Message-ID: <10657303.1075859516517.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:39:00 -0800 (PST)
From: elizabeth.sager@enron.com
To: leslie.hansen@enron.com, david.portz@enron.com, janet.moore@enron.com,
christian.yoder@enron.com, genia.fitzgerald@enron.com,
jeffrey.hodge@enron.com
Subject: EEI Draft- historical data for future use in the battle of the
confirmation process
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Elizabeth Sager
X-To: Leslie Hansen, David Portz, Janet H Moore, Christian Yoder, Genia FitzGerald, Jeffrey T Hodge
X-cc:
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Dec2000\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: Sager-E
X-FileName: esager.nsf
A huge debate has been ongoing in he battle whether to include language in
the EEI Contract that would provide that a confirmation that contains
"substantive" terms not discussed by the traders is subject to the "deemed
accepted" language. I have been very vocal against adding this language.
The politics as you can tell from this email have been fierce, and as in much
of successful politics, dirty. I'm not sure where this will end up, but feel
like it is important that we all are aware of the history here as well as
Enron's position (Confirmation needs to be the final, best evidence unless
objected to in a timely manner). I will keep everybody posted on the results
of the vote.
---------------------- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 02/28/2000
10:29 AM ---------------------------
"Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org> on 02/25/2000 03:52:18 PM
To: fmdutton@aep.com, hemu@dynegy.com, Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT,
mroger3@entergy.com, wfhenze@jonesday.com, dperlman@powersrc.com,
rosteen@powersrc.com, drusso@reliantenergy.com
cc:
Subject: FWD: Today's Decision
I am passing on the following message from Patty expressing her concern with
today's decision to limit the choice on the ballot to optional language or no
language. Cutting through the "edge" of her comments, no doubt brought on by
the frustration of being outvoted, I believe she has some valid points on our
process here. I have avoided taking a position on substantive questions
regarding the contract, but I too have a process concern which I have raised
with some of you individually. I apologize for not vocalizing these concerns
this morning. Nevertheless, this is what I intend to do . Given that Mitch
was not available for the discussion and knowing Mitch's position on this
issue compels me to release the comments he wanted circulated before going on
vacation. If there is a consensus from the balloting that the language
should be included, but not as an option or as an "opt out" provision, this
drafting committee should respect that sentiment.
The attention of many members of the Drafting Committee has waned and
EEI members (electric utilities which conduct wholesale power
transactions) are no longer represented on the Drafting Committee.
Mitch, in his email, did not think EEI member views were considered on
the Tuesday call. And today's call by Constellation, Enron, EPMC (and
Jones, Day and Schiff) did not even include any EEI members...
The language compromise I accept, and believe that Mitch would
accept, in the spirit of Drafting Committee give and take. But let's
not kid ourselves. Today, a few members of the Drafting Committee made
a decision that even Mitch (the only EEI member on the Tuesday call) did
not think we had made or would make. Read his email. Today's decision
was to not even "allow" the EEI members' vote to be heard to choose
what they overwhelmingly chose in Houston --- that is, to have the
provision in Section 2.3 of the Contract --- not just an option on the
Cover sheet). Today's decision is just wrong.
As the person who was standing in the front of the room in
Houston, I feel strongly that I know what occurred, and what Comed,
Dynegy, Cinergy, IPALCO, AEP, Ameren and Toni Frost's group of
utilities, among others, know they voted on. I am the person that
folks are going to call to ask why their views were ignored. I had
become comfortable with the explanation for the revote --- to either not
add the language at all, add to 2.3, or add as an option. But now
Working Group is not being given the choice to vote as they did, like
the result or not, in Houston. Even Fritz's suggestion that three
choices be given on the ballot was ignored. Those three choices, as I
understood it, would have included an even more aggressive elimination
of the 2 business day presumption that the confirm, as sent, controls.
The question I asked... why we are afraid of even giving the
Working Group the choice to express the same views they expressed in
Houston...was never answered.
When EEI members call me to ask about this, I intend to suggest
that they vote "YES" on the ballot, and then add an admonition to their
ballot that the language be included in 2.3 and not just be an option on
the cover sheet. I would hope that the Drafting Committee (or whoever
remains on it) would at least consider such added comments although,
again, after today I have my doubts. I intend to call some of the EEI
members that I know will feel strongly about this. Since I know Mitch
will not be around (and don't feel he should be disenfranchised), I also
intend to call AEP as a courtesy. I no longer support the idea of not
forwarding Mitch's email to the whole group, as he obviously intended.
Ironically or perhaps intentionally, the Drafting Committee's
failure to address this directly until almost a month after the Houston
meeting means people won't even have a 2 Business Day voting window.
Nonetheless, regardless of the vote, I intend to discuss this in the
implementation discussion in the Houston/New York seminars.
Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney
Edison Electric Institute
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Voice: 202-508-5616
Fax: 202-508-5673
e-mail: akatz@eei.org