There are recent observational indications (lack of convergent electric fie
ld signatures above the auroral oval at 4 R-E altitude) that the U-shaped p
otential drop model for auroral acceleration is not applicable in all cases
. There is nevertheless much observational evidence favouring the U-shaped
model at low altitudes, i.e., in the acceleration region and below. To reso
lve the puzzle we propose that there is a negative O-shaped potential well
which is maintained by plasma waves pushing the electrons into the loss con
e and up an electron potential energy hill at similar to 3-4R(E) altitude r
ange. We present a test particle simulation which shows that when the wave
energization is modelled by random parallel boosts, introducing an O-shaped
potential increases the precipitating energy Aux because the electrons can
stay in the resonant velocity range for a longer time if a downward electr
ic field decelerates the electrons at the same time when waves accelerate t
hem in the parallel direction. The lower part of the O-shaped potential wel
l is essentially the same as in the U-shaped model. The electron energizati
on comes from plasma waves in this model, but the final low-altitude fluxes
are produced by electrostatic acceleration. Thus. the transfer of energy f
rom waves to particles cakes places in an "energization region", which is a
bove the acceleration region. In the energization region the static electri
c field points downward while in the acceleration region it points upward.
The model is compatible with the large body of low-altitude observations su
pporting the U-shaped model while explaining the new observations of the la
ck of electric field at high altitude.