Subject: Re: Administration Energy Plan: Next Steps
From: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:19:00 -0700 (PDT)

This is an update of the Email below.  With respect to DOE efforts to draft 
electricity legislation, a list of potential items for the bill are being 
discussed this afternoon with Secretary Abraham.  DOE hopes to have a draft 
bill submitted to the White House by Friday, June 15, for consideration by 
the VP Task Force.   Similar to efforts other private sector parties are 
undoubtedly taking, I would like to submit to DOE our suggestions for the 
legislation.  As mentioned below, this bill will not include open access, but 
there are issues related to access which we may want to submit to DOE such as 
how to deal with non-jurisdictional entities.  Other topics on which we may 
want to submit legislative language are PUHCA (the reporting requirements), 
interconnection, reliability, negawatts, RTO ownership issues, and eminent 
domain.  DOE seem very willing to deal with the non-jurisdictional entities, 
either in the rulemaking context or by legislation.  Tom Briggs will be 
following up with appropriate folks on this project.   If you have any other 
ideas for this effort, please let us know ASAP.  

	Linda Robertson
	06/07/2001 12:03 PM
		 
		 To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron, Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron, James D 
Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sarah 
Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON, John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron, Pat 
Shortridge/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 cc: (bcc: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron)
		 Subject: Administration Energy Plan:  Next Steps

	

(Please do not circulate or discuss the information on this Email outside the 
parties listed here.)

Debate within the Administration on implementation of its energy plan appears 
to be settled.  This debate was prolonged because of change in control of the 
Senate.  The Administration has decided to transmit to Congress by mid-June a 
comprehensive letter containing an inventory of energy plan recommendations 
requiring legislative action.  I understand that legislative language will 
not be transmitted in connection with this letter.  Soon after receipt of the 
letter, the President will host a meeting at the White House of bipartisan 
congressional leaders and some key committee chairs and ranking Members.  The 
purpose of the meeting will be to convey to Congress the imperative of acting 
quickly on the President's plan and it will serve as an official launch of 
the legislative effort and the Administration's efforts to work with Congress 
on the plan.

In the meantime, the Departments and Agencies are already drafting parts of 
the energy plan.  For example, we have been told by DOE that they are 
presently drafting an electric restructuring bill.   I have calls into DOE to 
find out more about their efforts and the specific provisions to be included 
in such legislation.  We have learned that "open access" will not be in this 
legislation, as the President's report instructs FERC to undertake the 
project.  Thus, the Administration continues to believe that legislation is 
not needed for the core open access provisions and that this is a matter they 
understand will be at the top of Pat Wood's agenda.  Among other items, one 
question we will probe with DOE is whether the electricity legislation will 
contain access provisions pertaining to entities presently outside FERC's 
jurisdiction.  

At present, it does not appear that the various provisions being drafted by 
the agencies will be bundled into single transmission from the Administration 
to the Hill.  Instead, the VP's task force intends to have these legislative 
drafts ready to provide relevant committees at the appropriate time.  This 
part of the implementation plan, of course, could change.

As for Pat Wood, we continue to receive confirmation from Hill and Executive 
Branch sources that the White House intends to designate Mr. Wood as FERC 
Chair.   Timing of the switch remains unclear.  Our latest information 
suggests it could be September 1.  Many parties are suggesting to the White 
House that the change should take place earlier than that date.  

We have efforts underway to structure our position on a possible open access 
rulemaking.  A few folks on this email will be talking with Dan Watkiss today 
about such a proposal.