Subject: Re: EEI/ Enron consensus- building process
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:06:00 -0800 (PST)

I don't want to disrupt building a more collegial relationship here, but I 
have some concerns about their reticence to sound more positive about 
reaching agreement on our two key issues.  Can we put the question 
differently:  what are the barriers to their concurrence and what can we do 
together to address those barriers?  If the barriers for EEI are 
insurmountable because of the recalcitrance of a few members, can they 
facilitate a dialogue between us and a more progressive group?

	James D Steffes
	11/01/2000 05:25 PM
		 
		 To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: EEI/ Enron consensus- building process

Sounds positive.  I think that both sides are realistic but willing to work 
together.  I think we need to keep this going forward.  If we let this hang 
out too long, we could lose the momentum.

Jim

----- Forwarded by James D Steffes/NA/Enron on 11/01/2000 05:24 PM -----

	"Ed Comer" <[email-masked]>
	11/01/2000 04:54 PM
		 
		 To: <[email-masked]>
		 cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
		 Subject: Re: EEI/ Enron consensus- building process

Thanks for getting back to me so soon. 

I think you did a good job of summarizing our discussions, both as to content 
and context..  I fully understand what your two most important issues are and 
that you are optimistic we can come together on the other issues.  
Nevertheless, the details are important as to all of those issues.  I look 
forward to talking more both about the details and about the business 
elements that underlie our views of the issues.  I agree that whatever 
happens as to outcome, these kinds of discussions are far more beneficial 
than mutual demonization.  

 I expect to be able to talk to my principles at EEI next Monday (our 
Financial Conference is just finishing up in San Francisco - I understand 
Enron had someone there).  Once I do, I will get back to you. 

In the meantime, I 'm absorbing the California Order and would be glad to 
share impressions with you when we talk.

Ed   

>>> "Richard Shapiro" <[email-masked]> 10/31/00 03:51PM >>>

Ed- Thanks again for breakfast and for the very  good discussion we had on a
wide- ranging set of issues. Here's where I believe we ended the discussion: 
1)
On the range of issues( that were addressed in the document we forwarded to 
you
and that we worked from) that would likely be addressed next congress relative
to electricity reform, the bottom line was that while there were many issues 
on
which we voiced  our diffrences, mandatory RTO participation and
non-discriminatory access to transmission,i.e;unbundling,  are the two 
critical
issues from our perspective. While our discussion revealed the continuing
diffrences we have on the resolution of those issues and the " political"
hurdles EEI faces with certain of its members to reach consensus on them, we
both felt further meetings and continued discussion were  warranted . On the
remaining issues ( other than the two just mentioned)  for which diffrences 
were
articulated and discussed, I indicated that we fully understood your concerns
and that Enron was sufficiently flexible on those issues to have a high degree
of confidence that they would ultimately be  removed as a source of 
disagreement
between us.  Again, I come back to the two critical issues mentioned above -
those issues must be adequately addressed as laid out in our earlier document
for this process to come to fruition and for comprehensive federal legislation
to make any sense for us. With that said, remember that we were quite 
receptive
to appropriate incentives being included as part of mandatory RTO particpation
as well as to tax concerns your members must have addressed.
                                                   We also discussed the joint
CEO letter that would be sent post - election that would jointly affirm our
mutual desire to get competitive electricity markets functioning well in the
next administration  and continued to agree on the value of that effort,
                                              Next steps( my proposal):
                                                                       1) EEI
prepare first draft of CEO letter for discussion.
                         2) Schedule next meeting for more intensive 
discussion
on key issues ( 4- 6 hour meeting)
                                                                            
Ed,
thanks again for taking the time to continue the dialogue- despite the 
distance(
on issues) that still exists between our respective organizations, I feel that
this is a doable exercise if the necessary commitment is made to the process. 
No
matter the ultimate outcome, I believe that one positive result  that has and
will continue to come from this process is a better understanding of our
respective viewpoints and a recognition that the mutual  demonization that has
occoured in the past is completely counterproductive. Talk to you soon.