Message-ID: <18272108.1075843084314.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:52:00 -0700 (PDT) From: amosher@appanet.org To: gramlr@pjm.com, whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com, doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu, amosher@appanet.org, hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu, lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu, jeff.dasovich@enron.com Subject: RE: Draft program Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: "Mosher, Allen" X-To: gramlr@pjm.com, whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com, doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu, amosher@appanet.org, hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu, lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu, jeff.dasovich@enron.com X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Gspp conference X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Rob, 5:00 Monday is fine for me - but it is a Holiday - will everyone be available? I am headed back to the beach so am not available this afternoon. Everyone seems to like option 3 - see below. I like tying in UCEI. If Borenstein is available on Monday Nov 13, let's work from that date I don't know IBER but very much like the anti-trust angle.My gut (well, maybe just my heart) tells me that anti-trust will become bigger in the next few years, as public policy and polticians wrestle with more mega-mergers and business alliances that impair competitive markets without producing other corresponding benefits to consumers. What I wrote up earlier: Option 3 works for me, in that it fits my emphasis on identifying what we need to do to end up where we want to be in 2005, vs. responding to the imperatives of today's trade press and numbers for the next quarter. I also like the idea of a restructuring veteran such as Kahn or an economic historian mostly to put electric restructuring in the context of restructuring of economically-regulated American industries generally - airlines, trucking, rail, gas, telecom, insurance, securities, banking. Someone with a World Bank type background could also fill the bill. For Panel 1, I like the state-federal-international approach. Beyond just FERC, we can also consider the FTC and DOJ, bringing in both consumer protection and anti-trust paradigms into the discussion. For panel 2, I think Borenstein is a first choice if not a must have. Indeed, I think we ought to lean toward the academic side, drawing on our locational strengths/comparative advantages. On some of the others we've identified, I am less positive about Dahlberg (the head of Southern Company) or Sempra - my FERC experience with CEOs of highly regulated companies is that they don't reveal much in this type of forum - the downside is much greater than the upside for them. Plus Southern irritates public power - they're very good at competing in open markets in other regions while keeping their own system closed to competition. A Jeff Skilling or Ken Lay might be more insightful and open, but that raises appearance issues with Enron as a sponsor. Also, I may be out of date, but did John Bryson retire from Edison International/SCE? I tend also to be skeptical of the value of Richardson, in that I think he really has not focused that much energy on electric restructuring. Rich Glick from DOE might be better, but then there's no marquee value. Note - external events may make either Mon Nov 13 or Thurs Nov 16 really good or bad for the potential audience - NARUC (the National Assoc of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) will be holding a conference in San Diego on Nov 15 on the October 15 RTO compliance filings for FERC Order 2000 (the Regional Transmission Organizations final rule). (CAISO and the other approved ISOs do not have to file until January). I don't know if this is a multi-day conference or a one-day. I'm guessing the latter, but can't check till I get home. When we're ready and agree to do so, I can call Chuck Gray at NARUC to see if we can coordinate and promote through their contacts as well. By the way, NARUC holds meetings in San Francisco every summer, usually in July. That creates good opportunities for repeats of these conferences focused on all types of "utility" regulation, perhaps jointly sponsored by UCEI, Haas, or Stanford. . Allen Mosher Director of Policy Analysis American Public Power Association 2301 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 Voice: 202-467-2944 Fax: 202-467-2992 amosher@APPAnet.org > -----Original Message----- > From: gramlr@pjm.com [SMTP:gramlr@pjm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:44 AM > To: whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com; doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu; > amosher@appanet.org; hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu; > lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu; jeff.dasovich@enron.com > Subject: Draft program > > Shall we try to talk again Monday? I think I will talk to Borenstein to > see > what the Haas folks have in mind. > > I tried to capture everyone's comments. Allen, you might want to explain > more > about your panel suggestions since I didn't do them justice. As you'll > see I > took the liberty of offering a new characterization of the panels that I > didn't > bring up on the call. Everything on there is offered as a strawman to be > criticized and changed. > Rob <> > > Rob Gramlich > PJM Market Monitoring Unit > (610) 666-4291 > gramlr@pjm.com > << File: Draft program.doc >> ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager at postmaster@APPAnet.org. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************