-----Original Message-----
From: Yoder, Christian 
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:45 PM
To: 'Stack, Shari'; 'esager@enron.com'; 'cyoder@enron.com'; 'Russo,
Dianne H'; 'jeremy.weinstein@pacificorp.com'
Subject: RE: Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings


Shari, 
I'm not sure of what to do about the informal, irregularity of the WSPP process.  I agree with you that there seems to be a lack of basic due process going on, but, it has always been difficult to understand how and why they do things the way they do.  History and personality seem to explain it best. 

 Right near the end of the Thursday session, I believe it was Jeremy Weinstein of PacifiCorp, tried to focus Mike on what to me seems to be a crucial, and potentially fruitful question:  Is the WSPP becoming more and more like the EEI, and if so, does anybody care?  Mike seemed to feel that there was a vast difference between the two agreements and that this vast difference mattered a lot.  I think if anybody would take the time to dispassionately examine the steady stream of changes that have been made to the WSPP over the past couple of years, the result would be that the two agreements would be seen to be converging rather than diverging. I would even take a further step and argue that the convergence has been so steady and effective, that the time has now arrived for a Joint EEI/WSPP Drafting Committee to harmonize the agreements. However, I think my suggestion is still premature.  At this moment in the process, it would seem that a comparative document, painstakingly showing each amendment of the WSPP agreement and what it looked like in comparison to the EEI needs to be created.  If convergence is what this objective study shows, then, at some point, the question fairly becomes:  why not get it over with and merge the documents?  Is a Joint Drafting Committee a good idea?

I may be wrong, and an academic look at my thesis is certainly required,  but my instinct is that Mike's notion that a group-adopted agreement is fundamentally different than multiple bilateral agreements is a classic distinction without a difference.  Why does how the agreement is derived matter if the two agreements are becoming inexorably more and more alike? Why should I fly up and down the west coast attending a steady stream of meetings and pay $25K a year to use one agreement when it is steadily becoming more and more like the other agreement which involves neither inconvenience?  The creeping imitation of the WSPP process needs to be recognized for what it is.
I would argue that this approach might bear more fruit than wrangling over process, although, that too is probably going to be an enduring necessity. ----cgy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stack, Shari [mailto:SStack@reliant.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:19 PM
To: esager@enron.com; cyoder@enron.com; Russo, Dianne H;
jeremy.weinstein@pacificorp.com
Subject: FW: Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings


I don't know who has had time to read the latest WSPP email  - but the
provision below was NOT adopted in accordance with std. procedure. At
the Contracting Committee meeting in Colorado Springs on Aug. 10- this
provision did not get the requisite percentage to pass on to the
Operating Committee (in the meeting summary, he noted that it got a
"supermajority" - whatever that is.)  At the Operating Committee meeting
in Idaho, Mike Small again proposed this change but said that there did
not need to be a vote since it was going to be part of the "operating
procedures". Now it appears that he has "snuck" it into the WSPP
Agreement and took advantage of the fact that many did not attend the
meeting in San Diego in reliance on being able to attend via conference
call. As we all know, Mike Small arbitrarily canceled the call that
would have allowed us to participate in the Executive Committee meeting.
I suspect he did so because he knew we would object to this clause and
therefore the 90% would not have been achieved. 

Any thoughts on what to do about this??

S      

_________________________________________________________


A new Section 32.5 to limit changes to the WSPP Agreement that may be
made automatically through the confirmation process after the five day
was adopted.  Under this new provision, non-standard confirmation
provisions (e.g. changes to the basic terms of the WSPP Agreement) may
be adopted only if there is explicit agreement to those changes and not
by operation of the five day rule.  The modification adopted at the
Executive Committee was to limit the oral agreements allowing such
modifications to transactions of less than one week.  This provision as
modified was adopted with only one dissenting vote.  

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	WINNIE HOWARD [mailto:HOWARD@wrightlaw.com] 
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:45 AM
> To:	Russo, Dianne; Stack, Shari
> Subject:	Summary of WSPP Nov 1 and 2 meetings
> 
>  <<WSPP 11-1 & 2-01 MEETINGS IN SAN DIEGO.doc.doc>>