Report on CREPC Meeting and FERC Infrastructure Conferences in ,
 The FERC Infrastructure Conference in Seattle was planned to coincide with =
the dates of the meeting of the Western Commissions and Energy Offices, the=
 Committee on Regional Electric Power Cooperation (CREPC).  Enclosed you wi=
ll find my meeting notes from both the CREPC meetings on Wednesday and Thur=
sday (Oct 31 and Nov 1) and the FERC Conference on Friday (Nov 2). =20

The first day of the CREPC meeting dealt with development of a protocol for=
 joint efforts on transmission line siting.  The Western regulators are uni=
ted in their opposition to Federal pre-emption of siting.  Their view is th=
at biggest problem in the past has been warring federal agencies not the st=
ates.  FERC Staff said that Wood and Brownell are not seeking such authorit=
y.

The second day of the CREPS meeting was on RTO seams issues.  The work bein=
g done to enable three RTOs to work together was presented.  The States wan=
t FERC to let the three form initially.  Some state want to go slow.  (If w=
e were going any slower we would be dead in the water.)  Brownell attended =
all day and Wood attended in the afternoon.  Both were complimentary of the=
 level of work that been done.  Wood asked several times about problems wit=
h three organizations.

Chairman Wood convened the FERC Infrastructure Conference by stating that w=
hen he and Brownell went to the Commission, both as advocates of markets, t=
hey were forced to voting on price mitigation.  These Infrastructure Confer=
ences are being organized to gather facts.  He said he never wants to have =
to vote on price mitigation again because basic infrastructure has not been=
 addressed.  Both Governors Hull (AZ) and Locke (WA) addressed the conferen=
ce.  Hull wants Federal hands off and Locke says benefits of moving ahead w=
ith "experimental new organizations" are small compared to harm done of mak=
ing a mistake.  The panels during the day were primarily opportunities for =
invited parties to express their concerns with what needs to be built and w=
hat impediments are in place.  Both gas and electricity were addressed.  Th=
e panels and the State regulators again opposed federal siting pre-emption =
for transmission lines and supported three RTOs.  The general view is that =
more transmission and gas pipeline is needed.  There was also broad support=
 for demand bidding/demand side programs as part of the solution.  A good d=
eal of praise was give by FERC for the WGA study.  The study of financing m=
ethods for new transmission was the next promised step in the process.  I a=
m on that committee and next week will be submitting comments on the initia=
l draft. =20

I have updated Sarah's form for this project.  The Commission will issue a =
transcript and will accept comments, although no dates were given for when.=
  After you review the meeting notes, please indicate if you think we shoul=
d submit comments on infrastructure  expansion.

Steve

 =20


Project:  Conference on Energy Infrastructure in the West

Conference=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09November 2, 2001

Comments on RTO Week=09=09=09=09=09=09=09May be submitted, no deadlines yet=
.

Estimated Date for Draft Circulation (and who is responsible for the first =
draft)=09???

Estimated Date for FERC Action=09=09=09=09=09=09None expected.
sarah.novosel@enron.com, lisa.yoho@enron.com, leslie.lawner@enron.com, 