|
|
Enron Mail |
Cc: 'arem'@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: 'arem'@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com X-From: Rebecca Schlanert <RSchlanert@electric.com< X-To: 'Dan Douglass' <douglass@energyattorney.com< X-cc: 'arem' <arem@electric.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 Dan: I have made only a few minor changes. Additionally: * Should we briefly define nominal rationale in a footnote? * Could number 7 be condensed? It seems a bit drawn out at four pages. * Under C.1. I believe the DASR Cut-Off Date refers to Connect DASRs only. Everything the UDCs have submitted to date states they will continue to accept all other types of DASR requests including Disconnects and Updates, therefore I deleted the first example on our second objection. This also appears to bring our third objection in to question as well. * Should we mention that the UDCs did not clarify their definition of DASR? I am certain that they intended to say Connect DASRs, not all DASRs. (I have confirmed this with SDG&E and PG&E and am waiting on a response from SCE.) * You mention you are waiting for something from Jeff Dasovich on the final item. Have you received anything? All I have seen is an outline type document sent around on the 21st, is there something additional? I have some questions concerning how we would send a DASR to the PUC. Perhaps I have missed something. If you, or someone in AReM, could explain I would appreciate it. Thank you, Rebecca A. Schlanert Commonwealth Energy Corporation electricAMERICA 714.481.6598 rschlanert@electric.com < -----Original Message----- < From: Dan Douglass [SMTP:douglass@earthlink.net] < Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:51 AM < < After sending off last night's first draft, I had an additional idea which < is incorporated into this second, redlined draft. What I added was Four < Principles by which each of the utilities' proposed rules should be < measured. They are as follows: < < First: Is it fair to all concerned? < < Second: Is it administratively feasible and reasonable? < < Third: Does it promote the nominal rationale for which the < Legislature directed that direct access could be suspended?: < < Fourth: Is it lawful? < < <<11-28-01 ARM Comments - Draft 2.DOC<<
|