From: steven.kean@enron.com
To: joe.hillings@enron.com
Date: 2000-04-19 18:12:00+00:00
Subject: Re: Enron and the Energy Services Issue Before The WTO

I need you to run these items by Rick.  I take full responsibility for 
approving the hiring of the Hills firm (and I look forward to meeting with 
you and Carla as we discussed), but remain hopeful we can use their services 
for something other than WTO.  In the wake of Seattle, and as I have come to 
understand better what the WTO can and cannot do for us on the energy 
services front, I have come to the view that our talent and money would be 
better spent on other activities.  My inclination is to do the bare minimum 
necessary to keep the machine going.  If we have specifically committed to 
certain things, then let's follow through.  If there are things we can avoid, 
let's avoid them.  Specifically with respect to Fischer going to Geneva, Why 
not have him available by phone at all hours to provide assistance and mage 
that known to USG instead of underwriting additional travel.  With respect to 
the Hills firm, can we use the retained time to help with the specific 
strategies we are now working out for the regions?  These are the kinds of 
things we need to consider.




Joe Hillings@ENRON
04/19/2000 04:13 AM
To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES
cc:  
Subject: Enron and the Energy Services Issue Before The WTO

Steve: This is a brief extension of our conversation yesterday afternoon 
putting in print some of the upcoming dates and possible committments for 
your consideration and decision.

We have no exit strategy at this time and in order to follow your general 
instructions to withdraw gradually (I'm not quite certain that is possible at 
this stage) you need to know the following.

The April meeting at the WTO in Geneva (Committee on Specific Committments) 
spent considerable time discussing how energy services would be considered in 
the WTO GATS (General Agreement on Trade and Services) . The USTR raised the 
issue, tabled the issue and guided the discussion. We did not send anyone to 
that session.

As planned for several months, we issued the Rachel Thompson study which is 
completing its basic distribution now. There has already been considerable 
interest in the study and I fully expect it to generate discussion in the 
days ahead. I have sent you the correspondence from the Japanese Ministry. 
Tonight I am hosting a small dinner for the top staff person for the leading 
Japanese business organization affiliated with the CSI organization. He 
raised the issue of Japan's industry feeling energy services was going too 
fast too soon when Ken addressed the WTO Ministerial Forum last December in 
Seattle. Now he has told Bob Vastine, president of CSI that he was told later 
by his collegues that his statement was a misstatement. We'll hear more 
tonight.

Later today, the ESC Executive Committee is meeting with the DOE to discuss 
how they can support energy services for the USTR who has lacked technical 
advisers since Donna Bobbich and Russ Profozich left DOE earlier this year. 
DOE has appointed a group to help USTR and this is an orientation meeting 
held at their request.

Next week I have scheduled the first ESC full meeting since January to update 
members (now 50 since Schlumberger joined on Friday) on developments which is 
essentially a report by USTR Carol Balassa who is the responsible official 
handling energy services.

She has given a couple of us a debriefing on what happened at the WTO meeting 
and a request to prepare more detailed information for the May 10 meeting in 
Geneva where she tells us that energy services will be even more involved in 
the discussion. We should have Bob Fisher go to that meeting to be of 
assistance. This is a decision point for you.

We have made some other committments which are also decision points although 
the Helsinki meeting on June 18th has been agreed upon based on my feelings 
that when I discussed it (the SCO/FSN Showcase Europe) in Houston with you 
and Rick, you raised no objection which I took as agreeing that it should go 
forward.  We have done this meeting annually where I have brought in someone 
from Enron companies to brief them and host them for dinner. These are the 
commercial people in the US embassies throughout Europe and the former Soviet 
Union. They are important points of contact for our commercial people.  This 
year they want to have energy services in the WTO and as we would like them 
to exist in their territory. A few members of the ESC Executive Committee 
will do the former and Peter Styles the later. I have organized the dinner.

Following that meeting is one that EC Trade staffer Uta Klinkers wants the 
ESC Executive Committee to put on in Brussels which is a joint meeting she is 
organizing with European energy industry representatives. This is a dialogue 
on energy services. The EU is an important player in the WTO and Uta, who 
recently met with the ESC Executive Committee in Washington is quite 
supportive of liberalized energy services. At the EC she reports directly to 
Commissioner Pascal Lamy. Rick's memo this week suggested we have Peter 
Styles do this briefing. Peter is not an American and is not affiliated with 
the ESC. Therefore, unless we participate, Europe's energy industry is not 
talking with US industry. If this is what you want, then I should tell Uta 
that we are unable to do the meeting.

The last meeting is the presentation by Ken Lay at the OECD Forum 2000 on 
June 26 which I engineered with Doug Worth, Secretary General of the BIAC 
(Business Industry Affairs Committee) to the OECD. This is a major world 
conference and Ken is addressing e-commerce and services. Doug, an American 
and former head of the Washington IBM office wants to have Ken meet with OECD 
Commissioners in a smaller meeting to discuss trends for the future.  I had 
planned to be there with Ken for the day, day and a half he will be in Paris. 
I introduced our company to the OECD several years ago and it has become 
increasingly involved in issues of interest to us.

Well, these are the near-term items that require your fine hand if we are to 
proceed. A dramatic drop off at this time will have its effects and no one is 
likely to pick up our leadership. There is growing support for what has been 
accomplished and the USG plus others are now hooked on the energy services 
agenda. I cannot easily see an exit strategy that can do anything but cause 
criticism at this point. This is definately a longer term committment that I 
thought we had made when approval was given to hire the Hills firm. However, 
if you want to exit, other than pulling back from the Brussels meeting, I 
think the other meetings are firm committements at this point.

These are some thoughts for your consideration and decision.

Joe