Posted on 01/12/2002 9:35:48 AM PST by vmatt
[Federal Register: May 15, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 26849] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15my01-64]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER01-1394-000, et al.]
Enron Energy Services, Inc., et al.; Notice of issuance of Order
May 9, 2001.
Enron Energy Services, Inc., et al. (Enron Energy) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Enron Energy will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Enron Energy also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Enron Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Enron Energy.
On April 27, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Enron Energy should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, Enron Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Enron Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 29, 2001. Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.200(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
David P. Boergers, Secretary. [FR Doc. 01-12146 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Interesting little tidbit about Enron and a telephone conversation with Hebert the Chairman that Pat Wood replaced.....
Lieberman, Feinstein ask for FERC ethics review....Referring to an Aug. 6 General Accounting Office report requested by Lieberman detailing the watchdog agency's investigation of a February phone conversation between former chairman Curt Hebert Jr. and Enron Corporation Chairman Kenneth Lay, the senators observed: "While the GAO concluded it found no evidence that Mr. Hebert or Mr. Lay violated criminal statutes or ethics regulations, the fact remains that GAO confirmed that the Chairman of a Federal Regulatory Commission discussed support for his continued appointment as chairman with the senior official of a major energy company regulated by that Commission. We believe that such behavior undermines the public's confidence in federal regulators in general and in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in particular."
(Nobody ever goes back to read previous pages on threads, so if I post this at the bottom of the page here maybe no one will tell us to "get a room" LOL!
I simply posted an article with no comment whatsoever in an effort to get unbiased comment on its ramifications. I really enjoyed this but it is disappointing to see it turn into finger pointing and attack. I still haven't made up my mind on what this really means but now it won't catch many Freepers off guard, eh? I'm fluid like that. Life itself is a conspiracy of sorts. Enjoy!
Please, vmatt, you've been hyping this all day long; and you don't appear to be on the side of the GOP.
Why do you think this administration hasn't done anything for them? They just appointed a prosecutor at Justice Leslie Caldwell. I posted one of the cases this person handled on another thread. The gist is that they will be handled with kid gloves IMO that's payback.
Beverly Enterprises pleads guilty to fraud, Don Chaney, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/4/00
Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Caldwell, who prosecuted the case, said the government viewed the policy as one that came from the "top down." Beverly's Springer denied the involvement of top executives. Caldwell declined to comment on why no charges were filed against top officials at the company. "This is just where we ended up at the end of the day," she said.
Hyping? What is that supposed to mean? Are my suppositions about the information in gross error or somehow wrong? Caldwell was one of Bush's picks for AG and now (someone said incorrectly) prosecuting Enron. I get pounded because I don't have anything so I go and find this. Bet Drudge's lite would be flashing!
2001 = 150
2000 = 112
1999 = 45
1998 = 61
1997 = 127
1996 = 120
1995 = 57
1995 = 57
Good job, its already been established that these waivers were common. How would you interpret that in relation to Enron? Think maybe they shouldn't have been given a waiver? Do you realize how badly they wanted this waiver? Did Bush have anything to do with granting it?
How could he if it was done on October 4, 1999?
On April 27, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Are you happy that this info you've found could be used against the Bush administration?
Good post, Liberty. If Enron just competed in the open market without favors from powerful people, I would agree with you, but that’s not what happened.
I know us liberals are not exactly welcome on this board, but you guys have to understand that we are not out to get the Bush administration as you were the Clinton administration, we seek the truth. A company like Enron using government influence to usurp securities laws endangers the financial well being of the entire country.
Already we are still paying for the deregulation of the savings and loans (over 500 billion dollars in taxpayer money went to pay for that one). Now we have to wonder how many other derivatives businesses are going to collapse. Perhaps bringing down the entire economy.
You guys think a blow job is a crime. We think political corruption is. If any Democrats are implicated in this, I say prosecute them all. This kind of corruption is not limited to one party. But the Bush admin (and Wendy Gramm) is nose deep in this scandal. I don’t want a witch hunt, I just want the criminals brought to justice and make sure this never happens again.
BTW, Go Eagles!
I never said he was but I smell a stinker. If this was Clinton I'd say this war has just been extended about ten years.
Well if it was now maybe the Bush admin will be able to get him on something... I mean it seems the Dems are at least willing to cooperate this time with any investigation.
They're all floating in Enron cash it would appear so don't hold your breath. The new prosecutor (someone said I am mistaken) Leslie Caldwell handled the biggest case against nursing homes for Justice and if that case is any indication, this will simply be settled and no individuals held responsible.
I don't either. Revolving door?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.