Subject: RE: ACC/APS "Request of APS for a Partial Variance to AAC R14-2-1606(b)....
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:13:03 -0800 (PST)

If Reliant is interested in filing, we should seriously consider using EPSA.  Reliant is a member of EPSA.  We could get EPSA to work through Larry Robertson maybe.  

Let's discuss next week in Houston.

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Lawner, Leslie  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:58 PM
To:	Perrino, Dave; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul
Cc:	Nord, Sue
Subject:	RE: ACC/APS "Request of APS for a Partial Variance to AAC R14-2-1606(b)....

We should think about it but I wonder if there relation with their utility won't ultimately color the positions they are willing to take.  Let me find out when interventions are due, and we can perhaps discuss it next week in Houston.  We can always intervene separately and then file more substantive comments, etc. jointly.  Jim/Paul, do you want me to call Larry Robertson (AZ counsel) to see if he is available to work on this matter for us?  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Perrino, Dave  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:11 PM
To:	Lawner, Leslie; Steffes, James D.; Kaufman, Paul
Subject:	FW: ACC/APS "Request of APS for a Partial Variance to AAC R14-2-1606(b)....

Leslie,

I had sent a question to my contact in Reliant, it would seem that Reliant is working on an intervention, is this something we would want to join in with?  

As for FERC, in the filing APS I read Commission to mean FERC, when it really was referring to the ACC.

Jim,

Based on your comment, is your concern that if we do intervene and are successful, then APS would find any reason imaginable NOT to do business with Enron?

Thanks,

Dave

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	[email-masked]@ENRON  
Sent:	Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:38 AM
To:	Perrino, Dave
Subject:	Re: ACC/APS "Request of APS for a Partial Variance to AAC R14-2-1606(b)....

is this the "we don't think there is enough wholesale competition in AZ to
allow retail competition to occur, so we "are willing" to let the retail
customers in AZ to buy our merchant plants with an 11% return" filing?  I
am not involved , but I understand we have a  high level group that is
working on a response to APS' ludicrous filing and will be lobbying at the
ACC and AZ legislature on this one.  It is simply uncomprehensible how APS
could think that it makes sense to make such a filing in the same state
whose commission staff seems to think that there is too much merchant
generation being built.

"Perrino, Dave" <[email-masked]> on 10/29/2001 06:05:07 PM

To:   <[email-masked]>
cc:

Subject:  ACC/APS "Request of APS for a Partial Variance to AAC
      R14-2-1606(b)....

Dan,

Are you familar with this document?  I have just gottne a copy and it
proves how much contempt APS has for deregulation.  Some of the
statements this document contain are unbelievable...If you have any
insights to this I'd be interested in talking to you about this.

Thanks,

Dave

P.S., I hope all went well with your surgery.

**********************************************************************
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 [email-masked] 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.
**********************************************************************