Stan,  

This compromise is reasonable from a wholesale gas/electric perspective.  
However, I still  believe retail issues need to be addressed by a single 
entity.  I have not heard any compelling arguments otherwise. 

Jeff




Stanley Horton@ENRON
07/25/2000 09:29 AM
Sent by: Cindy Stark@ENRON
To: Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: Re: FW: Strawman  

Jeff:

FYI....any comments?

Stan




Stanley Horton
07/25/2000 09:14 AM
Sent by: Cindy Stark
To: "Mucci, Ron M" <Ron.M.Mucci@Williams.com>
cc:  

Subject: Re: FW: Strawman  

Ron:

The proposal, in my opinion, is cumbersome and duplicative and fails to 
understand the convergence issues.  However, I have felt that the Producer 
and LDC segments would not support the "EISB concept" if it meant the demise 
of GISB.  I think I could support the compromise and wait for the ultimate 
evolution to occur.

Stan




"Mucci, Ron M" <Ron.M.Mucci@Williams.com> on 07/24/2000 07:15:38 AM
To: shorton@enron.com
cc:  

Subject: FW: Strawman


Stan -

Please see the attached email which summarizes our last strawman conference
call.  I wanted to point out where each of the participants was coming from
by separate email.  Hugh Roberts and Alan Knoop, who were attending a
producer meeting were adamantly opposed to the models offered by both Greg
Lander and Jim Templeton.  They did not want any structure which would
diminish their rights and took the position that both were non-starters.
The same was also true of Mike Novak who spoke for the LDC's.  Hugh offered
a third model which kept both gas and electric essentially separate with
what he termed a "Energy Standards Advisory Communication Liaison" as the
interface between GISB and EISB (Electric Industry Standards Board).  My
concern was this did not go far enough to assure that cross industry issues
would be addressed.  To bridge the gap, we elevated the bridge to an
"Executive Committee" level with representation from both gas and electric
with a charter to review only those issues which cut across both industries.
Personally, I view this as an evolutionary process to get all segments
comfortable with the mechanics of dealing with cross industry issues.  If we
push for a combined Board, the votes from the Producers and LDC's are not
there.  Maybe the "EC level" is a good start.  We have another conference
call this Thursday.  I would appreciate your thoughts/reaction to this
hybrid strawman recognizing that we have not discussed any details.  Pending
the outcome of this weeks call with Jim, Greg and Rae hopefully in
attendance I will let you know where things stand.  If we are still on this
track after the call, I would like to have a follow up conference call with
the Pipeline segment to get everyone up to speed.

Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mucci, Ron M
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:00 AM
> To: 'jrtemplton@aol.com'; 'hdroberts@marathonoil.com';
> 'novakm@natfuel.com'; 'glander@skippingstone.com'
> Cc: 'gisb1@aol.com'
> Subject: Strawman
>
> The following are the meeting notes from our conference call last Thursday
> to discuss the various models for the new industry standards organization.
> In attendance for the conference call were:  Hugh Roberts, Mike Novak,
> Alan Knoop and Ron Mucci.  Although invited, Rae McQuade, Jim Templeton
> and Greg Lander were unable to attend.
>
> We began the meeting by reviewing three strawman proposals that had been
> offered to date by:
> * Jim Templeton
> * Greg Lander
> * Hugh Roberts
>
> After making sure we understood each proposal, the discussion focused on
> overarching needs/requirements that each sector representative felt was
> essential regardless of the specific framework.  The following were
> identified and supported by all parties:
>
> * Each sector currently represented within the GISB organization
> should not have any degradation in rights/representation with respect to
> gas issues.  There was a general concern that electric issues would
> overshadow the agenda/resources/funding of any joint organization.  In
> addition, there was general agreement that it didn't make sense for
> representatives of the gas industry to vote on issues which solely
> impacted the electric industry and visa versa.
>
> * The electric sector should be free to develop whatever framework
> best meets their needs to establish standards.  Simply stated, the gas
> sector should not dictate what works best for the electric sector nor
> should any solution which works best for their industry be imposed on the
> gas side of the equation.  For example, GISB currently has within its
> charter the ability to address both retail and wholesale standards within
> their existing framework.  If the electric industry desires a bi-furcated
> organization to address retail and wholesale standards for example then
> they should be free to do so without forcing the gas industry to make a
> similar split.
>
> With this general understanding of where each segment was coming from we
> began reviewing the various strawman proposals to see which fit these
> needs best or whether some hybrid solution was more appropriate.  In
> summary, the team concluded the following:
>
> * The model offered by Greg Lander simply carried the combined
> structure too far down with the risk of the gas representatives within any
> of the five energy industry segments being overshadowed.  Simply stated,
> there was a concern shared by all that the first requirement articulated
> above would not be met under this structure.
>
> * The model offered by Jim Templeton, while keeping the work at the
> detailed level separate, had the same potential risk of dilution in terms
> of gas representation and each sectors voting rights now being five out of
> fifty.
>
> * The model offered by Hugh Roberts preserved the respective rights of
> each segment represented in the gas industry but did not go far enough to
> assure that issues which impacted by gas and electric would be properly
> addressed.
>
> Therefore, the participants crafted a hybrid option which can best be
> described by analogy to Congress.  If you view gas issues as  being
> similar to legislation which is introduced and drafted into law by the
> House (or Senate if you like) and electric issues as those introduced and
> drafted into law by the Senate (or House if you like) then a "Conference
> Committee" would be established to address only those issues which impact
> both.  Otherwise, issues that only effect gas are voted on by the House
> (eg. GISB) and only those that impact electric are voted on by the Senate
> (eg. Electric Industry Standards Board).  In effect, what the group
> devised was a body in the middle at the "Executive Committee" level to
> resolve cross industry issues which would then be taken back to the
> respective organizations for approval and implementation.  While the
> specific voting rights, rules, etc. where not fleshed out in the
> conference call, everyone felt that we should be given the opportunity to
> think over this general framework and run it by our respective segments
> before any further meat was put on the bone.  To that end, the team would
> appreciate it if each member was given the opportunity to visit with their
> segment rather than having the proposal posted by GISB and communicated to
> the world.  Truly, this is a work in progress and does not necessary
> reflect the opinion of all segments within GISB especially in light of the
> fact that Greg and Jim were not in attendance.  However, it is a start and
> does reflect something which we all felt met the needs articulated at the
> beginning of the call.  To that end, another call has been scheduled for
> the Thursday.  Any comments, corrections, clarifications, etc. are more
> than welcome.  As a final note, all agreed that this model was not
> necessarily and end state but a beginning and that this process was
> evolutionary.
>
> I hope that a properly capture the discussion and I look forward to next
> Thursday's call at 1:00 pm CST.
>
> Ron
>
>