Subject: Barton Staff Meeting
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 05:33:16 -0800 (PST)

Yesterday I spent about 45 minutes with the three key energy staff to the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- Andy Black (for Barton) and Sean Cunningham and Jason Bentley (the energy counsels to the full committee).  We met at my request to discuss Barton RTO draft.  (The group EPSA meeting with Chairman Barton that was to have been yesterday afternoon has been rescheduled for next Tuesday.)
 
Key points from the meeting --
 
1.  They do not expect the Barton Subcommittee to mark up the electricity legislation this year.  Time is running out and Members of the subcommittee are not focused on the issue.  Instead, they plan to continue working on the issue at the staff level.  Probably will be another draft version circulated and then a version will be introduced by Barton as a formal bill by the end of the year. The earliest they see any kind of vote is late Jan. or early February.
 
2.   Barton feels strongly that FERC should not be the "tail wagging the dog" on RTO policy.
 
3.   On particulars of the bill, they are clearly reconsidering the 40,000 MW minimum threshold for the size of an RTO.  They are getting pulled in both directions, they say, and are inclined to drop the 40,000 MW number -- possibly leaving it to FERC to set a number.  They conceded that the mechanics of the draft make it unlikely that the 18 month "deadline" for all transmission owners to get into an approved RTO would stick.  They consciously changed the normal judicial standard of review for FERC actions from "arbitrary and capricious" to "preponderance of the evidence" because they think otherwise the courts will rubber stamp FERC.  Spent a lot of time on how the draft would aid and abet the recalcitrant utilities and that the overall nature of the draft assumes there are only two parties to this -- FERC and the transmission owners -- while the rest of those truly affected -- from us to others -- are left out.  Sean said we could still intervene, but I said that was the truly pro forma aspect of their process since FERC's hands and our's would be tied by the "rights" given to transmission owners to drag their feet.
 
Bottom line -- FERC has a window until next Spring without likely congressional interference, at least not of the formal, legislative variety, to both move on RTOs and improve its relations with Congress.  FERC staff has been pushing the committee staff on concerns similar to our concerns.