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

[marajade]

"vmatt did independent research and found something intriguing."

Intriguing is a lot different than suspicious.

[marajade]

Do you own stock? Do you work in the private sector? Come on.

[rwfromkansas]

shut the heck up

[rwfromkansas]

Anyone who is attacking Bush and linking him to Enron is suspicious. I do not care HOW long they have been here on FR. Do you actually think there have been no liberals who have infiltrated since day one?

[rwfromkansas]

Bush gave Enron no deals.

[marajade]

"Bush gave Enron no deals."

But Clinton did. And Rubin Clinton's Treas Secty called O'Neill's office and tried to have them call creditors of Enron to extend more time. And Citibank who was one of Lieberman's biggest contributors was one of Enron's creditors. And Bush is at risk?

[vmatt]

Do you actually think there have been no liberals who have infiltrated since day one?

Nothing wrong with an honest liberal.

[vmatt]

(If freepers insist he be punished, perhaps a good penalty would be to have him look for "enron AND waiver" in the Register for Clinton's term. I looked and there are too many entries to begin to examine them all.)

LOL!

[marajade]

Okay does mean your client who currently owns stock in Enron is a criminal? BTW, Bush doesn't own any stock in Enron.

[Stultis]

My take (and he can jump in and speak for himself) is that vmatt is a pretty much across the board "anti-government" conservative populist. I don't have much use for these people, as they tend to be excessively paranoid, gratuitously lurid, and counter-productive to the larger conservative cause in their pursuit of lost causes. They are not willing to leverage their influence by coalition building and participation in viable political parties. They unintentionally help the enemy by allowing libs to associate conservatism with stupid conspiracy theories. Etc, etc, etc. But even if these folks are a pain in the ass, and even a liability, they are not "disruptors" in the sense you suggested, of infiltrating leftists.

[vmatt]

My take (and he can jump in and speak for himself) is that vmatt is a pretty much across the board "anti-government" conservative populist. I don't have much use for these people, as they tend to be excessively paranoid, gratuitously lurid, and counter-productive to the larger conservative cause in their pursuit of lost causes.

Are you threatening me?!$#&*(

[marajade]

Not at all - and I'm not connecting Bush to Enron. Never have.

Then what's your problem?

[Stultis]

As I said, just my gut impression. You certainly know you better than I do, so feel free to speak up.

[rwfromkansas]

Bush is not at risk...or should not be....Clinton is the guilty man here.

[marajade]

The refusal by some folks of the GOP to adequately condemn the conduct of those crooks at Enron.

Who is refusing? The Justice Dept at Bush's request is conducting an investigation.

[michigander]

Anyone who is attacking Bush and linking him to Enron is suspicious.
Well then go out and find information that discredits their point of contention instead of calling them names. The information in comment 61 took all of 10 min. to find and post.

I do not care HOW long they have been here on FR. Do you actually think there have been no liberals who have infiltrated since day one?
Thank goodness you're here to call them names. If they've been here for all that time, I'm sure they're just crapping in their drawers in fear of you squealing on them.

[Stultis]

By failing to explicitly condemn the conduct, we run the risk of getting stained by it.

Difference in temperament here, don't you know. Republicans have this silly idea that sending someone to jail is a wee bit harsher and more serious than simply "condemning" them. For Democrats, OTOH, words, and actions of purely symbolic import, are more important than behavior.

Note that Gore 'n Slick often said really mean nasty things about big corporations, but at the same time used the organs, personal and finances of government to secure individual corporations all manner of sweet deals. Republicans, being pro-growth, and knowing that most growth is generated by small and midsized companies, tend (those who are not corrupted) to support business across the board, instead of just pimping for the big boys.

The key here is to get the American people to see the contrast for themselves, rather than just making noise like the Rats do. Bush is already doing that, I suspect. I'm betting that the Admin's investigations in Justice, SEC and etc are going to be pretty damn aggressive, and will DO a hell of alot more than the Bozos in the Senate.