Message-ID: <30375534.1075861489996.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:43:52 -0800 (PST)
From: rschlanert@electric.com
To: jsmollon@newwestenergy.com, rschlanert@electric.com, arem@electric.com
Subject: RE: Proposal AREM response to UDC Joint Filing - Implementation o f
 Su spension DA
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 >>