I probably shouldn't be so serious, but I think the current situation at Enron has made me less fun. 
 
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Robert C. 
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:48 AM
To: Steffes, James D.
Subject: RE: AReM's 2nd draft of comments responding to Carl Wood


jim, he took at the CYA footnote.  it was a joke.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steffes, James D. 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:42 PM
To: Mara, Susan; Williams, Robert C.; Smith, Mike; Wu, Andrew
Subject: RE: AReM's 2nd draft of comments responding to Carl Wood


Sue --
 
My thoughts on the filing.
 
1.    Pretty hard line with Comm Wood.  I don't have any problems with it as written, but comments like "CYA not Calif Youth Admin" is not appropriate.
2.    We don't deal with the requirement to submit contracts?  Should AReM address this?  My understanding is that for contracts with customers below 20kw we need to submit something (maybe with the price and term blacked-out)?  Is this correct?
3.    In the conclusion, don't we want to ask the PUC to take some affirmative action - tell the industry that they will never implement retroactive suspension, that their is no cost shifting, and that DA customers can extend without penalty?  The filing simply asks for no harm.  
 
Thanks,

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mara, Susan 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:39 PM
To: Williams, Robert C.; Steffes, James D.; Smith, Mike; Wu, Andrew
Subject: AReM's 2nd draft of comments responding to Carl Wood
Importance: High


Gang,
 
Here is a current draft of AReM's comments due tomorrow.  Let me know if you have comments.  Enron will not be submitting comments separately.
 
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Douglass [mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:37 PM
To: ARM; Gary Ackerman; Bob Anderson; Curt Hatton
Subject: SECOND DRAFT OF TOMORROW'S COMMENTS
Importance: High


Attached for your review and comment is a second draft of tomorrow's comments on the Wood ACR.  I have added a significantly expanded section dealing with how the Commission's inaction and subsequent action contributed to the flow of customers back and forth between DA and bundled service.  My thanks to Aaron Thomas for his assistance on this section.
 
Also, I have deleted the "CYA - not the California Youth Authority" quip --  I had to have some fun while writing this on Halloween night!

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 <mailto:douglass@energyattorney.com>