Power Politics: In Era of Deregulation, Enron Woos Regulators More Avidly 
Than Ever --- CEO Lay Leaves an Imprint On Bush Energy Plan, Seeks Friends at 
FERC --- An Interstate for Electricity
The Wall Street Journal, 05/18/01

THE ENERGY CRISIS Above All, a Spark for Big Industry
Los Angeles Times, 05/18/01

Chubu's Ota on Bush Energy Policy, Enron Proposal: Comment
Bloomberg, 05/18/01

Suburbs boom as corporate invasion continues
The Times of India, 05/18/01

Japan's Power Utilities Oppose Enron's Liberalization Proposal
Bloomberg, 05/18/01

(bon pour tous) US energy companies closely tied to Bush administration: 
reports by Maxim Kniazkov
Agence France-Presse, 05/18/01

UAE: Enron to pull out of Dolphin project
Middle East Economic Digest, 05/18/01

USA: Bush power plan draws praise, dismay and coal.
Reuters English News Service, 05/17/01



Power Politics: In Era of Deregulation, Enron Woos Regulators More Avidly 
Than Ever --- CEO Lay Leaves an Imprint On Bush Energy Plan, Seeks Friends at 
FERC --- An Interstate for Electricity
By Bob Davis and Rebecca Smith
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

05/18/2001
The Wall Street Journal
A1
(Copyright (c) 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

WASHINGTON -- Every energy executive in America would have liked a half-hour 
with Vice President Dick Cheney as he fashioned the Bush administration's 
national energy program. Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay got it. 
Mr. Lay used the time to set out an eight-point agenda intended, among other 
things, to head off price controls on wholesale electricity, provide Enron 
and other energy traders with unfettered access to the nation's 
electricity-transmission system and remove regulatory obstacles to building 
new generating plants and power lines. The energy plan President Bush 
unveiled yesterday reflected many of those same priorities.
In an interview last week, the vice president said he also met with other 
energy executives, but Mr. Lay was the only one he named. Mr. Cheney says he 
sought Mr. Lay's advice because "Enron has a different take than most energy 
companies." 
Indeed, Enron Corp. is a modern paradox. It has transformed itself over the 
past 15 years from a stodgy gas-pipeline operator into the nation's largest 
trader of gas and electricity and a formidable player in newer markets such 
as telecommunications services and emissions-reduction credits. Today, it's 
the quintessential model of a company dedicated to free markets. 
Yet as much as any company in the U.S., it has cultivated close ties with 
government. Since the late 1980s, the Houston-based company, which was 
President George W. Bush's biggest corporate campaign donor, has beefed up 
its lobbying staff, boosted its political contributions and sought out 
friends in the world of politics. Now, with Mr. Bush in the White House, it 
is in a unique position to see whether those efforts will pay off. 
Enron's lobbying blitz reflects one of the ironies of the era of 
deregulation. Just as government created immense telephone, electric and gas 
monopolies early in the last century, Enron and other players feel they need 
the government's help in opening up those monopolies and gaining access to 
once-closed markets. 
In particular, Enron wants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure 
that energy is deregulated on terms favorable to the company. Rather than 
having the nation's transmission lines controlled by the utilities, it wants 
those lines to provide open access for new entrants such as Enron eager to 
buy and sell power. 
Mr. Lay is on a first-name basis with a half-dozen members of the Bush 
cabinet and knows many senior White House staffers from their days in the 
Texas governor's mansion with Mr. Bush. Before joining the administration, 
both White House economist Lawrence Lindsey and U.S. Trade Representative 
Robert Zoellick were on Enron's advisory board, which pays members an annual 
stipend of $50,000. 
Under Mr. Lay, Enron has donated nearly $2 million to Mr. Bush during his 
political career. Since the start of the 2000 campaign, Enron and its 
employees have contributed $1.3 million to the Bush presidential drive, the 
Republican Party and the presidential inauguration, says the Center for 
Responsive Politics. Enron also accounted for $461,000 in contributions 
during Mr. Bush's two runs for governor, according to the Center for Public 
Integrity. 
Mr. Lay, who holds a doctorate in economics, says all he wants from 
government is a fair shake. Enron supports candidates "you believe in," he 
says. "You believe in their value system, you believe in their philosophy and 
you believe they'll do the right things as leaders." 
But it's clear that Mr. Lay wants more than that from government. For now, he 
is focusing on FERC, where he worked in the early 1970s when the agency was 
known as the Federal Power Commission. He hopes to make FERC his ally in 
beating back the power of utilities. Long dismissed as a regulatory backwater 
overseeing wholesale transactions by electric and gas utilities, the 
commission has emerged as the chief navigator of the nation's transition to a 
fully deregulated energy marketplace. 
Even before Mr. Bush took office, FERC had begun to rein in the market power 
of utilities. In December, FERC told the nation's utilities that it wanted 
them to voluntarily surrender their high-voltage lines -- those that can 
dispatch electricity across state lines -- to independent grid operators, 
such as those already in place in California and the Northeast, which would 
provide open access to the lines. Although it told the utilities to submit 
plans for doing so, many of them have been reluctant to relinquish control of 
their lines to such independent organizations. 
Mr. Lay wants FERC to go further, forcing the utilities to cede direct 
control of their lines. He also is seeking rules that would end what he calls 
energy "balkanization" and create "seamless" interstate electricity markets. 
"Enron is the biggest gas and electric company entirely dependent on the 
competitive side of the business," says Andre Meade, an analyst for 
Commerzbank. "To the extent deregulation slows down, their business slows 
down." 
Right now it's a lucrative strategy. Enron typically targets tightly 
controlled markets just as they are opening up, using its financial clout and 
risk-management savvy to gain a dominant market position. In doing so, it 
frequently portrays itself as an insurgent taking on entrenched interests. 
In electricity, for instance, Enron buys the output of generating plants, 
sometimes days, weeks or years before the power is actually produced. Using 
sophisticated weather data, it determines the most lucrative market for the 
power, finds a buyer and then arranges delivery via transmission lines owned 
by others. It hedges its positions with other contracts. Its wholesale 
trading volume climbed 55% for natural gas and more than doubled for 
electricity in the first quarter alone. Such growth pushed Enron's wholesale 
energy-trading income, before taxes and interest, up more than threefold to 
$785 million during the first quarter. 
Between 1996 and 2000, Enron's yearly net income nearly doubled to $979 
million and its revenue increased almost eightfold to $100.8 billion. Over 
the same period, Enron's stock price, adjusted for splits, rose more than 
fourfold. 
At the start of the Bush administration, FERC's future was very much up for 
grabs. Two of the five seats on the commission were vacant, and Enron quickly 
sought to fill them with activist Republicans. President Bush named a friend 
of his and Enron's to one of those seats: Texas utility-regulator Pat Wood. 
Mr. Wood had worked closely with Enron during a six-year effort to open 
Texas' retail electricity market. Mr. Wood also had shown the kind of 
backbone Enron wanted in a separate fight over telephone deregulation when he 
insisted on closely monitoring phone utilities to make sure they opened their 
networks to competitors. 
For the second slot, Enron backed Nora Mead Brownell, a Pennsylvania utility 
regulator. She had come to Enron's aid in 1997 when she voted to block an 
electricity-market restructuring plan backed by Philadelphia's utility and by 
GOP Gov. Tom Ridge. Enron argued that the plan would have locked it out of 
the Philadelphia market. 
Enron worked to raise Ms. Brownell's visibility by lobbying the House 
Commerce Committee to include her as an expert witness on energy issues and 
as a member of an informal advisory group, say Enron and congressional aides. 
Mr. Lay provided heavyweight support. He says Enron included Ms. Brownell's 
name on its "priority list" of a half-dozen prospective FERC nominees. And 
when her candidacy ran into opposition from Pennsylvania officials with 
bitter memories of her 1997 decision, Mr. Lay says he phoned Karl Rove, the 
White House's top political strategist, to tell him that "she was a strong 
force in getting the right outcome" in Pennsylvania." 
A White House spokeswoman says that a number of individuals and industry 
groups weighed in in favor of Ms. Brownell, but she declined to name any. Ms. 
Brownell says she was unaware of any concerted Enron campaign on her behalf. 
She didn't ask the White House who had supported her because, she says, "I 
didn't want to be beholden." 
Meanwhile, Enron was using its Democratic contacts to strengthen its ties 
with Linda Breathitt, a Kentucky Democrat on the commission. Earlier this 
spring, the company hired two of former Vice President Al Gore's closest 
friends as lobbyists: Nashville lawyer Charles Bones and Mr. Gore's 
campaign-finance director, Johnny Hayes. Both had come to know Ms. Breathitt 
through Democratic politics. 
Ms. Breathitt says she wasn't very familiar with Enron's interests, but that 
she accepted when Mr. Hayes invited her to dinner at a Washington restaurant 
in April to meet Richard Shapiro, Enron's managing director for government 
affairs. "Everyone likes to get to know the FERC commissioners," Ms. 
Breathitt says, adding that she always pays for her own meals. 
Enron has long played this kind of insider's game. Mr. Lay has been friendly 
with both Democratic and Republican administrations over the past 25 years, 
sharing time on the links with Presidents Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford. He's 
been a particularly close friend of the Bush family. In the late 1980s, he 
ran then-Vice President George H.W. Bush's fund-raising drives in Texas. 
After the younger Bush became governor, he appointed Mr. Lay to run the 
influential Governor's Business Council. Mr. Lay also made Enron's fleet of 
corporate jets available to the new governor and won his help in lobbying 
officials considering Enron projects. 
In March 1997, Mr. Lay wrote Gov. Bush to ask that he lobby the Texas 
congressional delegation to support export-finance credits critical to Enron, 
according to letters released by the Texas State Archivist's office. In April 
1997, when Enron was negotiating a $2 billion natural-gas joint venture in 
Uzbekistan, Mr. Lay wrote to thank the governor for meeting with the 
Uzbekistani ambassador to the U.S. Six months later, another Lay thank-you 
note concerned a phone call Mr. Bush made to Pennsylvania Gov. Ridge to 
support Enron's plan to enter the Philadelphia electricity market. "I am 
certain it will have a positive impact," Mr. Lay wrote. 
Mr. Lay says he hasn't sought Mr. Bush's aid directly since Mr. Bush won the 
presidency. Last month, he talked with the president briefly at a Houston 
benefit for the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, on which Mr. Lay 
serves as co-chairman. "It's not a matter of us going off hunting or fishing 
or sitting around and having drinks," he says. 
Not all Mr. Lay's initiatives have been successful. When Mr. Bush reneged in 
March on a campaign pledge to fight global warming by requiring reductions in 
carbon-dioxide levels produced by burning hydrocarbons, Mr. Lay says he 
telephoned Mr. Cheney to complain. "The scientific evidence, although 
certainly not conclusive, is pretty compelling that there could be a 
climate-change problem," he says he told the vice president. "The 
administration should still look very seriously at it." 
Around the same time, Mr. Lay also called Mr. Rove, the White House political 
adviser, to urge him to talk to Fred Krupp, the head of the moderate 
Environmental Defense Fund. Messrs. Krupp and Rove spoke briefly but found 
little common ground. Later, Enron, which has plans to add emission credits 
to the commodities it trades, joined a coalition urging mandatory reductions 
in carbon-dioxide levels. 
But Enron saved its main lobbying push for Mr. Cheney's energy task force. In 
April, Mr. Lay met with the panel's staff director, Andrew Lundquist, and 
later, with Mr. Cheney, whom Mr. Lay had come to know well when the vice 
president was chief of Halliburton Co., a Dallas construction company. "We 
built Enron Field together," says Mr. Lay, referring to Houston's new 
ballpark. 
In both meetings, say Enron and White House officials, Mr. Lay presented a 
broad agenda for opening up the nation's electrical system and used the 
gas-transmission system as a point of comparison. In both cases, he argues, 
pipelines and transmission lines should be like the federal highway system 
that offers easy access to all. 
The Cheney report uses similar language, describing the electrical grid as 
"the highway for interstate commerce in electricity." As Enron sought, the 
report directs the energy secretary to determine by the end of the year 
whether it makes sense to establish a national grid, and to identify 
bottlenecks in the transmission system as well as how to remove them. An 
effort to make the grid national would enhance FERC's power, as Enron has 
urged. 
The report is mum on some Enron concerns, such as requiring utilities to join 
regional transmission organizations, an idea strongly opposed by the utility 
industry. A White House aide says the task force didn't want to get involved 
in such battles between industries. 
As solid as its support in the White House has turned out to be, Enron is 
worried about the backlash against electricity deregulation in Western states 
and possibly in New York, should electricity rates surge this summer. Nevada 
repealed its deregulation law last month, spooked by the way skyrocketing 
wholesale-electricity prices in neighboring California were undermining the 
Golden State's economy. California and Oregon are contemplating 
state-government purchases of major utility assets. 
Enron's biggest fear is that the political pressure will lead the states, or 
perhaps Congress, to control prices, which could undermine Enron's business. 
In response, Enron has formed a coalition with eight other energy marketers 
in New York, who each have pledged $50,000 to pay for a media and lobbying 
campaign. It also has hired former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot and dispatched 
him to court Western politicians. Two weeks ago, Mr. Racicot had breakfast 
with an old colleague, Oregon's Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber. After the two 
chatted about fly-fishing, says Mr. Kitzhaber, "Marc did say he was working 
to re-energize the discussion about energy and had some ideas for a framework 
the governors might want to consider." 
Though Mr. Kitzhaber says he knew that Mr. Racicot had joined the Washington, 
D.C., lobbying firm Bracewell & Patterson, Mr. Racicot didn't disclose that 
he was on retainer to Enron -- and the star of Enron's Western states 
"advocacy team." For his part, Mr. Racicot says he was working "not at Enron
's direction but with their knowledge" to advance positions that he, too, 
feels are important. 
--- 
Jeffrey White contributed to this article.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 



National Desk
THE ENERGY CRISIS Above All, a Spark for Big Industry
STUART SILVERSTEIN; ELIZABETH SHOGREN; NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

05/18/2001
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
A-1
Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company

Promoted as a way to safeguard the nation's future, the energy plan unveiled 
Thursday by the Bush administration would heavily reward many of the 
stalwarts of the old economy. 
If Congress enacts President Bush's proposal, the major winners would include 
big oil and gas companies, coal producers and giant construction companies, 
as well as labor unions, energy experts said.
Critics complained that the plan offers no more than modest incentives for 
firms specializing in renewable energy or energy-saving technologies. The 
story is the same for other interests, such as mass transit, that might have 
the potential to substantially change the way Americans live and work. 
But those left the most empty-handed probably are consumers and business 
owners who held out hopes for a quick fix for high electricity, gasoline and 
natural gas prices. Environmentalists and even property rights advocates also 
say they came away as losers. 
The plan's more than 100 recommendations are intended to encourage more 
domestic power production and the building of new oil refineries. It 
envisions more than 1,300 new power plants, including nuclear facilities, as 
well as more than 38,000 miles of pipelines and 263,000 miles of distribution 
lines. The plan calls for opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
exploration for oil and natural gas, and some increased spending on research 
into cleaner-burning technologies. 
As a result, the plan could stimulate hundreds of billions of dollars of 
investment in energy infrastructure, said Chris Ellinghaus, an energy analyst 
at Williams Capital Group, a New York-based investment banking firm. 
Ellinghaus sees that money going to not just the large energy companies, such 
as Exxon Mobil Corp., and electricity producers--including Calpine, Reliant, 
Dynegy, Duke and Mirant--but also companies that make components for 
refineries, power plants, pipelines and transmission wires. 
"The trickle-down is going to be tremendous," Ellinghaus said. 
Most of the new business, however, is likely to go to the traditional energy 
industries--oil, gas, utilities and coal--that helped Bush raise more money 
than any other candidate in history, according to an analysis by the 
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. 
Bush received $2.9 million from the energy and natural resources sector of 
the economy, which was among his leading contributors. By contrast, 
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore received $328,000. 
Texas' Enron Corp. gave Bush $113,800, more than any other energy company. 
The nuclear power industry, which received a boost in the Bush energy plan, 
contributed $290,209 for his presidential bid. 
American Petroleum Institute President Red Cavaney acknowledged that members 
of his energy-industry trade group would be helped by the Bush plan. However, 
he said, such a plan, by increasing production, would help bring down energy 
prices--which in turn would benefit consumers and industries that use large 
amounts of energy. 
"At the end of the day, our members are helped when you have a healthy, 
strong economy and their customers are doing well," Cavaney said. 
Labor Unions See No Losers in End 
Bush administration opponents in organized labor offered only tepid criticism 
of the energy plan. Bill Samuel, legislative director for the national 
AFL-CIO labor federation, expressed concern that the Bush plan pays too 
little attention to the "immediate crisis faced by consumers" in California 
and elsewhere. 
But, he said, under any comprehensive energy plan to emerge from Washington, 
whether it is something resembling the Bush plan or a Democratic alternative, 
"I don't see any losers. . . . It would create jobs and much-needed energy." 
The Teamsters, for example, would benefit from proposed pipeline construction 
in Alaska. Likewise, the United Mine Workers could win from increased coal 
production, and an array of construction unions would profit from the 
building of new power plants and transmission systems. 
Californian consumers and businesses complained about the lack of relief from 
high electricity prices. Yet among the first to benefit from the plan would 
be power plant engineering companies, an industry dominated by such 
California-based companies as the Southland's Fluor Corp., Parsons Corp. and 
Jacobs Engineering, along with San Francisco's Bechtel Corp. 
Mark Stevens, head of strategic planning at Aliso Viejo-based Fluor, said he 
huddled with staff members Thursday to figure out where the Bush plan could 
mean increased business for the company. "In an initial glance, we came up 
with three areas: Alaska, coal-fired co-generation plants and conservation," 
he said. In Alaska, the company is already at work on "front-end engineering" 
for the planned natural gas pipeline that will bring gas from Prudhoe Bay to 
Alberta, Canada. 
Despite the warm rhetoric from the White House, the renewable energy 
industries generally consider themselves big losers in the plan. While 
extending the production tax credit to wind and biomass technologies, the 
administration refused to do the same for geothermal or solar power. 
"When you look at the net pluses and minuses, we've gotten recognition and 
some nice rhetoric, but the substance is still severely lacking," said Karl 
Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Assn., an industry trade 
group. He said most of the ideas the task force looked at--from promoting the 
use of renewable energies by government facilities to adopting a production 
tax cut for solar and geothermal--"were left on the cutting room floor." 
The Energy Department's research and development budget for renewables was 
cut 50% in Bush's budget request, and the industry was disappointed that the 
plan did not include a commitment to restore or increase federal investment 
to help level the playing field between renewables and other energy sources. 
"I think that is unfortunate because the area facing the most severe energy 
problems is the far West. California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Idaho 
are all facing severe problems right now," Gawell said. "These are states 
unlikely to build nuclear power plants. . . . These states don't have coal. 
But these states have a wealth of renewable resources." 
'Missing Chapter on Climate Change' 
From the standpoint of environmentalists, the key issue was the plan's 
silence on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. The United States has 
made international commitments to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, 
one-third of which come from power plants. 
"We're still looking for the missing chapter on climate change," said Jeremy 
Symons of the National Wildlife Federation. Rather than producing a plan to 
shrink emissions, the president is "putting out a plan that locks in a 
pathway of ever-increasing greenhouse emissions." 
A Cabinet-level commission is reviewing the Bush administration policy on 
global warming, but environmentalists said the energy report signals that no 
serious effort will be made to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other 
greenhouse gases. 
The auto industry might get a boost from the plan's provision for tax credits 
for purchasing hybrid-powered cars and trucks, but not soon. The benefits 
will go to relatively few consumers at the start. 
* 
Silverstein and Rivera Brooks reported from Los Angeles and Shogren from 
Washington. Times staff writers James Flanigan, Jerry Hirsch and John O'Dell 
contributed to this story.


PHOTO: The most likely vehicle for Senate action on President Bush's plan is 
a bill controlled by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), center, who favors 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.; ; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated 
Press 

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 



Chubu's Ota on Bush Energy Policy, Enron Proposal: Comment
2001-05-18 07:13 (New York)


     Tokyo, May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Hiroji Ota, chairman of Japan's
Federation of Electric Power Companies and president of Chubu
Electric Power Co., comments on U.S. President George W. Bush's
national energy policy and Enron Corp.'s proposal to separate
transmission network from power generation in Japan.
     Bush's energy policy, proposed yesterday, promoted nuclear
energy by easing regulatory barriers to construction of new plants
and the expansion of existing ones.

On U.S. energy policy:
     ``Because the U.S. has plenty of resources, there were few
voices (in the past) to support nuclear power. An energy-stricken
country, Japan already knew we have no choice but to use nuclear
power. There were many events that triggered the U.S. to change
its energy policy (such as) the California crisis, higher fuel
prices and so on.''

On Enron Corp.'s proposal to separate generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity in Japan and to create an indecent
regulator for the energy market:
     ``The proposal is not a good idea. They say deregulation is
only a means to an end -- to bring competition. But if you break
up electricity business, no one will take any responsibility for
supplying energy to consumers.
     ``Look at the California crisis. Generators, including Enron,
made a fortune but without having any supply responsibility. I
don't want that to happen in Japan.
     ``Even though Enron has proposed an `unbundling' plan by
setting up a holding company over the regional power companies, it
doesn't work that way. It may work when you discuss the company's
management and all that, but when you handle daily operations, you
can't wait for problems or issues to go up to the management
before they can be sorted out.''

On whether to sell a stake in Electric Power Development Co.
     Electric Power Development, a power wholesaler two-thirds
owned by the Ministry of Finance with the remainder held by nine
power companies, plans to sell shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchanges
as early as 2003.
     ``I'm not looking for short-term returns. If something is
related to the public utility business, we have to take care of
our customers, shareholders, employees and the residents of our
region.''


Suburbs boom as corporate invasion continues
Staff Reporter

05/18/2001
The Times of India
Copyright (C) 2001 The Times of India; Source: World Reporter (TM)

MUMBAI: Stabilisation in the residential sector, firm prices in the 
commercial scene and a booming entertainment sector, are all set to give a 
new dimension to the real estate scenario in Mumbai. 
These are some of the observations in a recent research report by Insignia 
Brooke, one of the world's best-known real estate advisors.
Residential prices are quite firm in Bandra (W), Andheri (W) and Versova due 
to companies moving to the suburbs. This is the result of the corporate 
transition towards the western suburbs area. As a repercussion of that, 
prices in South Mumbai are stable. 
Demand for residential accommodation in Andheri and Bandra have picked up in 
the last quarter. However, there is a serious shortage of premium quality 
accommodation. As a result, rental values have shot up by around 25 to 30 per 
cent for select buildings in these areas. The ruling effective lease rental 
in the Bandra area is around Rs 30 to 35 per square foot per month. 
The report states that the demand would continue to increase, owing to the 
housing loan tax sops announced in the 2001 budget and the possible reduction 
in housing loan rates. On the supply side also, developers like the Rahejas, 
Ajmeras and Hiranandanis are already on the drive in developing areas like 
Malad Link Road, Andheri (W) & Kandivali and Powai, respectively. 
Commercial prices have also firmed up since corporates desire to relocate to 
the western suburban areas or the Prabhadevi-Worli region. Recently, a major 
deal was struck between Enron and Kamala Mills, whereby the former leased 1 
lakh square feet of office space at Kamala Mills compound, Lower Parel, for 
an effective rent of Rs 70 per square feet, per month. 
An 'A' grade building in Andheri-Kurla like the Technopolis Park currently 
commands an effective rent of Rs 100 to 150 per square feet of useable area 
per month, whereas B grade buildings in Akruti Software Park and Acme Plaza 
rent out at Rs 35 to 40 and Rs 40 to 50 per square feet, per month, 
respectively. The new twin CBDs of Bandra-Kurla and Andheri-Kurla are slowly 
diminishing in terms of real estate prices. 
Brooke researchers feel that the impact of the America's IT slowdown on the 
real estate demand in India is yet to clearly emerge. Global Telesystems has 
acquired around one lakh square feet at the Millennium Business Park (Mhape), 
in Thane district. In a move aimed at promoting start-up infotech ventures in 
the state, the Maharashtra government has announced the formation of 
Samruddhi Venture Park. The project aims to provide complete assistance to 
start-up ventures under one roof.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 


Japan's Power Utilities Oppose Enron's Liberalization Proposal
2001-05-18 06:53 (New York)

Japan's Power Utilities Oppose Enron's Liberalization Proposal

     Tokyo, May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Japan should reject a proposal
by Enron Corp. to foster competition by splitting electricity
generation and transmission because it may lead to California-
style power failures, the chairman of Japan's Federation of
Electric Power Companies said.
     Enron, the world's largest energy trader, said allowing
Japan's utilities to continue generating, transmitting and
distributing electricity would discourage rivals from entering
Japan's 15 trillion yen ($122 billion) electricity market.
     The Japanese government has said it wants to liberalize the
power market, the second-largest behind the U.S. Power supply is
currently dominated by 10 regional utilities and Japanese
manufacturers pay the world's highest electricity charges.
     ``If electricity business are broken up, no one will take
final responsibility to supply energy to consumers,'' said Hiroji
Ota, who is also president of Chubu Electric Power Co., the
nation's No. 3 utility. ``Power generators in California made a
fortune, with no responsibility for supply. I don't want to see
that happen in Japan.''
     California has spent about $7 billion this year buying
electricity on behalf of its utilities after a shortage of supply
from generators caused wholesale prices to soar, prompting power
failures and pushing the state's two largest utilities to the
brink of insolvency.
     Liberalization in Japan would help manufactures save an
annual 4 trillion yen and help them to better compete with global
rivals, said Nicholas J. O'Day, Enron Japan Corp.'s vice president
of public affairs.
     In 1996, the government began liberalizing the market by
opening wholesale trading to competition. In March last year it
allowed large business customers such as factories and hospitals,
representing about one-third of the Japanese power market, to buy
from independent power producers.
     Enron plans to build a natural gas-fired power plant in Japan
to become the first overseas generator in the market.
     The change in regulation has forced the 10 large regional
power companies, which have dominated the highly restricted
Japanese power market with some of the world's highest electricity
charges, to cut charges.


(bon pour tous) US energy companies closely tied to Bush administration: 
reports by Maxim Kniazkov

05/18/2001
Agence France-Presse
(Copyright 2001)

ATTENTION - ADDS detail, background
WASHINGTON, May 18 (AFP) - US energy companies, which are expecting a 
windfall from President George W. Bush's energy plan, lavishly financed 
Republican political campaigns last year and maintain close ties to several 
key members of the Bush cabinet, according to data released by watchdog 
groups. 
Oil and gas companies gave Republican politicians 25.5 million dollars, 
almost four times as much as they gave Democrats, according to figures 
obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The nuclear power industry, which is expected to get a boost as a result of 
Bush's new energy policy, was not idle either. 
It gave more than 13.8 million dollars to federal candidates and committees 
in the 2000 election cycle, said the center, pointing out that supporters of 
the new Republican president received 290,209 dollars from the industry to 
campaign on his behalf. 
Overall, the nuclear industry favored Republicans, giving them more than 
two-thirds of its individual, political action committee and "soft money" 
contributions, according to the center. 
"Soft money" are unregulated donations to political parties designed to 
promote causes rather than individual candidates. But they are often used to 
indirectly back up platforms put forward by candidates. 
"The president and members of Congress have been very successful at drilling 
for political contributions from the energy sector," remarked sarcastically 
Scott Harshbarger, president of Common Cause, another watchdog group. 
Electric utilities gave the Republican and Democratic parties 10.1 million 
dollars in "soft money" contributions during last year's election campaign, 
according to Common Cause. 
Energy giant Enron alone shelled out more than 1.4 million dollars, the group 
said. 
The new energy policy announced by the president Thursday calls for building 
between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants, thousands of miles of new pipelines 
and new oil refineries over the next 20 years. 
Tax incentives are envisioned for energy companies that will implement the 
president's plan. 
"Big time donors get major league payback, non-donors get higher energy bills 
and a dirtier environment," commented Harshbarger. 
It is widely known that before launching into politics Bush cut his teeth in 
the oil business. Vice President Richard Cheney was chief executive at 
Halliburton, the world's largest oil field services company, before he joined 
the Bush campaign last year. 
Less publicized have been energy industry ties to several other key members 
of the Bush cabinet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 
Commerce Secretary Don Evans spent 25 years at Tom Brown Inc, a Denver, 
Colorado-based oil and gas company ,and also sat on the board of TMBR/Sharp 
Drilling, an oil and gas drilling operation, said the center. 
Interior Secretary Gale Norton represented Delta Petroleum when she worked 
for Brownstein Hyatt and Farber, a Denver law firm. 
Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham received more than 700,000 
dollars for his failed Senate re-election bid in 2000 from contributors like 
General Motors, Ford and Lear Corp, which are closely connected to the energy 
sector, according to the center. 
mk/fgf

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 


UAE: Enron to pull out of Dolphin project

05/18/2001
Middle East Economic Digest
Copyright (C) 2001 Middle East Economic Digest; Source: World Reporter (TM)

The US' Enron Corporation is to relinquish its stake in Dolphin Energy (DEL), 
the joint venture company formed to develop the Dolphin gas project. DEL is a 
Jersey-registered company, 51 per cent owned by the Abu Dhabi-based UAE 
Offsets Group (UOG). The remaining 49 per cent is split equally between 
France's TotalFinaElf and Enron. 
In March 2000, the three partners signed a project development agreement 
(PDA), which stated that TotalFinaElf would be responsible for the upstream 
element, which would involve developing a block in Qatar's North field, and 
Enron would be the midstream partner, responsible for building a gas pipeline 
to Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Oman, gas marketing and project management (MEED 
10:3:00).
Industry sources say that Enron's plan to give up its stake in DEL is part of 
a new business model developed by the company. The sources suggest that there 
is another factor affecting Enron's decision to pull out of DEL. "The profit 
margin for Enron would be low. At present, the Dolphin project is being 
developed primarily as an upstream initiative," says one. 
The fate of Enron's stake in DEL remains unclear. UOG has not been 
forthcoming with explanations, but an official statement is expected by the 
end of May. Some sources suggest UOG will take over the stake of Enron in 
DEL, but the possibility remains that another company might be invited into 
the joint venture. "There is talk of new partners," says a TotalFinaElf 
official. "But whatever happens, we are staying." Enron officials declined to 
comment.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 


USA: Bush power plan draws praise, dismay and coal.
By Deborah Zabarenko

05/17/2001
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2001.

WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - Power suppliers praised the Bush energy plan 
on Thursday, as California's governor slammed the proposal for letting 
"price-gouging" continue and environmentalists showed their displeasure by 
dumping coal outside Vice President Dick Cheney's home. 
In Europe, Jan Pronk, head of the United Nations forum on climate change, 
dubbed it a "disastrous development." Around around the world, markets were 
largely unchanged by the Bush plan, as it dealt primarily with long-term 
policy.
The U.S. national energy policy, formally unveiled by President George W. 
Bush in St. Paul, Minnesota, called for heavier reliance on oil, coal and 
nuclear power and $10 billion in tax credits for conservation. 
California Gov. Gray Davis, who has repeatedly blasted the Bush 
administration for failing to aid his state during a season of blackouts and 
soaring power bills, lashed out at the plan for "turning a blind eye to the 
bleeding and hemorrhaging that is taking place in this state." 
"By not doing anything, you're allowing the price-gouging energy companies, 
many of whom reside in Texas, to get away with murder," Davis said in an 
apparent dig at Bush, the former Republican Texas governor and a former oil 
executive. 
The plan sparked a partisan firestorm on Capitol Hill, where Republicans 
vowed to help implement Bush's plan and Democrats criticized it as a giveaway 
to special interests with little relief in sight for consumers. 
House of Representatives Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas blamed the 
"energy crunch" on eight years of inaction by President Bill Clinton's 
administration, and hailed Bush for moving to "unify our nation around a 
comprehensive energy strategy that protects our consumers and strengthens our 
national security." 
House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri shot back: "We think the 
president's plan makes the wrong choices for America and for the American 
people." 
EXXON, BP RESERVE JUDGMENT ON PLAN 
Among those in the energy business, the plan drew broad approval, even though 
some worried about a tilt toward the supply side. 
"I applaud the administration for taking these steps to encourage more energy 
development in this country," said Robert Allison Jr., chairman and CEO of 
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of the largest independent exploration and 
production companies in the United States. 
Two of the world's the largest oil companies - Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc - 
said they would reserve judgment until they studied the plan more closely. 
But Kenneth Woodcock, senior vice president of AES Corp., one of the world's 
biggest power suppliers, criticized the proposal: "This plan gets the 
government pushing too far on the supply side versus conservation and the 
environment, which isn't really the best path toward a balanced electricity 
and energy market." 
Many in the U.S. environmental community claimed the plan would harm public 
health by dirtying the air or destroying designated wilderness areas, and 
said long-term measures would be costly and offer no short-term relief to 
consumers facing power shortages and record-high gasoline prices this summer. 
"The president's plan won't produce affordable energy for Americans now, or 
10 years from now," said Philip Clapp, president of the National 
Environmental Trust. 
"What the president's plan will do is drive up air pollution in our cities 
and turn the last 5 percent of our public lands that we've protected for 
future generations over to the oil and coal companies." 
Greenpeace activists dumped five tons of coal and five fake drums of oil and 
nuclear waste outside the official residence of Vice President Cheney, the 
former top executive of oilfield services giant Halliburton, who headed a 
task force that developed the plan. 
The drums were labeled with the logos of Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, BP and 
Enron. 
Sierra Club protesters trailed Bush as he swung through Minnesota and Iowa, 
holding news conferences at coal-fired power plants to offset what they 
termed misleading appearances by Bush at environmentally friendly facilities 
used to promote the White House recommendations.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.