Jamie --

Thanks for the external view on legislation.  I agree that most of the bills don't "get it right" - the hope is that the FERC can do that without too much legislative guidance (which of course would be wrong).  Not sure that setting up a new federalism on this will ever work - not enough $$ to states to get them to overcome the political power of the utilities.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Jamie Wimberly" <Benjamin.Wimberly@Verizon.net>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Jamie+20Wimberly+22+20+3CBenjamin+2EWimberly+40Verizon+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Monday, August 27, 2001 2:34 PM
To:	Steffes, James D.
Cc:	kmalloy@caem.org
Subject:	Response from Jamie Wimberly

Jim:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  Even if Enron is a "hot button"
these days, we remain big fans of yours.

In regard to your comments on the letter, I disagree with some of the
assertions.

First, I am fairly confident that no major piece of energy legislation
will be passed this year.  As you can see from the attached
congressional update for the DE Task Force prepared by Bev Jones (former
VP for Consolidated Natural Gas), Jimmy Hayes (former Member of
Congress, and Nancy Etkin (former head of Natural Gas Vehicle
Coalition), there is every indication that legislation is going to get
bottled up in the Senate.  I agree with the assessment.

Moreover, the legislation that is being considered has almost nothing in
it of direct relevance to "getting it right" in regard to restructuring.
Without pressure, I expect no federal leadership on restructuring
issues.  While I do agree that commissions are usually a stalling
tactic, both Ken and I are dismayed at the lack of focus, resources
(i.e., DOE has devoted almost nothing of any sort to restructuring) and
lack of qualified personnel directed at promoting more competition in
the energy market.  While you and I may have some idea of what is
necessary (and that is a stretch for me -- given the complexity of the
challenges), I can safely say the vast majority of folks have no idea
what to do -- especially about the tricky jurisdictional questions
involved.

I personally think one way to craft a "new federalism" on restructuring
is to bribe the states into more action.  The federal government does
this with education, housing, etc.  Why not with restructuring?  A
carrot for those states which are moving forward, linked to definite
metrics of progress and openness.

I also strongly believed that state PUCS and federal agencies like FERC
are being pushed to the limit about what they can accomplish given
declining budgets and personnel.  I further think that this slows the
whole process down.  Think about it -- telephone deregulation, a growing
crisis in regard to water, record levels of mergers and acquisitions,
historic changes in regard to natural gas and electric regulation -- all
piled on top of each other for these folks.

Good catch on the numbering of the recommendations cited in the letter.
This has been corrected.

I look forward to seeing you in September at the Board meeting.

Jamie

P.S.   Speaking of the DE Task Force, have you and Bob Frank made a
decision yet to participate?  I hope you do, but I need to know as soon
as possible.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D. [mailto:James.D.Steffes@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:25 AM
To: Jamie Wimberly (E-mail)
Cc: Shelk, John
Subject: Letter from Leadership Council to Bush WH

Jamie --

Thank you for keeping me in the loop on your activities.  While I am
always supportive of more public statements pushing competition, neither
I nor Enron can sign on to the letter.

First, I am concerned that having Enron sign on will distract from your
messages.  Enron is a "hot button" in DC and will change the proper
focus.

In addition, I would argue that the recommendation for a national
commission is out of place with the current timing of FERC and
Congressional action -- which is imminent -- while a commission would
delay action on the Hill and at FERC, thus supporting the forces against
competition.  Let's not study this too much - we know what to do.  Move
away from the commission.

Also, I'm not sure how providing federal grant money only to states that
promote competition supports our efforts.  Making GA pay for PA is a
distraction from the main fights at FERC and on the Hill.

Finally, I would guess that more funds to FERC and other agencies will
only be used to increase enforcement against those in the industry.
While Enron wants markets that work well, the core problem is that we
haven't deregulated enough - not that markets aren't working.

Also, I don't know where the recommendation numbers from the Bush/Cheney
plan came from -- I think it was an earlier document -- there are no
such numbers in the final printed version of the report that I have.

If you want to talk, please let me know.

Thanks,

Jim



**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate
and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and
delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments
hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not
create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron
Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other
party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by
estoppel or otherwise. Thank you.
**********************************************************************

 - DE leg update Aug 27.doc << File: DE leg update Aug 27.doc >>