Subject: Re: Lay/Skilling Talking Points for Bush Admin Meetings and Calls
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:16:00 -0700 (PDT)

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