Subject: RE: AReM response to Wood ACR
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:10:59 -0800 (PST)

Good draft.  Few comments:

As much as we may not like it, the commission is where the action is right now, and we're going to have to work with them.  As such, I think the comments would be significantly more effective if you go through the document and edit out the invective and other highly charged adjectives, which, while therapeutic, tend to incent the Commission to ignore or be even more hostile to our interests. In short, I don't see an upside to it and there is downside.  Rather than try to edit, I've simply compiled those paragraphs that in my view should be deleted or require serious toning-down. In addition to these specific areas, I would recommend going through the document and toning it down generally.
Seems that it would be useful, up front and at the end, to give OUR answer (maybe I'm repeating Jim's comments here):  e.g., The Commission should 1) not do retroactive, 2) permit customers to do what the contracts permit (e.g., add facilities, renew, etc.), 3) hold hearings on all of Wood's unsubstantiated assertions, and 4) anything else we want to be part of the solution as it relates to the issues raised by Karl.
On page 2, do we run the risk of affirming  what Angelides and others are saying, i.e., that DA could bankrupt the state?  Sure we need to say it, since it seems to play into their spin and everyone already knows of the bind they're in?  Could backfire.
Point # 6 on page 14:  are  we inviting the Commission to ask parties to submit contracts?  Possible to re-write or eliminate this so that it doesn't appear we're advocating having folks submit them?

Good job.  Thanks for your efforts.  Seems that the key thing is to let the Commission know unequivocally that it must hold extensive hearings on the many factual issues in dispute.

Best,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	"Mara, Susan" <[email-masked]>@ENRON  
Sent:	Friday, November 02, 2001 10:52 AM
To:	MDay; Dan Douglass; Sue Mara at Enron SF; Jeff Dasovich Enron SF
Cc:	JBennett
Subject:	RE: AReM response to Wood ACR

Here's the 2nd draft from yesterday with my comments.  Dan is working on
the final now.

-----Original Message-----
From: MDay [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:00 PM
To: 'Dan Douglass'; 'Sue Mara at Enron SF'; 'Jeff Dasovich Enron SF'
Cc: JBennett
Subject: AReM response to Wood ACR

Dan, is it possible to see the AReM response to the Wood ACR before it
is
filed tomorrow?  I am going to be preparing  the written prehearing
conference statement for Enron to be submitted to Barnett at the nov. 7
PHC
and I want to make sure we are being consistent in our approach.  Thank
you.
Mike Day
 - 11-2-01 Joint Comments - Draft 2-sue.doc << File: 11-2-01 Joint Comments - Draft 2-sue.doc >>