My first Seattle Times story ran this morning - a localized piece about the Senate energy bill. Everyone's favorite energy provider, Houston-based Enron, is at the center of the story. They're always good for laughs...as well as guaranteed good clips. In a nutshell, they're suing a local public utility, Snohomish County Public Utility District, aka Snow-pud.

(I just like saying "Snow-pud.")

B-2, in a rag with a circulation just under half-a-million, so that's a nice feeling I don't see getting old soon.

(Actually, I'm going on the assurances of my editor that it ran, because it's not up on the goddamn Web site. I'm waiting for B&G to confirm this, but he's taking his goddamn lawyer time while I hover in suspense. Thanks, B&G.)

Hopefully I can just post links in the future, but for now I'll pull a Santa Barbara News-Press and copy the unedited version below.

I think my favorite part is "Enron had no comment." My J-school editor, Deborah Mathis, and I shared some laughs at that one. " 'We can't get back to you today, as we seem to be in jail.' " " 'What's you're deadline? Twenty years? I'll get back to you.' " Never gets old.

And what would it be like to PR-rep Enron? At first, I figured this ranks just above being the former Iraqi minister of information. But when their PR rep happily told me "we have no comment" it got me thinking: Could there be a cushier job? I mean, Enron flat-out lost. There's no more image to protect. You just get on the phone all day and say, "We have no comment, oh and by the way we suck." Where do I sign up.

(BTW, google Deborah's name...you might find some of the links very interesting.)

Anyways, today's debut in Seattle:

*****************************************************

WASHINGTON - Buried deep in the Senate’s 768-page, $36 billion version of the energy bill are 19 lines that could save Snohomish electricity customers $122 million in payments to the bankrupt Enron Corp., once and for all.

With the Senate passing its energy bill 85-12 on Tuesday, Sen. Maria Cantwell's "Enron relief" provision moves one step closer to becoming law. The passage is a significant victory in Cantwell’s ongoing fight against the now-defunct energy company.

Cantwell, D-Wash., introduced the provision last month. It would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority to determine if a public utility must pay costly termination fees to end its wholesale electricity contract early.

“This language would say a bankruptcy court can’t force consumers to pay on fraudulent contracts,” Cantwell said.

The provision takes aim at Enron’s $122 million suit against Snohomish County Public Utility District for unpaid termination fees.

In November 2001, Snohomish PUD canceled its contract with Enron just days before the now-infamous energy wholesaler declared bankruptcy. Nine months later, Enron contacted the utility to collect $117 million, as part of its bankruptcy proceedings. Since then, about $5 million in interest has been added.

If Snohomish PUD loses its legal fight with Enron in federal bankruptcy court, its 295,000 customers would foot the bill. Meanwhile, in separate proceedings, FERC continues to investigate Enron, with a trial set to begin after Labor Day.

FERC spokesman Bryan Lee said the government agency has recommended to the judge that Enron forfeit $1.8 billion of its profits. Lee said at this juncture, FERC has simply allowed the judge to consider whether the Snohomish termination fee should be considered part of those profits.

Cantwell’s provision would settle which agency’s ruling takes precedent: FERC or the bankruptcy court.

“There isn't very much case law,” said Al Aldrich, government affairs director at Snohomish PUD. “If bankruptcy court is allowed to assert jurisdiction, we'll never see that money back anyways since they've probably already paid their creditors.”

According to Aldrich, $122 million represents more than 20 percent of the utility’s annual budget, and electricity prices are still severely affected by the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

If FERC determines that contracts were unjust and unreasonable in the first place, it would now have undisputed authority to cancel any termination fees.

“The real underlying question is, ‘Should the termination payments even be allowed to stand in light of manipulation and fraud?’ ” Aldrich said. “In bankruptcy court, they don't care whether the case is fair and just or not.”

But the $122 million question is whether Cantwell’s provision will be in the version that actually makes it to the president’s desk.

For Cantwell, it will be a “big challenge.” She said the House version contains the “exact opposite” language as her provision.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and member of the House energy committee, said he has repeatedly tried to introduce a similar provision to Cantwell’s, but that Republican leadership has prevented a vote.

“We have to understand that this is an important victory in the Senate, but the House is still controlled by those by and for the forces of Enron,” Inslee asserted. “There’s no excuse under the sun to vote for Enron after what they did in Washington state.”

Jennifer Lowney, spokeswoman for Enron, said the company had no comment.