postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: ETA Comments from GPU Energy


David: GPU Energy had the following comments to the ETA:  1.
In Section 2(a) they want Enron to represent that it owns and has the  legal right to grant to Counterparty the use of the Website.
Also, in the  second sentence where we say that they cannot utilize the Website on behalf  of third parties they want to exclude Affiliates.
[Leslie, is this a proper  exclusion given our conversation this week about who will be applying for the  Website password?]
2.
They have deleted Section 4(b) and seem to think that we should provide a  similar indemnity.
I can handle point #2, but what do you think about point #1?
Carol
Subject: Dresdner Bank Credit Issues


Rod: The following are the credit issues that they raised in their comments:  1.
Cross default threshold - instead of $100,000,000 they want a 3% of equity  test.
2. Credit Event Upon Merger - they want to delete the amendment language in  our Schedule  3.
MAC Trigger - this currently is an Event of Default.
They want to make it  a Termination Event.
Also, they want to add to the trigger going below a  Baa3 rating by Moody's.
4.
In the financial reporting section, they want to add on our side a  requirement that we deliver to them any financial or business report that we  make available to our shareholders or that we file with the SEC or bank  regulatory authorities  5.
In the Netting language, they have excluded FX and Currency Option  transactions.
6.
In the setoff language, they have limited the trigger to the designation  of an Early Termination date because of the Termination Event Credit Event  Upon Merger.
Alos, they want setoff to apply to "matured and unmatured"  obligations.
7.
They don't want a cap on the Enron Guaranty  8.
In the Termination section where we specify Loss and Second method that  have an interesting rider (insert 2) that modifies how the Second Method  works.
I'm still trying to understand what this language does but it appears  to qualify any payments on termination that the Non-Defaulting Party would  have to make to the Defaulting Party.
I will send you a copy of their comments and hopefully we will talk to them  about this next week.
carol
Subject: Custodian Language


Susan: I'm not sure that what I told you to do in the CSA Annex with respect to  Custodians and their qualifications work so for now let's keep it out and go  back to our old language.
Sara and Mark: Shari had a counterparty point out to her that in our CSA Annex language  where we talk about the circumstances under which a party can "hold"  collateral, all of our triggers are based on something happening to our  counterparty and nothing is said about what would happen if a Custodian holds  the colateral and fails to be creditworthy.
Do you have any thoughts on  this?
At first I thought that we should require the Custodian to be a  Qualified institution but I'm not sure that that is the right approach.
Let  me know what you think.
Carol
Subject: Ralcorp Holdings


Shari:  I need your thoughts on 2 things:  We have done another trade with this counterparty on the Omnibus form and  Jaryd informed me that as part of the first trade, we agreed to some  modifications to our Annex A.
Do you remember what those modifications  were?
Also, we are now using our new form of Annex A.
How do you think that  this counterparty will react to getting a new form?
I loook forward to  hearing from you.
Carol
Subject: Annex A Letter


Derek: Could you call me sometime this week so that we can discuss how to proceed  with your counterparties on the Annex A mail-out?
Thanks.
Carol
Subject: Credit Seminar Issues


Bill and Tanya: Enclosed is a list of "follow-up" items that we came up with based on what we  talked about last Friday.
Maybe some of these can be discussed at our next  group meeting next week so that we are clear on who is handling which issue.
Feel free to send me any thoughts you may have on these issues.
We really  appreciate the enthusiasm that your group has for these seminars and look  forward to doing more of them in the future.
Carol
Subject: LC Form


Karen: Enclosed is a new draft of the LC Form in which I have incorporated some  additional transfer language that hopefully deals with your issue.
Please  [ass it on to the people taht need to see it.
Thanks.
Subject: ETA Amendment Letter


Jim: At long last, enclosed is a draft of the ETA Amendment Letter that addresses  the termination issue.
Since the last draft, we have had new procedures in  place that require all amendments to be approved by the head of our Online  group.
This review process resulted in several chnages to the draft that I  previously sent you, namely:  1.
We cannot agree in Section 3(e) to change the word "may" to "shall", due  in part to the fact that we are looking into doing paperless trades online.
2.
In the amendment to section 4(b), he has asked that we delete any  reference to omissions.
I apologize for this.
Please call me after you have had a chance to review  this.
Subject: Margaux Certificate Purchase and Trust Agreements


Trina and Alicia: Do you know who is commenting on the Enron reps and warranties mentioned in  the cover memo either from your side or our side?
Also, Mark Evans is  calling me tomorrow at 10 to go over the "New" structure.
Let me know if you  want to be plugged in.
I'm not sure if the swap docs are affected.
Subject: Upcoming Luncheons


Suzanne: We are going to try and schedule some more lunch meetings before I go on  leave.
I would like to do one in early May, one in late May and one in  JUne.
Could you please check the availability of  the conference room on 30  that we used last time and let me know what dates are open?
Thanks.
Subject: credit Issues


Brant: I need your help in answering the following questions:  EL PASO  Is the collateral threshold for both of us $50,000,000?
What are the Guaranty caps?
Is the cross default threshold now for both of us $100,000,000?
Should cross default only apply to the Credit Support Providers or should it  apply to the parties and their credit support providers?
OCCIDENTAL  Should we insist on our "affiliate" setoff language?
Carol
Subject: Puget Sound


Joe: We are entering into an Agreement with Puget Sound Energy, Inc. in which we  are agreeing to some chnages to our new form of Annex A.
Enclosed is the new  form which we have agreed to which should be attached to all trades done with  Puget after February 2, 2000.
Alos enclosed is the Agreement that we will  enter into.
Call me if you have any questions.
Subject: ISDA Issues


Steve: I am waiting on my credit person to get back to me.
I know that he is out  for a good portion of this week but I will continue to follow up with him.
Have you made any decisions about the amendment to the BT Agreement that we  discussed a few weeks ago?
Carol
Subject: Meeting


Suzanne: Could you please coordinate with Sara's and Richard's assistant to set up a  30 minute meeting with me, Sara and Richard Sanders to talk about the  arbitration issues that I raised in an e-mail to him last week?
thanks.
Carol
Subject: Work Flow


Susan: As we discussed yesterday could you please give to me this morning the Enmax  file as well as the files for the amendments that we talked about?
Also,  Tana has offerred to help so please get with her to figure out what she can  do to bring you up to date.
Maybe she can work on some of the amendments.
Thanks.
Subject: Updated Contact List


Rick: FYI.
This should have alos been sent to you.
Please add on our side to the  distribution Bruce Wright whose e-mail address is pwright@llgm.com.
Thanks.
Subject: Comments to Swap Docs


Here are my comments to the latest set of swap docs:  1.
In the swap assignment, I think that the definition of Regulated  Subsidiary can be deleted.
2.
In Section 3.4 of the swap assignment, in the new language that was added  at the very end, shouldn't it say after the words "Swap Agreement" "(as it  relates to the Assigned Interest)"?
In other words, if these events as to  Party B happen and it results in either an event of default or termination  event under the swap, shouldn't Party A be entitled to terminate the Swap  Agreement with respect to the portion that is not being assigned?
3.
I'm assuming that the changes to Section 3.5(e) track some current cross  default language that Enron is now using.
4.
In Section 3.8, the word comments should be "consents".
Nora: Per my voice mail message to you, I'm assuming that you are okay with Section  5.6.
Subject: Calculation Agency Agreement


Jeff: Has there been any discussion on our side with who the Calculation Agent  would be?
Normally, it is one of the swap counterparties.
Is this a role  that Enron Corp. can and should perform?
With respect to the Agreement, I am  looking at a June 2nd draft and was wondering if anyone has focused on the  language in Section 2, and in particular, Section 2(c)  and Section 7.
Subject: Atlantic Letter


Paul: Please see the enclosed and call me if you have any questions.
You will note  that I have assumed that the waiver period would expire either on a date  certain or if certain events happened before such date.
Please let me know  if there are other things that may cause the waiver period to expire early.
Carol
Subject: Name Chnages


Susan and Susan: Could one of you send out a notice concerning the following and update lotus  notes:  1.
Oneok Gas Marketing Company has changed its name to Oneok Energy Marketing  and Trading Company, II ("Oneok II").
2.
K N Marketing, L.P. is now known as Oneok Energy Marketing and Trading  Company, L.P. ("Oneok LP")   We have Masters with both of these entities.
I have sent to Oneok a Transfer and Termination Agreement where the following  will occur once it becomes effective:  1.
Onoek II will assign all of its trades and its rights under its Master to  Oneok LP.
2.
The Oneok LP Master will be terminated and all trades will be under the  Oneok II Master.
In summary, once this becomes effective, all trades will be done with Oneok  LP under the Oneok II Master that was assigned to it.
Credit Support comes  from the parent Onoek Inc.
Enclosed is a draft of the Agreement.
Carol
Subject: Enron Guaranty Form


Ed: Here is a comparison of our form to Clement's.
We need to use our form as it  ties more closely into the swap agreements that we use.
Legal will dela with  Clement if this is a problem but I suspect that it won't be.
His form, I  suspect, is more suited for credit agreements and the like.
I am alos  attaching our form which we distributed today for both the Enron Guaranty and  the Counterparty Guaranty.
Carol
Subject: Utilicorp


Stephanie and Frank: Both Susan Bailey and I have spoken with Utilicorp's attorney and here is my  understanding of where things stand:  1.
On Friday, it was my understanding that they submitted their password  application and that the problem was that the person that they needed to set  up the sub-user passwords was not in the office.
My understanding is that he  will be in on Tuesday and that is when they are going to try to set up those  accounts.
Does that require them to send any paperwork to us?
2.
Once the sub-user accounts are set up, then we need to pick a date for the  Transfer Agreement to become effective.
Since we are changing the date from  June 16th, this will require someone from Utilicorp to initial the change and  their attorney wasn't sure when that will happen.
Once the new date is  picked and initialed, then we can begin trading under Utilicorp's name, but  nothing should be done until before then.
Either Susan or I will let you  know when that date is.
Please call me at 33989 if you have any questions.
Carol
Subject: Comments


Steve: I am faxing you our remaining comments to the schedules.
Looks like the only  open points relate to :  1. the additional cross-default language.
Have you had a chance to think  about what I e-mailed to you?
2.
DB, pursuant to our request, is considering refining the "materially  weaker" standard in Credit Event Upon Merger to specify a ratings test.
3.
Insertion of our Rider 7 into the ISDA Schedule regarding confirmation  procedures.
4.
DB reviewing LC language and our comments to the Enron Guaranty.
I guess  we still need to discuss the :defenses" language because as I indicated to  you, I'm not sure that your compromise works for us.
I look forward to hearing from you and sorry for the delay.
Subject: Deutsche bank


Joe: On trades with BT, are we the confirming party or are they?
Deutsche has  requested that thye be the confirming party on the ISDA that we are trying to  finalize with them.
Are you okay with thios?
carol
Subject: Rod Nelson


I was going to attempt to compose some type of farewell poem for Rod for  Tuesday.
What I need from you is any things in particular about Rod that you  associate with him based on your dealings with him, preferably things that  are funny.
If you can think of any, please e-mail them to me.
Carol
Subject: Status Memo


Mark: Here is a first cut at where things stand on projects that I am handling.
I  will continue to update it as long as I am here, but thought you should have  it just in case.
All of these files are on top of the file cabinets near the  window.
Carol
Subject: PSE&G


Tanya: I just received a revised draft of the ISDA Schedule.
There is just 1 point  that I want to raise with you.
You may recall that in Credit Event Upon  Merger we created a special exception for them in connection with their  upcoming reorg which stated that either the transferee or its Credit Support  Provider would have to have a Credit Rating of BBB- or better OR Baa3 or  better.
They now have added this same concept as a carve-out/exception to  the "transfer" provisions in section 7, such that upon any transfer, the  other party cannot withhold its consent to such transfer if the transferee  provides a Guaranty from an entity that meets the above ratings test.
Are  you okay with this as a general carve out for all types of transfers?
Our  typical language is that we can withhold our consent unless the transferee  provides a satisfactory guaranty to us.
Carol
Subject: Update 12/18/2001


Now that Email is back up - here is our update for today.
Note, I again forecasted EFS' residual deposit of funds.
If not made, funding requirements for out days will change.
Wade
Subject: FBI Investigation


During the course of their investigation, Special Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be taking documents they believe may be important for their investigation from employees' offices.
The FBI has agreed to return copies of such documents.
In addition, should you have an immediate need for a document requested by the FBI, please make a copy of the specific document and give the original to the FBI.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Subject: Confirm Address for Tax Returns


Hi, Geoff,  Could you please confirm that your Windsor address is to be used on your tax returns.
Also, would you like your completed tax package sent to this address?
We will be sending out your returns as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Subject: Bridge Application


Fletch:  The Bridge/Telerate system will not be migrated to the UBS infrastructure.
I noticed you had an account but wasn't sure if you actually use the application?
Let me know and I will have a Kobra (Reuters)  trainer help setup anything you are not able to pull up into the Kobra app.
thanks,
Subject: Davis - Besse


Davis Besse would like to delay their  inspection till Spring outage but it appears that the NRC has a lot of issues and are concerned about there analysis of the situation.
It is more than 80% likely that the NRC will request them to do an inspection in late November or early December.
This information will be confirmed during the beginning of November
Subject: Dynegy vs. ComEd


On October 17, 2001, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. and Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (Dynegy) tendered for filing a Complaint against Commonwealth Edison Company.
In its complaint, Dynegy alleges  that ComEd has failed to properly enforce the network resource designation provisions of its Open  Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Dynegy further alleges that ComEd's actions jeopardize reliability,  deprive Dynegy of revenues for capacity sales, and permits the improper prioritization of network transmission  service for bumping and curtailment.
Interventions are due October 26.
Please contact me if you would like further information.
Subject: Gas and Power


Fletch,  Can you buy/sell gas on EnronOnline?
We're working up a concept for a possible play for Monday.
Would like to bounce it off you when you have a moment.
Dave
Subject: curve setting


jenny, i'd really like to be able to set my curves through Dec '03 without having to  freak with that g.d. contango weighting table in the MW4 file.
the market  changes so fast during the day that i don't have time to switch between my  MWSum and MW4 files fast enough to keep up with it.
i have a section in the  MWSum spreadsheet where i keep all of the quick calcs on the calendars, so i  could link that to the MW4 file like i'm doing through Oct '02.
come by  tomorrow (Fri) and i'll show you what the h i'm talking about.
fletch
Subject: Another contact


Eric,  This guy is a friend of mine and he said he'll put in some good words about  EOL and especially the new product that we're going to launch.
His name is  Chris McDonald at Southern  (678) 579-3298.
He runs the West gas trading at  Southern.
Fletch
Subject: EOL Idea


Greg,  I've been working with an IT guy here who has been building a spreadsheet for  some of us that can receive live prices from EOL.
I've used this to build a  real-time matrix which shows spread relationships between different gas  locations, including variable cost analysis, NPV, etc.
I think that this  would be an extremely useful application to include on the EOL site, whether  it is in Excel format or some homemade format.
For example, Hunter and I  were in Chicago last week talking to NICOR about analyzing the risk  components of their PBR.
We brought up this idea and they were excited about  being able to more clearly see daily cash spreads, hedge MTD and BOM PBR  price with Gas Daily swaps, storage utilization logic, etc.
If we can develop an EOL - dependent application that is helpful to our  customers in terms of how they make trading decisions, it will reinforce the  importance of using our site over our competitors.
Let me know what you think!
Fletch
Subject: Addresses


TJae,  At your convenience (not necessarily today), could you provide my wife with  the addresses for the following people, please?
Her e-mail is  sturmt@yahoo.com.
Thanks, Fletch  John Lavorato Dave Delainey Kevin Presto yourself Rogers Herndon Dana Davis Rob Benson Jeff King Larry Valderama Larry Jester Matt Lorenz Pete Makkai (sp?)
names below are NatGas people Airam Artega Scott Neal John Arnold Phillip Allen Mike Grigsby Jeff Shankman  thanks again!
Subject: Office Space Consolidation


Pleasure to have spoken with you last night concerning your interest in arranging for 7-10,000 sf of office space.
Will be pleased to represent your organization in this effort.
I will have the Pre-Lease Planning questionnaire delivered to you this morning.
Please let me know what time works for you on Monday.
Look forward to working on your behalf.
M
Subject: Required Training


INTERVIEW TRAINING  On Wednesday, 11/7/01 at 2:00 PM interview training will be held to prepare you for our Super Saturday recruiting event.
The training will be held in the Mt Hood Conference Room.
Since all of you are participating in the interviews, your attendance will be required at the meeting.
(If you are unable to attend, please talk to either Tim or Chris)  CASE STUDY IDEAS NEEDED!
During the interviews, each of you will have an Interview Profile.
More information about the profiles will be outlined specifically in the meeting.
However, we will need your help creating a Case Study Profile.
The night before the interviews, each student will be given the case study which will be discussed during the interviews.
If you would like your case to be considered, please submit it to me thru email no later than Friday, November 2.
All of the cases will then be reviewed by Tim & Chris and the best one will be used for the Super Saturday Event.
If you have any questions, give me a call.
Thanks!
Julie K x7404
Subject: Team 4 Congratulatory Lunch at Rock Bottom


The stars have aligned to designate Wednesday, October 24, as the day to have our lunch.
Let's meet at Rock Bottom at 11:45 (or we could get all radical and actually leave together from the floor at 11:40) for the celebration.
We could probably figure out how many Kcalories we all burned by riding during September and dedicate ourselves to replacing them at a single sitting!
See you there.
Great work, team--we took the "total number of trips" category for the Bike Commute Challenge.
Subject: Grant valuation of Nonfirm hydro


Jeff -  Here is a first cut at valuing the Grant's non firm power from Priest Rapid and Wanapum hydro projects.
We assumed a term from 1/1/02 - 10/31/05.
We assumed a price curve of Mid Columbia (thus we have included no transmission costs).
Enron also assumed a payment to Grant due on 1/1/02.
The last important assumption is how to value any "negative firm" power (defined as a situation in which Grant's non firm power in one month is lower than the critical year monthly figure).
In this situation we carried over the negative water volume to the next month and net is against positive volumes.
The total value to nonfirm power using the above assumptions is approximately $68 million.
If Grant is interested in a $15 million lump sum then Enron would assume a 22% stake in the non firm hydro stream.
Briefly I would like to explain our methodology for valuing the hydro.
We took the hydro raw data from Grant on the two projects and also used the critical year assumption.
In addition we created a curve to reflect the impact of water to power prices (ie the greater the water volume the lower the power prices).
We then ran a number of simulations to create a distribution that describes the range of output values.
Jeff I look forward to speaking with you about this in more detail.
You can reach me at 503-464-3810.
As I mentioned I will be out this week from Tuesday to Friday.
Stewart Rosman
Subject: Lousiana Pacific Deal # 421598.1


All-    Per an inquiry from Lousiana Pacific regarding deal # 421598.1 (LT NW):    Structure: 		7 MW around the clock, 100% load factor.
Buy back at basis or remarket at a 70% / 30% split.
February 23, 2001:  	Load was taken from 7 MW to 4 MW for HE 11 - 24.
Deal # 421598.1 was reduced from a 7 MW to a 4 MW (D. Scholtes).
We remarketed the 3 MW's real time to WWP deal # 530654.1 (source PGE).
We did not enter a deal to keep LP whole.
February 24, 2001:  	Load was taken from 7 MW to 4 MW for HE 1 - 24.
Deal # 421598.1 was reduced from a 7 MW to a 4 MW (D. Scholtes).
We remarketed the 3 MW's real time to Puget for HE 1-9 deal # 530689.1 and to WWP for HE 10-24 deal # 530716.1.
We did not enter a deal to keep LP whole.
August 29, 2001:  	Virginia set deal # 421598.1 back to 7 MW, keeping sale to LP whole, and entered deal # 754187.1 to buy back 3 MW of LP energy at 70 % of  the 			price sold real time.
(70% / 30% split according to agreement with LP).
VT routed original purchase from PGE-deal 529161.1 (ST NW) back to Lousiana Pacific-deal # 421598.1 (LT NW) and routed the "buy-back" deal # 			754187.1 (ST W HOURLY) to WWP and to Puget (ST W HOURLY).
I think that this will properly take care of the dispute and make Lousiana Pacific happy.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks,    Virginia
Subject: The Prometheus File - Energy Technology Weekly 1/18/02


We are currently upgrading out networks at this time.
We apologize for any errors, delays, or inconveniences that may result from network problems.
Thank You  In this issue: Feature: Reconciling the Telecom Money Pit.
News Highlights: Calpine cuts FY02 estimates and places US$2 billion worth of projects on hold.
All the news, commentary, and earnings reports, plus price performance and valuation charts.
Best regards,