We should get the focus off of "micromanaging FERC".  This isn't about a federal agency; this is about which approach will produce the best outcome for consumers and our message needs to be couched in those terms.  Obviously, our view is that FERC's approach, at least so far, appears most likely to produce the kind of market which will ensure reliable, secure and affordable power. 

 I like the "gerrymandering" message.  A process dependent on compromise (eg a legislative body like congress) is going to produce a "camel" and that won't work for customers.  Truth be told it was this same kind of compromised, political, consensus-building exercise which produced AB 1890 and the resulting debacle in California's energy market.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Shortridge, Pat  
Sent:	Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:45 PM
To:	Shelk, John; Robertson, Linda; Palmer, Mark A. (PR); Shapiro, Richard; Kean, Steven J.; Philipp, Meredith
Subject:	barton react latest version with edits

Key question: is the "electricity gerrymandering" too tough?

While we're encouraged that Cong. Barton has mandated RTO participation for all transmitting utilities, we have serious concerns with the micromanagement of the FERC.  The process underway at FERC is working well, and should be allowed to continue unhindered.  Properly configured RTOs are essential to competitive wholesale power markets and the corresponding consumer benefits, and must not fall victim to electricity gerrymandering.

We look forward to working with Congressman Barton and the committee as this process moves ahead.