RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Rebecca Schlanert <RSchlanert@electric.com<
X-To: 'jsmollon@newwestenergy.com', Rebecca Schlanert <RSchlanert@electric.com<, arem@electric.com
X-cc: douglass@energyattorney.com, Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDASOVIC<
X-bcc:
X-Folder: \JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Dasovich-J
X-FileName: JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged).pst

I will be available.

< -----Original Message-----
< From: jsmollon@newwestenergy.com [SMTP:jsmollon@newwestenergy.com]
< Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:35 PM
< To: RSchlanert@electric.com; JSMOLLON@newwestenergy.com;
< arem@electric.com
< Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com; Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
< Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing -
< Implementation o f Su spension DA
<
< how about 4:00 p.m. conference call?
<
< -----Original Message-----
< From: Rebecca Schlanert [mailto:RSchlanert@electric.com]
< Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 2:33 PM
< To: 'jsmollon@newwestenergy.com'; arem@electric.com
< Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com; Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
< Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation
< o f Su spension DA
<
<
< I would be open to this as well.
<
< Rebecca
<
< < -----Original Message-----
< < From: jsmollon@newwestenergy.com [SMTP:jsmollon@newwestenergy.com]
< < Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:21 AM
< < To: arem@electric.com
< < Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com; Jeff.Dasovich@enron.com
< < Subject: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation
< < of Su spension DA
< <
< < I have had an opportunity to talk to most of you regarding the attached
< < proposal. I apologize I ran out of time yesterday and didn't catch
< < everyone.
< <
< < NWE would like to propose a slightly different take on our AREM filing
< < having had a chance to think more about it. I wanted to run it by
< < everyone
< < to get your thoughts before submitting a redline. If you feel this
< < warrants
< < a conference call I will gladly set one up for today. Time is of the
< < essence and would appreciate your feedback as soon as possible. If we
< all
< < agree, I would like to get the re-write with everyone's blessing to Dan
< by
< < tomorrow at 8:00 am. or sooner.
< < <<arm-puc-plan.doc<<
< < Proposal Benefits
< <
< < 1. We look more reasonable and agree to much of what UDCs are
< < proposing.
< < 2. Accommodates most, if not all, of ESP and customer concerns.
< < 3. Strong argument for avoiding any contract review. Our
< < verification proposal could backfire; PUC could accept our approach, but
< < add
< < details which goes toward ESPs submitting contracts to the PUC for
< review
< < and validation
< < Thank you,
< < Janie Mollon
< < Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
< < Office: 602-629-7758
< < FAX: 602-629-7772
< < Mobile: 602-625-3892
< < << File: arm-puc-plan.doc <<