postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: Get well soon!

Steve!
I was sorry to hear that you have been out sick and generally having  a hard time.
Hope you are feeling better and that it is nothing serious.
The rumor is that the most likely cause of your headaches is you colleagues.
No surprise there!
Adios, DF
Subject: Conoco Memo

Cindy, attached is a memo to Stan on the Conoco case.
He had asked for this  analysis to help him prepare for the March 29 mediation.
Please print this  up for Stan and let me know if anything goes haywire with the memo.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: New Billing Codes

The following is a memo from accounting containing some new accounting codes  you should be aware of.
I should warn you that your timesheets must be  approved by your supervisor; therefore, Code 5604 should not be used.
It has come to our attention recently that many  of you have been turning in timesheets that specify large amounts of  "Miscellaneous?
Unproductive Time" (Code 5309).
To our  department, unproductive time isn't a problem.
What is a problem, however, is  not knowing exactly what you are doing during your unproductive time.
Attached below is a sheet specifying a tentative extended job code list based  on our observations of employee activities.
The list will allow you  to specify with a fair amount of precision what you are doing during your  unproductive time.
Please begin using this job code list immediately and let  us know about any difficulties you encounter.
Thank  you,
Subject: Enron Press

???
What rumor was this press release responding to?
What did you do to= =20 drive the stock price down by $5?
I don't hear nuthin in Omaha so you've= =20 gotta keep me plugged in!
DF
Subject: ENA Deal

I read Wednesday's NGPL order (RP00-18-002) as applying only to NGPL due to  their unique restrictions and tariff rules.
I do not read it as forcing the  rest of the industry (i.e., us) to use the floor rate as the reserve price  for negotiated index rate bids and ordinary recourse rate bids.
I think we  can still determine the reserve price on a prearranged deal like the ENA deal  based on our good faith valuation of the upside provided by the index  mechanism.
I.e., on that type of deal, we can determine that the index  mechanism is worth "x cents" to us and require a discounted recourse rate  bidder to bid more than the floor plus x cents to win.
Agreed?
Note that NGPL whined that the unique rules they are subject to place them at  a competitve disadvantage to the rest of the industry (i.e., us) on this  issue.
The commission didn't say anything about that, implying to me that  the rest of us are still free to do what NGPL cannot do.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

Got a call from Dennis out of the blue this afternoon.
He's pretty gung ho,  and also alluded to several other projects he's got on the front burner  (gas-fired power deals).
He had met again with some DOE folks in DC about  the power contract and feels it is 70-80% locked in.
Have you ever known a  project developer who would admit to less than 70-80% odds???
I look forward  to talking on Tuesday.
DF
Subject: California Storage

Congratulations!
Sounds like the merchant storage business has had a good  couple of weeks with you guys clearing your environmental hurdles and the  Tioga guys finally starting construction!
I may have acted rashly in joining  the evil empire--should have jumped into the storage business instead!
Subject: California Storage

I finally stumbled over something that forced me to get my shit together and  update my email addresses on you guys.
Its been a strong couple of weeks for  the merchant storage business!
First you guys (and FERC) finally put the  last nail in CNG and Penn Fuels' coffins on Tioga, then old Larry,John and  Dill finally dust off Lodi and get going!
Wow!
I shouldn't have joined the  evil empire quite so fast!
Seriously, congratulations on starting construction up in PA.
I ran into my  old law partner Hill out in DC last week and got a great update on the recent  battles against those drips at CNG and Penn Fuel.
Siggy, what are you going  to do without Carol Lynn to fight with?????
Best wishes for continued  success!
DF
Subject: Pueblo

I got a call from Tino earlier today (right after our meeting on Pueblo) but  could only talk to him for a few minutes before I had to jump off.
I did let  him know that Kevin or Lorraine would be calling to talk about info that we  need to complete our analysis of the economics.
He also let me know that  they are looking at another power plant project in the SW Power Pool and want  to discuss with us.
Thanks.
Subject: Thanks!

Reed and Lana, thanks again for a great stay in the hills!
We all had a  blast and I'm happy to report that Britt and Tina are bragging to their  little classmates about their newfound skiing prowess!
Next thing you know  they'll be starring in a Warren Miller video!
Have a great time in BC and  say hi to Brad and Jen for us.
DF
Subject: Enron Form 10-K

Bob, Steve Gilbert was not working on this, but he thought that the numbers  in 10ks and annual reports generally get filled in by Elaine Concklin or  someone based on ET&S numbers fed up throught the system by Gilbert's group.
For now, I'm leaving the blanks in this draft blank and explaining to Moran  that I have limited our review to the legal and regulatory verbiage.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Draft

Please take a look at this history of the regulatory issues on Hubbard.
Note  that I am still trying to confirm some potentially helpful facts.
I'll walk  you through what I think this means on Monday or whenever you have time.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Gallup

Please find out what you can about which issues FERC is interested in on the  Gallup rehearing requests.
I.e., did they issue the tolling order because of  our rehearing arguments on the confidentiality issue or SoCal's on the rate  discrimination issues?
Anything you learn would be helpful, but this info is  not so important that risks should be taken to get it.
Thanks.
DF.
Subject: The slides

Here are the draft handouts for tomorrow's meeting with Stan.
Please channel  any comments or questions to Steve Kirk so he and Martha can get a final set  to me in Houston before the 1:30 meeting.
(Martha--pls get the final version
Subject: Confidentiality Regarding Acquisitions

I'm sure that many of you are aware that there has been a great deal of  activity lately related to Enron's evaluation of possible acquisitions.
John  Goodpasture's group has kept a large number of ET&S people engaged in looking  at a number of potential deals.
While these deal evaluation projects have  become routine around here, we all must remember that these projects are  extremely confidential.
Even after a potential seller has announced that it  is up for sale, the fact that Enron is looking at a potential deal, as well  as any of our internal analysis of the deal, remains strictly confidential.
I realize that many of you have ongoing business relationships with employees  of some of the companies that we have evaluated or may evaluate in the  future.
If you find yourself in such a situation, and a business contact at  the target company asks whether Enron is evaluating the contact's company or  assets, the only appropriate response is that Enron personnel are not  permitted to discuss potential acquisitions.
Please be aware that the  confidentiality agreements that we typically sign as part of the acquisition  evaluation process preclude any communication by Enron people with employees  of the target company.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this requirement, please do  not hesitate to give me a call.
Thank you for your assistance.
DF
Subject: Pueblo: CONFIDENTIAL

Here's the latest Tino-gram: 1.
Tino's environ.
consultants have not discovered any stop signs.
2.
The Isleta is interested in granting Dennis ROW/lease for the power plant  as well as the pipeline.
The power plant could be located on Isleta land  adjacent to the South boundary of the Scandia reservation.
Thus, the power  plant could be connected to DOE's existing powerline infrastructure without  ever leaving the Isleta and DOE land.
PNM would not be necessary to move  power to DOE.
Unclear to me whether this approach would give the power plant  optimal access to the power grid for sales of surplus power.
(maybe  this  could be done through DOE to an interconnect with PNM on the Scandia  reservation?)
3.
Dennis is using Jim Slattery, an ex law partner of mine in DC (and ex  Dem.
U.S.
Congressman from Kansas), as his primary contact with  Bill  Richardson at DOE.
My recollection is that Jim does have a good relationship  with Richardson, so this seems very likely to be effective.
Tino reports  that "DOE is OK with the deal" and the next step is negotiating the power  contract itself.
Tino said that DOE is aware that the capital for the  project will not come from the tribe so the tribe's interest will be fairly  thin.
It is unclear exactly how much indian ownership Dennis and Slattery  promised DOE.
4.
Tino has run into a power plant consultant named Jack Maddox who says  he's working on a 230MW plant to be located west of Belen.
Tino thinks he's  working for the Laguna tribe, but wanted us to find out who is planning a big  power plant out there.
Is this ours?
PNM's?
El Paso?
Finally, the next key step is obviously the economics.
Based on what Tino  told me, I'm convinced that Dennis and Tino don't have a real good sense of  how much $$$ might be in this deal.
They are groping a bit and our initial  analysis of the numbers will likely carry a lot of weight.
How are those  efforts coming?
Thanks.
DF
Subject: TW RP99-335

I have no great interest in appealing the FERC order denying rehearing.
This  one is a loser as it was decided on TW-specific facts and I see no clear  inconsistency between FERC's various orders on revenue sharing.
Unless  someone feels strongly to the contrary, lets punt.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

What's the status of our analysis?
Has anyone heard anything from Dennis or  Tino lately?
I get concerned when they disappear for weeks like they  sometimes do.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: numbers

I may have these at home, but just to be sure, please email me your H and W  and Cell ph.
#, pager #, palm pilot #, the # that connects to the steel plate  in your head, your address, and any other communication coordinates you think  I need to have.
I'll be at the Westin La Something in San Anton, checking  out Friday, and cell # 402-630-8461.
I'll give you guys a call at one of  your numbers at a time of your choosing on Friday PM, and then head over to  your joint or a restaurant or something for festivities.
I may even call  you today if I can get a few minutes away from the madness.
I'm looking forward to reminding you about all of the fun things that come  with working for corporate america.
You're gonna have to start reading  Dilbert again so you can relate to all of us other corporate drones.
Adios,  DF
Subject: MAY DAY

Great job at the law conf!
You need to send a vcr tape up to us of the  presentation so MKM and our group can use it for sensitivity training!!!
On  other news, whats up with this????
Related to their downsizing?
Lorraine's  a star--I was surprized to see this.
Subject: El Paso-Coastal Merger

Mike Moran has informed me that the FTC and U.S. DOJ, as part of their review  of the El Paso-Coastal merger, have decided to take a close look at the  merger's possible impact on competition in the Chicago-Wisconsin market.
In  this regard, those agencies need to set up a conference call in the next two  weeks to discuss that issue with experts on that market from Border and  Northern.
This will not be an on-the-record deposition.
It will be a conf.
call and what I expect to be an  informal question and answer session on what  we know.
Representatives of the Wisconsin and Illinois Attorney General's  office (or whatever agency it is in those states that deals with antitrust  issues) will be on the phone as they are working with the Feds on the  merger.
I think either one of you guys, with appropriate supervision, would  do a fine job.
Please let me and Mike know who gets the black bean and what  your general availability is and we'll get it set up.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Navajo

I understand that you guys have retained Holland and Hart to give us another  set of eyes on the Navajo issues.
For future reference, I have finally  hooked up with the South Dakota firm I mentioned and was favorably impressed  with their experience in similar matters.
Don Schultz and a couple of his  partners have substantial litigation experience both for and against the S.D.
tribes (Ogalla Sioux, etc.)
on federal jurisdictional issues.
One of Don's  partners is general counsel of the Rushmore Electric Cooperative in Western  South Dakota and has had dealings with the tribes on right of way issues for  years.
They have cleared conflicts, and are available  if we ever need a  third opinion or if we get into a spat with the tribes elsewhere.
Sorry it  took me so long to run this to ground.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

Tino called today to report on their meetings with DOE last week.
Tino,  Dennis Langley, and their outside lawyer Jim Slattery met with Bill  Richardson and DOE staff to discuss the "sole source" procurement approach to  DOE's obtaining an alternative power supplier for Kirtland AFB and Sandia.
Tino reports that Richardson signed off on the sole source approach, subject  only to DOE review of the final contract to assure its consistency with the  public interest.
Tino believes that the combination of significant Native  American involvement in the overall deal structure along with a power price  that is lower than DOE's current PNM rates will satisfy the "public interest"  standard.
Slattery is set to begin discussions with DOE next week on the overall  structure of Dennis' proposal.
I am surprised that Dennis would go this far  before hearing from us on the economics, but Tino made it sound like the  initial discussions would be fairly general--i.e., to explain to DOE that the
Subject: Pueblo

I had an interesting conversation with Mark Courtney today, this time about  something that doesn't cost us money.
He has gained a good bit of experience  on transmission availability in NW New Mexico from the Gallup electric  contract negotiation.
His take on transmission constraints is consistent  with what Kevin and I had suspected:  Alb.
is a load pocket and the  prevailing flow is west to east into Alb.
Constraints only affect west to  east flows and a generator in Alb.
could always move power to four corners by  displacement.
Courtney has worked with an ENA transmission guy named Steve  Walton who apparently has more experience with the 230Kv transmission lines  that had the problem that led to the recent blackouts in Alb.
If we are not  talking to him already, he would be another guy worth talking to.
Subject: Insurance

Thanks for the tip last night!
I called and ragged around my thieving ins.
company this morning and they are going to cough up some serious insurance  for me and Sandra at suuper-cheap pre XXX prices.
Cool.
My only concern at  this point is that my over-insured status may create undesirable incentives  for the little ladies in my life (the dreaded "worth more dead than alive  syndrome"!)
Adios amigo!
DF
Subject: MHP

My buddy in DC found the NE Hub testimony and is fedxing it.
If you can get  the egan hub testimony that would be great.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Siggy

I heard that NE Hub made it through the Oriskany without blowing anything  up.
Siggy must have been so pleased, and Penn Fuel and CNG so disappointed!
Hey, I'm gonna be down the week of May 30-June 3 and would like to get  together with you guys.
What's going on that week?
Would there be any  reason, say, to bring golf clubs?
I hear that my much ballyhooed former law  partner David Hill might be down in Houston the same time and I need to have  a few beers on his expense account as well.
Pat, I don't think you've met  this guy but you need to, if for no other reason because he buys beers.
DF
Subject: Revised Electronic Contracting/Legal Issues Slides

Following is one of the documents I got on Friday.
the other will follow  shortly.
I think Maria forwarded this already, but you ought to make sure  she got it.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Supplement to Gas Letter

I'm OK with the language, but I want to make sure everyone is OK on the  concept.
When we left this (unless there have been subsequent conversations  with ECS that I wasn't a part of) we rejected Courtney's proposal to reduce  our up front payment by $500,000.
He was to come back and propose a monthly  quantity of gas to be paid over the term of the contract that would equate to  the $500,000, but I don't recall that we agreed to it.
Did we intend to  leave the issue open for more horsetrading on the amount of a haircut ECS  should take or were we content to cover ECS at 100 cents on the dollar?
I am  advised that the Btu number in the letter would allow ECS to get the full  $500,000 of up front value.
Rod and Steve--this one is up to you and I think its totally a question of
Subject: TW/El Paso

No problem with the plan to send a demand letter to El Paso on the  measurement issue.
Please include me on distribution for the draft.
Thanks,  DF
Subject: Pueblo

I got a call from Tino Monaldo today passing on the results of Dennis  Langley's meeting with DOE in Albuquerque.
DOE indicated that their current  PNM rate is "5.3 cents, exclusive of the demand charge."
Tino's consultant  claims that factoring in the demand charge yields an effective rate of  approximately 7 cents/KWh.
Assuming we need to come in at 10% less than the  current rate, our bogey is 6.3 cents/KWh.
This is at the high end of the  range we hoped they'd be in.
Additionally, DOE indicated that they need "redundancy" and don't want to  rely on PNM for back up power.
They want a multiple turbine facility--i.e.,
Subject: Emma Caplan

I met with Ms Caplan yesterday and had a good discussion.
I was pretty  impressed with her.
The only down side is that her inability to sit for the  Texas bar is a hangup for a lawyer position.
I suggested that she also look  into getting her license in New York or D.C. as I think those jurisdictions  are less reluctant to allow non-U.S. lawyers to sit for the bar than Texas  is.
I'll talk to Mike Moran, Dot McCoppin, Britt Davis and Shelley Corman  regaring possible positions in GPG.
Have you thought about Steve Kean's  group?
They might be able to use someone like Emma.
I plan to write her in  a couple of weeks to follow up with any additional leads I've found.
Enjoyed  shootin the shit with you, as always!
DF
Subject: Answer #9

Please take a look at this response.
I'm reviewing Mike's draft answers from  last week and would like to forward to Britt and Barrett all the input we  have by noon or so.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: EComm

Please give me a call ASAP on marketing affiliate issue on TW Enron Online  deal.
Cell 402-630-8461 or home 402-572-8595.
I'm in tomorrow around 7:45.
Gracias.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

Another Tino-gram.
DOE disclosed to Team Tino that they pay a $7.06/mo  demand charge per KW in addition to the $.053/kwh energy charge.
Tino didn't  know whether that was per KW of monthly demand, per KW of non-coincident peak  usage, or what.
The PNM tariff for govt.
service is priced at $7.16/KW of  "demand above 10,000kw during peak period"  (peak period is daytime) so I  assume that is how it is calculated.
If that is the tariff ("Schedule  4000B") under which DOE really takes service, this is interesting because  that is not a very big discount off of the stated rate.
It is also  interesting that DOE is paying $.053/kwh for energy since the Schedule 4000B  energy rate is $.05072/kwh (maybe the difference is surcharges or something).
Tino's consultant has figured out that the demand charge equates to an  incremental $.011 in addition to the $.053/kwh energy charge, for a total  delivered PNM rate to DOE of $.064/kwh.
This is not as good as the 7 cent  number Tino threw around earlier in the week, but its still not terrible.
If  the bogey is a 10% reduction to the current rate, our number to beat is  $.0576/kwh.
Tino promised us copies of DOE's actual energy bills to confirm  these numbers.
That would be great and solves the due diligence problem you  and I talked about yesterday, Kevin.
Tino also passed along a rumor he heard from the Isleta's consultant that the  Cobisa Belen project is dead.
Do we know anything about this???
Interesting.
I'm waiting to hear back from Bill Votaw to line up a due  diligence call to Tino's government contracts lawyers in DC to confirm  whether the "sole source" strategy is legit.
Kevin, I'll let you know when  this is scheduled in case you want to be on the call.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

I saw in the press that N.M. has delayed electric open access until Jan 1, 02  for residentials and small commercials and to July 1, 02 for large  industrials.
That increases the likelihood that the Pueblo project will have  to dump power in the wholesale market at 4 Corners for a while before retail  markets start to open up.
One more thing to factor in.
I'm expecting to hook up with Bill Votaw of Enron Federal Solutions today to  talk about Langley's "sole source" procurement strategy with DOE.
I hope to  get Votaw on the phone with Langley's D.C. govt.
contracts lawyers to discuss  their theory.
We should be in a better position to raise a flag if the sole  source strategy is really a high risk approach.
I'm not sure where that  would leave us because the only other approach I can think of is to steer DOE  into opening the power plant up for bids.
Langley does not appear interested  in trying to win an open bid for the power plant, although frankly we would  probably have about as good a chance as anyone of winning.
Once we clear up the government contracts issues (if ever) it seems to me  that it would be time to expand the team to include Federal Solutions  (potentially, if they see an angle to help them with their Kirtland  outsourcing strategy) and ENA.
The ENA involvement would be particularly  important so we could get a line of specific turbine availability and the  specifications/economics that would result.
I'm probably engaging in wishful  thinking again, but my hope is that the economics on a specific turbine/heat  exchanger configuration work out a little better than the generic economics  from the model that James ran.
If we think this thing is a potentially  viable deal after I talk to Votaw and the Langley DC team, we need to grab  Bill Cordes and discuss whether we go to ENA "from the bottom up," or through  Stan "from the top down" to get hooked into a deal team over there.
Kevin, I  still intend to hook you into the Votaw-DC call if you are available.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: Pueblo

I couldn't get the email through to Bill Gang, so lets try William.
Bill V,  if this doesn't show Bill G as an addressee, please forward from your  computer.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: last year's deal

I recall that we set up a warning flag approach with market services last  year to make sure that Sempra never "goes physical" without us manning the  battle stations and deciding what to do.
Do you guys know who the noms would  come in to in Market Services if Sempra ever decided to try to take their gas  out of Cunningham and move it off system?
Care to venture a guess as to what  that person would do if a 100,000 nom by Sempra into an IT contract for a  haul from the Cunningham storage point to Demarc hit their desk?
Sempra  couldn't nom the gas into a transport contract without first giving  Kent/Sue/Morgan a physical delivery nom under the SF agreement, correct?
At  which point we would immediately nom the SBA, correct?
These issues may be important to our closing this year's deal if TCEM can't  come up with the corp. guarantee.
I.e., if we can retain absolute control of  the noms, do we really have any "go physical" risk???
We need to think this  through.
DF
Subject: Corporate Secretary's Data Sheets

This is a problem your people should be aware of because I think our usual  practice when we want to verify ownership structure is to call the corporate  secretary's office.
If they are behind, I don't know who we should go to in  the future.
Maybe we need to run everything by corp. tax from now on.
Ugh.
DF