Subject: Re: Enron and PGE Representation at NERC
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:17:00 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for the clarification Frank.
Could you please ask Steve Hawke to contact Jim or Rick when he gets back?

From: Frank Afranji/ENRON@enronxgate on 05/14/2001 12:26 PM
To: Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT@ECT, James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard 
Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: STEVE HAWKE/ENRON@enronxgate 
Subject: Re: Enron and PGE Representation at NERC

Charles...I am sorry I was not able to respond to your e-mail prior to the
this.  I was in airports for 13 hours on Friday ( because of airline delays)
and this is the first chance I had to read your E-mail.  I have one
correction.  Steve Hawke to the best of my knowledge has not agreed to this
change yet.  What I informed you in Tampa was my preference that "if it came
down to the choice for one of us to step down "  I will be ready to so
considering that ENRON has nation wide issues that it is dealing with in this
Forum.  However, I needed to clear this with Steve Hawke since he has the
ultimate decision on this and he may have different views.  You were going to
request that James or Richard get in contact with Steve to resolve the
representation question.  I informed you that Steve will be out of the office
through the 14th and that he will be back on the 15th and that hope was that
some communication will take place then to discuss the issue.  Unless there
has been some form communication between the ENRON folks and Steve since the
last MIC meeting that I am not aware of, it is important that we follow the
discussion that we had in Tampa.  I look forward to the results of the
discussion between Steve and either Rick or James.

>>> Yeung, Charles 05/11/01 06:20AM >>> 
I have referred Steve Hawke from Portland General to you and Jim concerning a
conflict of representation at the NERC Market Interface Committee. 

The current NERC rules on committee membership disallows one corporate entity
from populating a single committee with more than one member. I have one seat
of 33 on the MIC (1 of 2 power marketer seats) and Frank Afranji from PGE has
a WSCC representative seat. This conflict was known but accepted in the recent
past because of the publicly known fact surrounding the sale of PGE. In
addition, it is generally understood that PGE's positions at the MIC are not
closely aligned with EPMI's. Frank also must vote as a WSCC rep, not a PGE
rep. Nontheless, wiith the recent news of the demise of the PGE sale, the
Enron dual membership conflict on the MIC is being forced to be resolved. 

Steve Hawke has agreed to pull his PGE person off the committee - but wanted
Enron to raise a need to revise these rules for the future so that Frank could
possibly be reappointed. 

Paul Barber, Chair of the MIC believes this membership rule needs to be
updated because of the dynamic nature of corporate affiliations today - this
has recently prevented good, knowledgable persons from participating on a NERC
committee (e.g.- Illinova/Dynegy, PECO/ComEd) 

I agree with the need to revisit this rule - but believe there still is a need
to limit corporate representation on NERC committees due to the structure and
approval processes NERC employs - there are limited seats, The one member
limit was intended to curb large incumbant utilities from dominating the
committees since they had such extensive business interests and could be
over-represented under several industry segments.