Rob, 5:00 Monday is fine for me - but it is a Holiday - will everyone be
available? I  am headed back to the beach so am not available this
afternoon. Everyone seems to like option 3 - see below. I like tying in
UCEI. If Borenstein is available on Monday Nov 13, let's work from that date
I don't know IBER but very much like the anti-trust angle.My gut (well,
maybe just my heart) tells me that anti-trust will become bigger in the next
few years, as public policy and polticians wrestle with more mega-mergers
and business alliances that impair competitive markets without producing
other corresponding benefits to consumers. What I wrote up earlier:

Option 3 works for me, in that it fits my emphasis on identifying what we
need to do to end up where we want to be in 2005, vs. responding to the
imperatives of today's trade press and numbers for the next quarter. I also
like the idea of a restructuring veteran such as Kahn or an economic
historian mostly to put electric restructuring in the context of
restructuring of economically-regulated American industries generally -
airlines, trucking, rail, gas, telecom, insurance, securities, banking.
Someone with a World Bank type background could also fill the bill.

For Panel 1, I like the state-federal-international approach. Beyond just
FERC, we can also consider the FTC and DOJ, bringing in both consumer
protection and anti-trust paradigms into the discussion.

For panel 2, I think Borenstein is a first choice if not a must have.
Indeed, I think we ought to lean toward the academic side, drawing on our
locational strengths/comparative advantages. On some of the others we've
identified, I am less positive about Dahlberg (the head of Southern Company)
or Sempra - my FERC experience with CEOs of highly regulated companies is
that they don't reveal much in this type of forum - the downside is much
greater than the upside for them. Plus Southern irritates public power -
they're very good at competing in open markets in other regions while
keeping their own system closed to competition. A Jeff Skilling or Ken Lay
might be more insightful and open, but that raises appearance issues with
Enron as a sponsor. Also, I may be out of date, but did John Bryson retire
from Edison International/SCE? I tend also to be skeptical of the value of
Richardson, in that I think he really has not focused that much energy on
electric restructuring. Rich Glick from DOE might be better, but then
there's no marquee value.

Note - external events may make either Mon Nov 13 or Thurs Nov 16 really
good or bad for the potential audience - NARUC (the National Assoc of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners) will be holding a conference in San Diego
on Nov 15 on the October 15 RTO compliance filings for FERC Order 2000 (the
Regional Transmission Organizations final rule). (CAISO and the other
approved ISOs do not have to file until January). I don't know if this is a
multi-day conference or a one-day. I'm guessing the latter, but can't check
till I get home. When we're ready and agree to do so, I can call Chuck Gray
at NARUC to see if we can coordinate and promote through their contacts as
well.

By the way, NARUC holds meetings in San Francisco every summer, usually in
July. That creates good opportunities for repeats of these conferences
focused on all types of "utility" regulation, perhaps jointly sponsored by
UCEI, Haas, or Stanford.

.

Allen Mosher
Director of Policy Analysis
American Public Power Association
2301 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Voice:  202-467-2944
Fax: 202-467-2992
amosher@APPAnet.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gramlr@pjm.com [SMTP:gramlr@pjm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:44 AM
> To: whederman@columbiaenergygroup.com; doornbos@socrates.berkeley.edu;
> amosher@appanet.org; hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu;
> lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu; jeff.dasovich@enron.com
> Subject: Draft program
>
> Shall we try to talk again Monday?  I think I will talk to Borenstein to
> see
> what the Haas folks have in mind.
>
> I tried to capture everyone's comments.  Allen, you might want to explain
> more
> about your panel suggestions since I didn't do them justice.  As you'll
> see I
> took the liberty of offering a new characterization of the panels that I
> didn't
> bring up on the call.  Everything on there is offered as a strawman to be
> criticized and changed.
> Rob <<Draft  program.doc>>
>
> Rob Gramlich
> PJM Market Monitoring Unit
> (610) 666-4291
> gramlr@pjm.com
>  << File: Draft  program.doc >>


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager at postmaster@APPAnet.org.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.

**********************************************************************