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
That's my recollection, as well. In which case, many existing regulations, designed to address conventional generation and transmission issues, may have been wholly inappropriate to energy trading.
For example, perhaps, a generator couldn't make commitments that required construction of a new plant and issuing stock to finance the venture without being a DOE review of the market and the pricing/financing schedules. The electric utilities are closely regulated, remember.
But when a trading company sells electricity to a customer for future delivery, it's planning to buy that same electricity from another supplier. They're not in the business of generating electricity or building plants, they're in the business of "making a market" for existing generators.
Thus, stock issued in this context would not necessarily require prior approval by the DOE. A waiver would make perfectly good sense.
What if DOE is charged with a minimum standard of financial suitability before granting waivers and for some unknown reason they didn't check? Or they checked and were told to ignore the data?
I've no idea whether it is the explanation, though. I pinged somebody who knows more about these regulatory matters than me. Perhaps he can answer our question.
Where were you for the scandal a week, most corrupt administration in history, treasonous corruption of the xlinton years.
Bump for this AND for the observation that maybe Bush's reluctance to clear out Clinton appointees wasn't as ill-advised as we first thought.
I believe that's a prima facia case of bipolar disorder.
I think the pardon reference may be an allusion to a previous President with the implication that if the Democrats open up the Enron can of worms, the administration will open up a pardon can of worms that they had previously sealed up.
The possibility of the human impact being considerably reduced had this been discovered by Bush appointees early on out weighs any political considerations IMHO.
Interesting take. I, of course, am of the belief that the government could not have stopped this from happening. Surely Bush's appointees would be at least as competent as any Clinton would have appointed. Perhaps they would have had the foresight to prevent the employees from losing their 401(k)'s, but not much else.
With this new information, I have developed the theory that Bush was not in a hurry to rid himself of Clinton appointees, in case there were some unexploded scandals left behind.
I would think less of Bush if that were true. Good theory though.
I have a feeling that once I post this the whole thread will reappear, making me look foolish. So be it.
Is the truth that dangerous?
Look, man, I have voted Republican several times (before 1994, of course). I'm not the enemy. What are you afraid of?
I am your countryman. I believe almost the same things you do. The differnce is that I believe in democracy and you (please excuse me) do not.
Buzzflash only highlights the mainstream stories that they find interesting. Sure they are Democrats and progressives. But they only deal in the truth, and they are very careful with their commentary. I have been a Buzzflash reader for years and I can say that they are very responsible. Unlike the corporate taken-over mainstream propaganda machine that we call TV news, Buzzflash is a breath of fresh air.
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.