Subject: RE: Senate Reliability Billl
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:34:00 -0700 (PDT)

It would not be accurate to conclude or assert that the NERC language is 
"close" to congressional approval.  Here is the state of play.  There are two 
interrelated tracks at present: the DeLay, et al negotiations of all 
stakeholders (which I attended and participated in today but did not concern 
reliability) and the NERC process that is underway to consider how to bring 
those such as Enron that are not "on board" with the so-called "consensus" 
NERC language (Sarah participated in the Tuesday meeting on this issue, where 
PJM put a proposal on the table that Sarah advises largely tracks our draft; 
this process will continue next week and a follow up meeting the week after).

The interrelationship is that it is likely that IF (a big IF) there is an 
electric title that is added to the congressional bill that will start moving 
in the House subcommittee next week, the NERC version will be included as a 
"place holder" with the understanding that if the NERC discussion process 
yields a different result, it will be substituted.  Furthermore, those who 
oppose the NERC version would be free to continue opposing it on the Hill and 
elsewhere.  So you might say there is a rebuttable "presumption" of sorts in 
favor of the NERC version (which is shorter than the old NERC version) 
because so many groups favor it, but those who oppose it such as ourselves 
continue to seek allies for a shorter, streamlined version. Congress is far 
from approving any final version.