Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush DOE Granted Enron Waiver of Securities and Liability Regulations
Federal Register | May 15, 2001

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


TOPICS: Announcements; Government
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-208 next last
To: Free Vulcan; Robert357
"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."

To my unpracticed eye, this looks like an exemption that allows Enron to act as a trader of energy.

Most of the DOE regulations pertain to generation and transmission -- in which issuance of securities to finance capital improvements would be a standard practice. Trading in energy was a relatively new beast, purportedly "invented" by Enron.

I wonder if this was merely a repeat of some kind of routine exemption granted to trading firms on an annual (or regular periodic) basis.

21 posted on 01/12/2002 10:50:41 AM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
So is this very unsual, somewhat unusual or standard practice (for the DOE to grant these waivers)?

I don't think it is unusual, a quick search found this:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2045-000]
Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order
April 30, 1998.
Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. (CES) filed an application for authorization to engage in wholesale sales of electric capacity and/or energy at market-based rates, and for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, CES requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by CES. On April 29, 1998, the Commission issued an Order Conditionally Accepting For Filing Proposed Tariff For Market-Based Power Sales And Reassignment Of Transmission And Ancillary Service Rights (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding. The Commission's April 29, 1998 Order granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Ordering Paragraphs (E), (F), and (H): (E) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring to be heard or to pretest the Commission's blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by CES 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. (F) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in Ordering Paragraph (E) above, CES is hereby authorized to issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of CES, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. (H) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of CES's issuance of securities or assumptions of liabilities. . . . Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 29, 1998.

22 posted on 01/12/2002 10:51:00 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vmatt; JohnHuang2
Help me understand this. Pursuant to the law, a certain waiver was given to a company which applied for such waiver. What they applied for and were granted was subject to the filing of a protest by any of 270 million people in this country. The waiver request was of public record and any filing protest was of public record. Do I have it so far?

I have looked but have not found anywhere so far where any of the Democrats in the House or Senate who took contributions from Enron filed a protest as prescribed by law. I haven't found evidence that Ralph Nader or any other consumer rights group filed a protest. I haven't found any evidence that any advocates anywhere filed a protest. Am I still getting the picture?

So, to summarize, the DOE received a request for a waiver as was allowed in the law. The request for waiver became public knowledge. The public, anyone in the public, had the right to protest the waiver. If someone protested, there would have certainly been hearings or a court action to stop it. Tom Dashle or Sheila Jackson Lee apparently didn't try to stop it. The legal waiver went into effect as prescribed by law. I think I understand.

I really am grateful that a space communications contractor did not give money to George Bush and illegally sell technology to a nation which has threatened to incinerate Los Angeles. I'm grateful that President Bush didn't change the law so that a contributor facing an indictment for selling technology was off the hook. I'm grateful that such a lowlife traitorous scumbag who sold additional technolgy to help our enemy was not given any special treatment by President Bush. Finally, I am grateful that we have a president who is trying to build a missile shield because the scumbag who preceded him in office is responsible for the Red Chinese now being able to kill our children with their nuclear weapons.

23 posted on 01/12/2002 10:51:31 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: one_particular_harbour
I agree. I want no pardons for anyone who broke the law. We are not the RATS.
26 posted on 01/12/2002 10:54:15 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vmatt
Sorry, I believe this is SOP, especially for a large public company in the condition Enron appeared to be in back last May.

Citigroup, supposedly one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, now has $3B at risk in unsecured loans to Enron. Unfortunately we are witnessing corporate financial fraud on a grand scale. My (somewhat educated) guess is that some Enron officers, especially the CFO, and accountants at Arthur Andersen are guilty as hell and will be going away for longer than Milken did.

A more interesting note, IMO: Citigroup is Enron's largest unsecured creditor and joe loserman's largest contributor. There is a serious ethical conflict here. Loserman can have significant influence on casting blame and determining just how much of its $3B investment Citigroup ultimately loses. Any bets on whether he recuses himself? I didn't think so.

27 posted on 01/12/2002 10:54:16 AM PST by rmgatto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
And this

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER99-4020-000]
Allegheny Energy Supply Company;
Notice of Issuance of Order
October 4, 1999.
Allegheny Energy Supply Company (AE Supply) is a subsidiary of Allegheny Energy, Inc., (Allegheny) the registered holding company for Monongahela Power Company, Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (collectively, APS Operating Companies). Allegheny is planning to transfer all of West Penn's generating units to AE Supply. On August 6, 1999, AE Supply filed an application seeking authorization to sell electric energy and capacity to the APS Operating Companies and others for resale at market-based rates. AE Supply also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, AE Supply requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by AE Supply. On September 30, 1999, the Commission issued an Order Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding. The Commission's September 30, 1999 Order granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Ordering Paragraphs (C), (D), and (F): (C) Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by AE Supply should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. (D) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in Ordering Paragraph (C) above, AE Supply is hereby authorized to issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of AE Supply, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

28 posted on 01/12/2002 10:54:59 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: one_particular_harbour
He wouldn't. Basically the gist of this is the Bush Department Of Energy allowed Enron to conduct its business according to free market rules. Enron went ahead and the market went south and it went belly-up thereafter. So should the Bush DOE have foreseen that Enron would go bankrupt after this waiver was granted and saved themselves a huge political headache? I mean the irony in all this is that Enron asked to be allowed to conduct its business free from government interference. It got its wishes. So what is every one complaining about --- that Enron failed cause no Bush Administration higher up did it favors and saved it from running its own business straight into the ground? Some scandal.
30 posted on 01/12/2002 10:55:20 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
If you find another authority in 18 CFR Part 34 to grant waivers please post it.

If I understand you correctly, Enron was granted blanket waiver, meaning they are exempt from all requirements of 18 CFR Part 34.

31 posted on 01/12/2002 10:57:03 AM PST by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Agreed. A scandal would have been intervention by the president to save a campaign contributor. He did not.
32 posted on 01/12/2002 10:58:01 AM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vmatt
A quick Google search revealed at least a half dozen of similar waivers requested under the Clinton Administration by major energy suppliers. I posted two, there are more. This is all standard stuff, but I am sure headline news this week.
33 posted on 01/12/2002 10:59:07 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
sleep, tranquilizers
34 posted on 01/12/2002 11:01:42 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: snakebitevoter
Can the vice president pardon the president? And vice versa?
35 posted on 01/12/2002 11:04:34 AM PST by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: innocentbystander
You sound like Henry Waxman three years ago.
36 posted on 01/12/2002 11:05:10 AM PST by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vmatt
You think you are really smart about this. Better check out which party controls FERC. Very few of Bush appointees have been approved for anything thanks to daschle and if you bothered to do research bet you will find that very few if any have been appointed to this Commission by President Bush. This is another one of these you may not like what you find. That said, this is not all the unusual to approve these requests.
37 posted on 01/12/2002 11:07:14 AM PST by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
This is all standard stuff, but I am sure headline news this week.

Good work, I think you're right better to get it aired here early. The fact that apparently DOE doesn't have a process of screening before granting waivers? Is the law really just for those who can't get them waived? What kind of government do we have?

38 posted on 01/12/2002 11:08:14 AM PST by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vmatt
link please
39 posted on 01/12/2002 11:08:18 AM PST by d4now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vmatt
From the article, the commisssion " granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34", (not from).

That was the closest clause I could find that authorized them to grant a waiver.
There wasn't anything in the code specifically about a "blanket waiver". I assume that's industry shorthand for 34.1c.

40 posted on 01/12/2002 11:08:43 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-208 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson