RE: Draft AReM Filing - Comments Needed

FYI...

Here are the confirmations regarding what type of DASR the Joint UDC
Proposal addresses from each of the three UDCs.

PG&E
Rebecca:

In response to your questions regarding our latest Joint Proposal, here is
my answer to your specific questions below:

a) The DASR Cut-off etc mentioned in your recent filing indeed refers to
Connect DASRs only
As the primary purpose of the implementation of the suspension of DA is to
identify accounts that are eligible to go DA, the "DASR Cut-off" reference
is for CONNECT DASRs only.

b) All other DASRs, such as Disconnect and Updates, will continue to be
accepted regardless of any implementation of a Cut-off or not.
Disconnect and Update DASRs will continue to be accepted for existing
accounts and new accounts to be switched as proposed in our filing.

Thanks,
Calvin Yee
PG&E

SDG&E:
a) The DASR Cut-off etc mentioned in your recent filing indeed refers to
Connect DASRs only,

This is correct, the joint proposal refers to new connects

b) All other DASRs, such as Disconnect and Updates, will continue to be
accepted regardless of any implementation of a Cut-off or not.

Updates DASRs and terminations DASRs will continue to be accepted.

Lora Clay
Strategic Lead - ESP Relations
e-mail: lclay@sdge.com

SCE:
I have seen the responses to Rebecca's questions from SDG&E (Lora Clay's
comments are included in the e-mail below) and PG&E (by separate e-mail to
Rebecca from Calvin Yee, not included here). SCE would agree that the
Joint UDC proposal regarding a DASR cut-off date pursuant to the joint UDC
filing on 11/16/01 refers to:

1) "Connect" DASRs only, and that
2) under such a DASR cut-off, SCE would continue to accept "disconnect"
and "update" DASRs (for changes to billing and/or metering options) for
existing Direct Access customers (note: this is consistent with SCE's
previous communications regarding the subject of DASR cut-off date)

Jack Horne
Jack.Horne@sce.com

I have all three e-mails & will forward them to Dan today.

Rebecca

< -----Original Message-----
< From: Dan Douglass [SMTP:douglass@earthlink.net]
< Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:00 AM
< To: ARM; Jeff Dasovich
< Subject: Draft AReM Filing - Comments Needed
<
< Attached for your review and comment is a redlined third draft of our
< comments due Wednesday on the UDCs' Joint Proposal re DA suspension
< implementation. My thanks to Rebecca Schlanert and Jeff Dasovich for
< their comments. Jeff's suggestions re Option 3 are included at the end of
< the draft. The essential change from what the UDCs proposed is that the
< CPA verifications would go directly to the Commission rather than to the
< UDCs. I thought up a few reasons in support of this approach, but would
< appreciate more suggestions and comments.
<
< Since this is due Wed., comments received by close of business tomorrow
< will get put into a proposed final draft to be circulated Wed. morning.
< Thanks!
<
< 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< << File:
< 11-28-01 ARM Comments - Draft 3_.doc <<