Given the negativity toward Enron at the CPUC, should we not file comments if 
these express our position?

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mara, Susan  
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 9:47 AM
To: Williams, Robert C.
Cc: Kean, Steven; Dasovich, Jeff; Steffes, James; Kingerski, Harry; Sharp, 
Vicki; Curry, Wanda; Kaufman, Paul
Subject: AReM/WPTF Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX Credit and Direct 
Access

Dan Douglass has drafted joint comments for two coalitions in which Enron is 
a member -- Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and Western Power Trading 
Forum.  Robert, feel free to contact Dan directly with your comments.  Let me 
know your thoughts as well.  I am out of the office at a WPTF meeting. Dan is 
here as well. If you need to contact me, you can leave me a message on my 
office phone or try my cell (415 -- 902-4108), but I'm not sure the cell is 
working all the time.

Sue Mara
Enron Corp.
Tel: (415) 782-7802
Fax:(415) 782-7854
----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 06/22/2001 07:35 AM -----


	"Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com> 06/20/2001 10:59 PM 	   To: "ARM" 
<arem@electric.com>  cc:   Subject: Comments on Draft Decisions Regarding PX 
Credit and Direct Access




Attached for your review and comment is my first draft of comments to be  
filed on Monday with regard to the draft decisions of ALJ Barnett and  
Commissioner Bilas.  Please review it carefully, as I have thrown in  
everything I can think of on a rush basis, and it may require some 
significant  editing.  Pay particular attention to Section V dealing with 
Bilas' request  for parties to discuss alternatives to DA suspension.  The 
draft offers a  compromise to the DWR's concerns, as expressed in the 
Angelides memo.   Also, notice that Section VI urges the Commission to 
bifurcate the DA and PX  credit issues, acting quickly on the first, if it 
must, but more leisurely on  the PX credit subject.
 
Finally, I have a suggestion in the form of a question.  How  would AReM 
members feel about making this a joint filing with WPTF?  There  is 
cross-membership between the two groups and the same issues would be raised  
in the separate filings which I am otherwise prepared to draft.  This draft  
would requires some modifications so as to refer to the "Joint Parties" as  
opposed to solely mentioning AReM, and I might  add a section dealing more  
explicitly with WPTF's contribution to getting the zero minimum bill 
stipulation  signed in the first place.  Otherwise, the document would stay 
much as it  is (subject to your input over the next few days, of course).  
Please let  me know what you think asap, as I am already working on a WPTF 
draft.   Incidentally, I will also be filing comments on behalf of ABAG which 
will  support the positions taken in the attached document, but I am not 
proposing  that ABAG also be a party to this filing.  Thanks for your help!   
Comments as soon as possible would be very much appreciated!
 
Dan
 
 
Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass
5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.  Suite  244
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel:   (818) 596-2201
Fax:   (818) 346-6502
douglass@energyattorney.com << File: file://C:\Program Files\Common 
Files\Microsoft Shared\Stationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
 MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; 
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
 MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; 
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com >> 

 

 - Blank Bkgrd.gif << File: Blank Bkgrd.gif >> 
 - 6-25-01 AReM Comments - Draft 1.doc << File: 6-25-01 AReM Comments - Draft 
1.doc >>