Message-ID: <8937183.1075859210411.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:00:06 -0800 (PST) From: bill.chen@aesmail.com To: jsmollon@newwestenergy.com, arem@electric.com Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation of Su spension DA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Bill Chen X-To: 'jsmollon@newwestenergy.com', arem@electric.com X-cc: douglass@energyattorney.com, Dasovich, Jeff X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Jan2002\Dasovich, Jeff\Inbox X-Origin: Dasovich-J X-FileName: jdasovic (Non-Privileged).pst 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. <> 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