Message-ID: <15437055.1075847868226.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: jose.bestard@enron.com To: richard.shapiro@enron.com Subject: Re: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls Cc: linda.robertson@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, joe.hartsoe@enron.com, tom.briggs@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, janine.migden@enron.com, jean.ryall@enron.com, aleck.dadson@enron.com, ricardo.charvel@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com, steve.montovano@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: linda.robertson@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, joe.hartsoe@enron.com, tom.briggs@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, janine.migden@enron.com, jean.ryall@enron.com, aleck.dadson@enron.com, ricardo.charvel@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com, susan.mara@enron.com, steve.montovano@enron.com X-From: Jose Bestard X-To: Richard Shapiro X-cc: Linda Robertson, Steven J Kean, Joe Hartsoe, Tom Briggs, James D Steffes, Paul Kaufman, Janine Migden, Jean Ryall, Aleck Dadson, Ricardo Charvel, Jeff Dasovich, Susan J Mara, Steve Montovano X-bcc: X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Bush X-Origin: KEAN-S X-FileName: skean.nsf Rick. Let's pause and reflect on this bullet. Do we want to argue for that? This is going to start another Federal/State rights war!! and I do not believe this is going to help much and would require legislation. Federal siting and permitting authority must be expanded to allow for the construction of new transmission and generation facilities. Maybe in some less populated states, or for sitting facilities in the middle of no-where this is not a problem, but my experience in Florida is that the sitting process is very much intertwined with property rights and ROW acquisition, ultimately relying on condemnation. To get there, in Florida there is a process to establish that there was a "public need" that required government action. At FPL we relied on the process to obtain an eventual outcome where there was the force-of- law [of the greater public good to be able to obtain the ROW]. This was crucial for the Transmission ROW for all lines greater than 240 KV. (Many more individual owners and 100% needed to complete the connection within the selected route). The sitting process for the generation site was not as controversial, because we acquired (or held rights to) sites which had been pre-screened to avoid controversy; but, obviously a permit for a generation site is useless if you can't get the power into the grid, thus you need the Transmission ROW. Part of the process involved providing options/ and costs, community involvement, etc. - which ultimately resulted in a "choice" determined to have been "prudently" undertaken, ( Longer much costly line, part underground, etc,) In every case, there were "not in my back-yard" arguments, at times disguised as an EMF issue. Also, in every case, the authorities knew that they had to select one option, or make one on their own. Not selecting one meant that there would be power shortages and they would have to answer to the people impacted, the local voters. Under the regulatory framework, where there will be concurrent filings for competing projects, the determination of "public need" will be more difficult to acertain. You may end up having an approval but not being able to use the condemnation process to get the ROW. But, still, I have a hard time believing that the Federal process would be an improvement over the State process (except in California where they have truly lived-up to their reputation). Jose Richard Shapiro@ENRON 04/04/2001 12:07 PM To: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT, Janine Migden/NA/Enron@Enron, Jean Ryall/NA/Enron@ENRON, Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT, Ricardo Charvel/NA/Enron@Enron, Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron, Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON, Jose Bestard/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Steve Montovano/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls I think these are quite good...the missing piece, I would argue, that we need to include is a talking point on the need for FERC to focus significant resources on the identification and elimination of market power in electricity markets and the need to encourage the development of distributed generation and more effective demand - side response mechanisms , partly in response to market power concerns. This is a huge issue in getting wholesale electricity markets to work effectively, i.e; to create discernable consumer welfare benefits.... and we ( Enron ) need to talk about this this issue and concern and talk about it frequently and w/ the same passion we talk about the need for open markets. Linda Robertson 04/04/2001 12:09 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls Steve, per our conversation yesterday in Houston, what do you think of these TPs? To be used by both Ken and Jeff in conversations and meetings with the Bush Administration. - Skilling Talking Points.doc