Subject: RE: TW Overhead WO
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:58:20 -0800 (PST)

I'm referring to last year's AcSec Exposure Draft on Proposed Statement of Position-Accounting for Certain Costs and Activities
Related to PP&E.  That SOP called for a 2003 effective date however, I have not seen or heard of any updates since the November
15, 2001 comment period ended.

-----Original Message-----
From: Saunders, James 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:36 AM
To: Cobb Jr., John; Thompson, Debra
Cc: Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb
Subject: RE: TW Overhead WO

john - what fasb is this, and when is it effective?????

-----Original Message----- 
From: Cobb Jr., John 
Sent: Fri 1/25/2002 7:24 PM 
To: Thompson, Debra; Saunders, James 
Cc: Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb 
Subject: RE: TW Overhead WO

        Considering Teb's comments relative to support activity for more than the Red Rock project then the OH order 
        may be the best option for now.  All should keep in mind that some new accounting rules may require these costs 
        to be expensed and only allow for costs directly related to a project be capitalized. 

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Thompson, Debra  
Sent:   Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:26 AM 
To:     Saunders, James; Cobb Jr., John 
Cc:     Kilmer III, Robert; Lokey, Teb 
Subject:        RE: TW Overhead WO 

Jim - We've decided to settle for the less than ideal solution and charge the TW OH workorder instead of specific projects.

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Saunders, James  
Sent:   Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:11 AM 
To:     Lokey, Teb; Geaccone, Tracy; Watson, Kimberly 
Cc:     Thompson, Debra; Kilmer III, Robert; Paschal, Zelda; Cobb Jr., John 
Subject:        RE: TW Overhead WO 
Importance:     High 

no... 
how's that for specific guidance!! 

John C and team will provide guidance...maybe even a separate "support activity" workorder 

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Lokey, Teb  
Sent:   Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:46 AM 
To:     Geaccone, Tracy; Watson, Kimberly 
Cc:     Saunders, James; Thompson, Debra; Kilmer III, Robert; Paschal, Zelda 
Subject:        RE: TW Overhead WO 

We can charge directly but still need some guidance.  For example, it is my understanding that there are 4 WO set up for Red Rock - one for each station to be modified.  Our work is of a general nature, so do we have to further subdivide our charges to each of the stations, or to three of the stations.  Also, some of our time is spent on a general analysis of regulatory strategy involving all capital projects, and it seems like the overhead WO would be appropriate for these charges.  We don't necessarily want to have to have each person charge to 3 or 4 WO for each identifiable capital project and then to 10 or more WO for our general work.  Any specific suggestions, WO numbers, etc. ?

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Geaccone, Tracy  
Sent:   Wednesday, January 23, 2002 5:33 PM 
To:     Watson, Kimberly; Lokey, Teb 
Cc:     Saunders, James 
Subject:        FW: TW Overhead WO 

In response to where to charge your time to for TW projects, Jim Saunders prefers that you charge directly if possible.  Let me know if we need to discuss.

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Saunders, James  
Sent:   Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:56 PM 
To:     Geaccone, Tracy; Chandler, Bob; Cobb Jr., John 
Subject:        RE: TW Overhead WO 

this will allocate their charges to all tw projects...of course red rock dominates tw capital expenditures 
a direct charge to a red rock w/o would be ideal 

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Geaccone, Tracy  
Sent:   Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:53 PM 
To:     Saunders, James; Chandler, Bob; Cobb Jr., John 
Subject:        TW Overhead WO 

The TW commercial and regulatory team are charging to the TW overhead WO for their time related to TW projects including Red Rock.  Is this how you think we should be handling?