Once again today I participated in the discussions on possible electricity 
legislation held in the offices of Majority Whip Tom DeLay with other 
interested parties including industry segments, public power and state 
regulators.  The other congressional participants were staff to Reps. Steve 
Largent and Chip Pickering.

After meeting all week (except Wednesday), the group was unable to reach an 
agreement or even a provisional consensus on what could be placed in an 
electricity title that could be added to the comprehensive energy package 
that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin to process next 
week.  Congressional staff will report to their bosses on the status of the 
discussions as of this afternoon and from there the Members will determine 
whether to proceed further.  There is a general perception that committee 
leaders will elect NOT to take up electricty legislation at this time and in 
the context of the broader package in the absence of broadly supported 
legislation.

In the end, the discussions did not bear fruit because divisions remained 
over the usual issues and along most of the usual fault lines.  As the drafts 
progressed during the week, we succeeded in deleting the original language 
that would have had Congress weigh into the bundled/unbundled and 
federa/state jurisdictional rules at the very time that likely adverse action 
in Congress could in turn adversely impact the Supreme Court case.

A last minute attempt was made by the congressional staff to stitch together 
a minimalist electricity title that would have included reliability (with the 
understanding that the NERC discussions could produce modifications more to 
our liking), PUHCA repeal, PURPA reform, interconnection language and federal 
siting.  However, in each instance there were one more politically relevant 
interest groups not willing to go along.  Cong. DeLay's staff also tried to 
link PUHCA repeal to those who had joined an RTO.

There was also an attempt to strip it down to reliability, interconnection 
and siting (eminent domain) -- but again there was either disagreement on the 
details or objection from those who favorite subject was left out of the 
minimalist package.

There was one rather interesting discussion when the public power folks 
floated language on market power that included a sentence that would have 
made the filed rate doctrine inapplicable to antitrust challenges to market 
rates.  Needless to say, I strongly objected as did EPSA and others.

As noted, the lack of an agreement reduces our exposure when the mark up 
occurs.  In the absence of an electricity title, refund, price control and 
other issues should not be germane to the package that the subcommittee will 
take up on Tuesday and the full committee next Friday.  That package will 
have five issues addressed: conservation, clean coal, hyrdo, nuclear and 
reformulated gasoline.  Details to follow once legislative language is 
released.