Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT)

Congressman DeLay is with us.....but with the demise of Speaker Gingrich, the 
role of Committee Chairman has been reinstated.  Thus, this to-be Chairman is 
going straight to the Speaker which poses both a political and House Rules 
conundrum.  Of course, we are also going to the Speaker, the Majority Leader, 
etc.  But it becomes the "pet rock" game where one Member respects another 
Member's "pet rock" so that Member respects his "pet rock."  The one 
outstanding pressure point we retain is lame-duck Chairman Bliley who is on 
our side yet his relationship with the Leadership is poor while Congressman 
Tauzin's remains stellar.  You might recall that Congressman Tauzin switched 
parties with the price tag being many bennies and "secret deals" from 
Leadership.  As of today, Congressman Barton is also on our side (but with 
the death of his brother, his mother's open heart surgery, his wife's breast 
cancer scare, etc.) we have not gotten him to refocus on approaching 
Congressman Tauzin yet.  I will do this at the appropriate time.  I have kept 
Ed Buckham apprised of our strategies.

Richard Shapiro@EES
08/10/2000 07:08 PM
To: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation  

Where's Delay?

Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON
08/10/2000 05:50 PM

To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation  

Rick:  unfortunately, the stand alone reliability legislation DOES have a 
"reasonable chance of passing."  To block this possibility, we are pursuing 
two strategies simultaneously.  #1 the Stakeholder letter with the message 
that the bill does little for reliability and provides no real political 
inoculation so should not be passed; and #2 the lack of consensus on the 
technical language contained within the bill makes passage problematic.  If 
the bill were to be able to move, the bill must be considered "consensus" 
otherwise it  will pose political problems for the Calendar.  Today, there is 
still lack of bill consensus.  We should consider a strategy of asking for 
reasonable legislative provisions beyond the current language which would 
improve the bill (and continue to keep true consensus from occurring.)  Of 
course, we cannot be obvious on this approach.  

Part of the reason I was pushing to get one or our CEO's to play golf with 
Congressman Tauzin on the 22nd is he is the key Member pushing the House 
Leadership to pass the stand-alone bill now to "politically inoculate 
Republicans."  As the likely new House Commerce Committee Chairman; he 
carries sway.  Another approach would be for us to call Entergy to give 
Congressman Tauzin the same message.

And our #3 strategy.....pray that the temperature cools down so the issue 
dissipates.....and/or they run out of time......

Richard Shapiro@EES
08/10/2000 09:16 AM
To: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation  

Why are we communicating technical problems ?( do we think it has a 
reasonable chance of passing?) Reliability-only  legislation is bad policy. I 

Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON
08/09/2000 07:09 PM

To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Joe 
Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Joe 
Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom 
Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron, [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked], Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:  
Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Congress on Wynn Reliability Legislation

As discussed, should Congress upon its return after the Labor Day recess 
appear ready to move H.R. 4941, Congressman Wynn's stand-alone reliability 
legislation; a large group of stakeholders would sign and send the attached 
letter.  Although Enron would like the letter to be stronger, this letter 
went through many revisions to reach the consensus language necessary for a 
larger group to sign.  Thus, while not a perfect letter, it would send a 
stronger message with a multitude of signatures.

The status of the letter is that it is being "held in our back pocket" should 
it become necessary.  Pre-approval has been given and it stands in an 
"almost" final form.  Should you have any grave problems with the letter, let 
me know, and I will see what's possible given the constraints posed by the 
group.  

On a separate but related note, we are working with Joe and Dan to prepare a 
short white paper to detail the "technical problems" still remaining with the 
Wynn legislative language and will communicate these problems, Enron's 
opposition and lack of bill "consensus" to the Hill shortly (as soon as this 
paper is ready.)  I believe ELCON, EPSA and CMA will continue to share our 
opposition although confusion remains on the Hill as to the exact reasons for 
our opposition given the numerous versions of the legislation circulating.  
thanks.

 - 08_04_00_Draft_Stake_ltr_WJL.doc