asserts that its 8/27 compliance filing should be rejected in-part (the exception being that portion of the filing addressing permanent governance) since it was not reviewed by a permanent independent board, and requests suspension of any further decision-making by the Alliance members. We should definitely consider joining in this protest, but need to act today. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Randazzo [mailto:srandazzo@MWNCMH.COM] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:49 PM To: Kerry Stroup (E-mail) Subject: FW: Motion to reject, protest and request for immediate stay.... Importance: High FYI (see messages below) NOTICE: The forgoing message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Sam Randazzo McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC (614) 719-2840 (voice) (614) 469-4653 (fax) srandazzo@mwncmh.com (e-mail) Importance: High FYI (see message below). Please advise if you or your organization is interested in joining in sponsoring this pleading and if you have any suggested changes. Subject: Motion to reject, protest and request for immediate stay.... <<82701protest.doc<< Attached for your review and consideration is a draft "Motion to Reject, Protest, and Further Start-up Activities by the Alliance Companies of The Virginia State Corporation Commission". We have opted not to file a complaint and have choosen the abovce approach. While a motion for stay is traditionally only filed when a party seeks to stay an agency order, in this instance we thought it would be appropriate to request that the Commission "stay" the Alliance Companies' RTO-related start-up activities, pending implementation of an independent board. Given the new chair's interest in competitive markets, we think there is nothing to lose with this approach, and we believe making the arguments in the context of the requirements for a stay may emphasize the critical nature of the request. I have been informed that 8 of the 10 Alliance Companies have signed a letter of intent to enter into negotiations for National Grid to become the managing member. The interim governance proposal is "pretty close" to the Tuesday's Alliance Company proposal. The draft anticipates that the Alliance Companies will put forth a interim governance similar to what they put forward last Tuesday. We will, of course, have to make adjustments after we have actually seen the filing. We look forward to receiving your input.
|