I am ok with your proposal. Jim
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Harris, Stephanie J  
Sent:	Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:52 AM
To:	Derrick Jr., James
Subject:	Massachusetts Venue Question


----- Forwarded by Stephanie Harris/Corp/Enron on 05/01/2001 08:49 AM -----


	Robert.C.Williams@enron.com 02/12/2001 05:18 PM 	   To: Stephanie.Harris@enron.com, Rob.Walls@enron.com  cc: vsharp@enron.com  Subject: Massachusetts Venue Question	



As you know, EES is positioning itself to supply power to retail customers
in Massachusetts.  In order to do so, it must enter a Competitive Electric
Service Supplier Agreement with a local utility, Western Mass.  The
agreement governs the relationship between EES and the utility (subject to
the utility's tariff and PUC regulations), and mainly concerns billing and
other administrative matters.   I would not expect large dollar disputes to
arise under the agreement (barring another California situation).  The
agreement presently calls for arbitration in Boston of any disputes.  There
are no rules specified.  I recommend that we agree to arbitration in Boston
but specify that:  (1) the Federal Arbitration Act will apply (to give a
legal framework to the arbitration and to enable EES to invoke federal
court jurisdiction); (2) the arbitration will be conducted in accordance
with the CPR Rules for Self-Administered Arbitrations (although AAA or JAMS
would also be acceptable);  and (3) one arbitrator will be used in the
amount in dispute is less than $1 million but if greater then the parties
will use a panel of three arbitrators, with each party selecting one (under
CPR Rules the two party appointed arbitrators select the chair or, failing
agreement, the CPR submits a list of 5 from which the chair is determined
by the highest order of preference of the parties).   Please let me know if
this meets your approval.  Thanks.