Bush DOE Granted Enron Waiver of Securities and Liability Regulations

Federal Register | May 15, 2001

[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

[doug from upland]

Please give us links to the other waivers. Talk show hosts and supposed non-partisan journalists are going to need our help.

[Straight Vermonter]

CFR 18 part 34 is here. What I interpret this to mean is that DOE requires each issuance of securities to be approved, which of course requires all requisite current financial info to be provided for each application of issuance. In addition, each issuance would be scrutinized to make sure it was on the up and up. This look like what is waived, and only if someone protested would the issuance be looked at.

In otherwards, no one was keeping track of these issuances to see if Enron was assuming too much liability and endangering their financial position. This is not good news for the admin.

The real question is how routine is it for these to be waived. If every fortune 500 company gets the same waiver it is certainly no scandal. If the waiver is unusual then it might be.

[TN4Liberty]

I agree. It sounds from this that those who think the administration is "in trouble" over this see onerous government intervention in every nuance of business as only protection anyone has. I do admire those folks, however, who finally managed to come up with an attempted argument of how the adminstration was involved in this through some third tier career bureaucrat at DOE. This is far more damning than saying they were friends or campaign contributors.

I am sorry people lost money, and hate that Enron officers may have played fast and loose with SEC regulations. If they did, they should be prosecuted, and i am sure they will. What this has to do with anyone in either party is beyond me. No company needs a government conspiracy to drive itself into the ground.

[doug from upland]

Bingo. You are on top of it again. During Scumbag's tenure in Arkansas, he appointed over 3,000 people to judgeships, boards, commissions, etc. In a small state of a million people, his control was incredible. No wonder he was able to get away with so much criminality.

[Always Right]

I posted two such requests during the last few years of the Clinton (there were many more), nobody seems to care this is just standard stuff. They are more excited about creating some new conspiracy I think.

[Always Right]

The links are there. Just click on the underlines words.

[McGavin999]

Well, considering that the restated financial statements include previous years, I don't see what these waivers would mean.

[doug from upland]

Can the vice president pardon the president? And vice versa?

==================================================

Had Clinton the scumbag rapist criminal resigned as he should have, pursuant to the constitutional line of succession, nitwit Algore (who invented the line of succession) could have pardoned him.

[Sueann]

"requires all requisite current financial info to be provided for each application"

If Enron was not providing accurate information, how is that the Bush admin's fault??

[Always Right]

If you want to find more, all I did was went to www.google.com and did a search on - DOE waivers securities liabilities - . There were 174 hits, I posted the first two hits and read 3 or 4 others.

[YaYa123]

"In otherwards, no one was keeping track of these issuances to see if Enron was assuming too much liability and endangering their financial position. This is not good news for the admin."

This is not good news for investors' confidence, not good news for the regulatory agencies of Wall Street, and not good news for congressional oversight committees, and certainly not good news for the economic reporters, forecasters, talking heads, and major business publications who evidently did not see ENRON's demise. They sure didn't see Arthur Andersen's fall from grace. Grasping at straws, I think, to pin any of this mess on the Bush Administration.

Or maybe you think the president of the United States is obligated to be privy to the internal workings (and shenanigans) of every major corporation in America?

If the Bush Administration has done anything wrong, it's going to come out. But wild speculations, guilt by contribution, liberal wishful thinking, and wild, partisan cheap shots is all there is for now.

[PhiKapMom]

Since I figured you wouldn't bother to go look, I did. President Bush has sent two, repeat two nominations to the United States Senate for this Commission and neither have been approved by the Senate.

Translation: This is clinton's FERC not Pres Bush's! They can approve or not approve a waiver and what DOE has to say makes little, if any, difference.

[NativeNewYorker]

Completely irrelevant to what triggered the firm's collapse.

They cooked the balance sheet with paper trades years ago. The fraud was revealed when earnings growth couldn't be propped up any longer. The above item, whatever the hell it is, has no relation to the bankruptcy.

[rwfromkansas]

thaks.....at first glance, it did not look good for BUsh...but I did not even know what the heck a waiver of securities and liabilities is. Your post helps me breathe easier that this does not hurt Bush at all.

[PhiKapMom]

Had the same thought and didn't know what this was and then it hit me that I figured these folks were appointed so I scrolled down through the lengthy list of all Bush nominees and found none had been approved by the Senate even though submitted in the spring.

Thanks to daschle we still have a clinton FERC!

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for this post...it helped me understand more about what this post is even about.

[marajade]

Name the criminal statute Kenneth Lay has allegedly committed.

[marajade]

So now after your post #38 its not about Enron but about the government?

[vmatt]

There wasn't anything in the code specifically about a "blanket waiver". I assume that's industry shorthand for 34.1c.

I know. I was looking for the full text which is promised in this article to be at DOE but it only has the above also. I would like to see the full text, if there is one. Bush should have gotten right on DOE after what Clinton pulled and being so criticized for his "ties" with energy interests. Heads should roll here but I won't hold my breath.

[PhiKapMom]

I figured this was pretty standard but it hit me that with daschle stalling all the nominations, that this FERC did not contain Pres Bush's appointees which is the case.