|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: System Administrator <postmaster@MSXSSC.SHELL.COM< X-To: Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JDASOVIC< X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged)\Dasovich, Jeff\Deleted Items X-Origin: Dasovich-J X-FileName: JDASOVIC (Non-Privileged).pst Your message To: Bill Chen; jsmollon@newwestenergy.com; arem@electric.com Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation of Su spension DA Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:12:40 -0600 did not reach the following recipient(s): anchau@shell.com on Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:15:55 -0600 The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=us;a=attmail;p=shellusa;l=ICSSCXH70111280015THQNHNBY MSEXCH:IMS:SHELL:MSXSSC:ICSSCXH7 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient ----- Message-ID: <3080E1264732244B844860A7BD823A692AD956@NAHOU-MSMBX07V.corp.enron.com< From: "Dasovich, Jeff" <Jeff.Dasovich@ENRON.com< To: Bill Chen <Bill.chen@aesmail.com<, jsmollon@newwestenergy.com, arem@electric.com Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation o f Su spension DA Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:12:40 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-MS-Embedded-Report: Apologies just got back. Can't make the call, but concur that we ought to stay where we were. Not that the proposal doesn't merit discussion, but it raises many issues and we're down to the wire. So I concur with Bill and Aaron. Perhaps we should try to regroup first thing in the AM? Best, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Bill Chen [mailto:Bill.chen@aesmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:00 PM To: 'jsmollon@newwestenergy.com'; arem@electric.com Cc: douglass@energyattorney.com; Dasovich, Jeff Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation of Su spension DA All, Unfortunately, Aaron and I will not be able to make this call. However, we wanted to let the group know that we are strongly opposed to New West's proposal and urge the group to adopt the position we agreed to during last week's call, i.e., oppose the UDCs' proposal for a DASR cut-off date, for the reasons outlined in Dan's most recent draft. Thanks. Bill 925.287.4703 -----Original Message----- From: jsmollon@newwestenergy.com [mailto: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 ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. **********************************************************************
|