postbot/aeslc_kw huggingface dataset:
Subject: OOMC Chronology

John,  The attached file is a chronology of the OOMC services Enron has provided since the opening of the market.
I thought you might find this useful for submitting disputes over OOMC payments.
<<Enron OOMC Chronology.xls>>  Bill Kettlewell Client Service Representative Electric Reliability Council of Texas E-mail:  BKettlewell@ercot.com Telephone:  (512)248-3172 Pager:  (800)771-5302   - Enron OOMC Chronology.xls
Subject: LCRA discrepancy

JMF,  I have a discrepancy with LCRA on 10/22/01.
The following notes are in the P&L...  "830711,830709 .
The original deal was a buy from LCRA and a sale to RESI but LCRA did not enter into Portal in time.
Therefore the purchase was made from the ERCOT Imbal.
market where it was purchased for $11.55."
The initials in the P&L are 'GTP'  We show this in the system as an ERCOT-Imbalance purchase and a sale to Reliant however LCRA claims that we should show this purchase from them.
Please pass this along to the appropriate trader to clear up the discrepancy.
Thanks,
Subject: Ercot Balancing for Friday

John,  I made an adjustment in Enpower for Friday.
When balancing the books, I noticed that we were 100mw's long into the pool for HE21 & HE22, but in the portal it only shows 50mw for each hour.
(A 16hour block of 50mw was already in the portal.)
So I adjusted HE21 & HE22 from 50mw to 0 mw, so that it matched the portal.
Please notify me  if my adjustment was incorrect.
I made a note in the comment field for enpower #871228.
Joe
Subject: Austin Energy - Sand Hills

We need to talk about instantaneous supply and how it is dealt with under your Sand Hills contract.
The contract I am working on with Austin really doesn't address this issue and in order for me to include this in the contract we will need to talk.
I have a call in also with Lonestar to talk about this as well.
I have Janet Wallis helping me address some of these issues.
We may want to schedule a meeting to include her also.
Let me know where we stand.
Subject: Ettera

Ettera issues:   1.
When hourly is asked to manage a day ahead position we cannot adjust the position in ettera and makes it a worthless tool, the position cannot be found.
We have to adjust the day ahead position in the portal directly.
2.
If we have a day ahead position and adjust it hourly it will change back to the original schedule when we submit another schedule.
3.
Frontera is too time consuming and confusing when we have to show a buy from frontera and a sell to frontera when we buy from them.
4.
The whole process takes to long, on average it usually takes 5 minutes to put an hourly schedule in when it only takes a minute when done directly in the portal.
Thats all I got, I hope it helps.
Alex
Subject: eterra

John,  I wanted to clarify my e-mail I sent from work I don't think I was specific enough.
1.
On the day ahead position that hourly would manage, lets say it is in the short term ercot book.
In ettera if you go to that book you will not find that trade.
So the only way to adjust it is to go and do it in the portal.
2.
Also if you have a day ahead position and we manage it hourly,if we were to adjust it for balday, for instance if we were long 50mw in the pool and we sold 25mw balday it would reflect the change.
But if we came back and did another trade and submitted to xml it would change back to 50mw.
3.
We need to change how we show a buy from frontera.
We now have to buy from frontera and then sale back to them.
This was a way to fix the problem short term but it should not be a long term solution.
4.
And ettera is still very time consuming.
It takes anywhere from 5-8 min.
to enter a trade for just one hour.
I hope this is more specific.
Subject: Do you need help w/Kobra

John,   I have a report showing that you are still logging into the Telerate application.
As you know, Telerate is going away soon and will  no longer be available.
I also show that you have been migrated to the new Kobra application.
Do you need any help recreating your Telerate pages in Kobra, or  help linking your Excel models into Kobra?
If you need additional assistance, please give me a call.
Thanks,
Subject: Calpine / CPS on 10/11

John.......Could you please forward this on to who did this trade.
The deal # is 815969 a purchase of 25 mw from Calpine @ $16 and a sell to CPS deal 815970 for 25 mw @ $17.
This was for HE 24 on 10/11.
It looks like it may be in enpower twice.
Could you please advise.
Thanks.
Subject: Reminder - Phone Interviews

All -    Please wrap up the phone interviews ASAP.
If you are having trouble getting a hold of anyone, please let me know so that I may try to reach them.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Subject: BOC Gases Contract

Terrel and I had a conference call with BOC this morning.
The call was very positive as they were still interested in talking with us.
They had a number of questions regarding the contract terms and seems like they want to sign something by week end.
I need clarification on a few issues that they raised.
We need to give them answers tommorow.
Proposed Contract terms:  1.
Houston Zone: 1.95 MW +/- 15% per settlement Interval  2.
South Zone: 2.75 MW +/- 10% per settlement Interval  3.
North Zone: 15 MW +/- 10% per settlement Interval  4.
West Zone: 1.75 MW +/- 10% per settlement Interval  ** BOC going to Balancing Energy (+4% charges) outside the band **  1.
Interruptibility - BOC wanted to understand the mechanics.
Specifically, they wanted to know how Enron would work with them to maximize curtailment opportunities.
They also wanted to know the quantity they could curtail (e.g.
If deal is 15 MW +/- 10%, can BOC curtail 16.5 MW, or just 15 MW).
Also, do they pay any penalty when they curtail (4%, etc.)
2.
Scheduled maintenance - Can they sell contract power a week forward.
Is there any penalty for not being within the band during those hours.
3.
BOC wants a fixed price quote for all Ancillaries and ERCOT Passthroughs.
However they want the ability to unwind this fixed price position should they feel they are better off with ERCOT market prices once the market becomes more transparent.
What is Enron's ability to provide such a service?
4.
BOC doesnt like the 4% charge in excess of Balancing Energy everytime they are outside the Quantity Band.
They said that they dont want to pay more when prices are high and they are outside the band.
They want a fixed fee instead of 4% of BES price.
Given the bands we have placed in the contract, BOC was outside the band  a.
15% of the time in their Houston Zone Interval Load b.
10% of the time in their South Zone Interval Load c. less than 1% of the time in their North Zone Interval Load d. 3% of the time in their South Zone Interval Load  Regards
Subject: C'est la vie!

If you guys have been keeping up, you know Enron Europe is waving the white flag and shutting down.
Our email addresses (and our jobs!)
are being deactivated as of midday tomorrow, so you can reach us at:
Subject: Enron Balancint Test Documentation

Attached are the results of the Balancing Test evaluation performed on October 25, 2001.
According to may paperwork, I should send the results back to Steve Olin but I cannot contact him therefore, I am contacting you with the results.
I regret to inform you that Enron has unsuccessfully completed Balancing Test evaluation.
Results are attached.
<<ENRON_ bal_10_25_01_evaluation_v2_fail.xls>>   - ENRON_ bal_10_25_01_evaluation_v2_fail.xls
Subject: MOS

Attention: The database will be undergoing maintenance for next five minutes.
Please logout from the MOS and settlement application.
You will be notified when the system is online.
Subject: TW Backhaul

I note in TW's bullets for 12-22 that TW did the "Cal Border Backhaul" deal  with SW Gas.
The last I heard about it, the deal had cratered.
I had  serious reservations about doing the deal as it was initially described to  me, which included a Cal border sale of "surplus" gas and a backhaul for EES  on behalf of SW Gas.
My probems were (1) the issue of possible or apparent  affiliate preference and (2) the need for adequate documentation of "surplus  line pack."
My last guidance was that a deal like this might be doable, but  only if we could document the "surplus" and if Stan signed off on it.
What  happened?
Does the deal involve EES???
Was that raised with Stan and  Danny?
The bullets don't mention the identity of the "shipper" that the  backhaul was done for.
Please respond.
DF
Subject: BNSF

Per Louie Soldano, I called Dave Sinclair (GPG ROW) about whether we have any  ability to negotiate a favorable right of way deal with the BNSF railroad.
In Dave's experience, that is a nonstarter.
Apparently, a bunch of  utilities, including us through Dave, have even formed a coalition to try to  figure out how to get the railroads to be more cooperative.
If the RR owns  its ROW outright (which many of the old railroads do out west) we might be  able to condemn an easement by getting a FERC certificate.
In other words,  the RR would be treated just like any other landowner.
If we did that, Dave  thinks BNSF would treat it as a declaration of war.
Since our lines cross or  parallel BNSF right of way all over the place from Topock to Duluth, that  would be foolish.
I swore Sinclair to secrecy and told him what part of the world I was  interested in and he thought we could probably stitch together private ROW  without too much pain.
If the RR option doesn't pan out, we may want to  suggest to Tino and Dennis that our ROW people can handle this.
Assuming we  can't come up with some magic contact with the RR, I propose that, at the  appropriate time,  we tell Dennis and Tino that the last 7 or 8 miles of ROW  should be flagged as a potential problem that Enron can help resolve once we  decide to go forward.
Other than the BNSF issue, I don't think we have any specific "to dos" or any  specific comeback date to Dennis and Tino.
So what do you guys think should  happen next?
DF
Subject: letter

I believe you got a copy of the John Sommer letter to producers dated Jan 6  that MKM's spies intercepted.
She forwarded the Sommer letter to Stan and  discussed it with him.
Dari and I vented our aggravation by drafting the  attached letter to Gibson and Kyle complaining of Sommer's duplicity, but  after tempers cooled, MKM and I decided not to send it to  Stan or urge him  to send a written response.
As it stands, MKM and I will probably bring it  up with Sommer in OK City and strongly suggest the importance of coordinated  communication to the producers.
Stan may also bring the letter up orally  next time he's on the phonne with Gibson or Kyle as an example of how not to  handle this situation.
Subject: ?

That was an interesting little conversation.
I came back down and looked for  you guys but you had both split.
We should take a few minutes and plug John  in on what happened at the end of that meeting when the power issues came  up.
I'm somewhat surprised at Bill's reaction, but what the hell, now we can  run with Cunningham, and we know MKM's pulse on Hubbard (and Bill's).
Pretty  damn good end to the week, all things considered.
DF
Subject: ECS

I've got a meeting set up with Knippa at 10:00 on Thursday .
Susan, please  join me as Nemec will be there and he and you had most of the back and forth  on the confidentiality issue.
Either Steve or Kevin need to give me some  sense of our  authority .
Any thoughts on that??
Is the number still  $200,000?
What would we be willing to settle for?
Is a renegotiation of the  existing deal in the works anyway as part of the expansion scenarios?
I'll  have martha set up a meeting Thur.
am to discuss before we talk to Knippa.
DF
Subject: TW

In the last several weeks several areas have come up where the TW commercial  team could, in my opinion, use some clear written guidance on gray areas  under the tariff ought to be interpreted.
Here is my list.
Please add items  if I've missed any.
1.
When can TW "selectively market" available capacity?
I.e., if capacity  is on the board as available, and no one has bought it, are there any limits  on calling up a customer, or a group of customers, and pitching a deal?
I  think we have a lot of discretion here--after all, using the telephone to
Subject: ECS

I've deferred the negotiation with Mark Knippa given my need for some  information from James and Kevin on our ability to avoid peak usage, etc.
Steve Harris and I talked this morning about settlement authority and our  going in position, obviously, is that ECS should pick up the whole $300+ K.   I expect that Knippa will angle toward a split the difference approach and  then try to put his share of the value on some future deal.
To counter  that,  I think I'll need to hit him pretty firmly on the "relationship  issue."
I.e., he's got to fix this problem or his chance of doing more deals  with the pipeline group will be seriously hurt.
That should be a big deal to  him and may get us the resolution we need.
To push that I need three things  from you: 1.
Rod, have we already communicated to ECS, or at a higher level like  Redmond, that we won't do any more deals with them?
Obviously if we have  already told them we're done working with them, my threat won't carry much  weight.
2.
Are you all OK with the threat?
I suspect that our threat to quit doing  business with them will go immediately up their chain of command and that  Redmond or someone will call Stan to complain.
3.
Can we agree conceptually to do future deals if Knippa needs a bucket to  put our dollars in?
He may propose something specific and I'd like to be  able to agree that we will "work with them" on future deals.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: mavrix

Who is the exact corporate parent of Mavrix?
I think I saw an email that  said ETS, but I don't think ETS is a corporate entity.
Is it Enron Pipeline  Company?
Please let Bob and me know.
Thanks.
df
Subject: ClickAtHome Pilot 3 - An Invitation

now that I look at this, I'm not sure I'm included as I was just a bcc on the  email.
Please check out the website and see if you can learn anything.
pls  print out the relevant parts of the website includeing a list of which  computers we can choose from.
thanks df
Subject: Mavrix

Three to-dos on our Mavrix meeting: 1.
Follow up and make sure the officers get set up correctly.
2.
Talk to Perry Frazier in planning--he is keeping copies of the actual EBB
Subject: CNG

Has the old adversary adopted an "if you can't beat em, join em" strategy?
I  noticed that CNG is planning to build some high deliverability storage.
More  competition is always a problem, but at least that is a vindication of the  MHP strategy.
I noticed Vaina was quoted in the trade press.
Is he the man  on Tioga now?
DF
Subject: MHP -- Bath Cert Petition

Carter Phillips is going to have his partner, that noted litigator, the one  and only Phil Nowak, argue the case!
When you gonna be up here on Monday???
Let me know--I'll be at the office on Mon.
PM.
df
Subject: Texas Eastern

Either I didn't fully understand the December Texas Eastern order or else  FERC has just put a new and unhelpful spin on it.
The Thursday rehearing  order dramatically changes how the "shipper must have title" rule applies to  acquisitions of upstream capacity.
I thought the Dec. order pretty clearly  allowed a pipe to acquire upstream capacity and then resell that capacity  under the acquiring pipeline's rate schedules.
FERC specifically held that   the "shipper must have title" policy won't be applied if the acquiring pipe  treats the acquired capacity "as though it were part of its own system".
(p.  61,886)  The Dec. order even cited TW's acquisition of park n ride capacity  from PG&E as an example of the type of transaction that (I thought) could be  done without advance Commission approval.
Now, FERC explains that it did  not intend a "blanket waiver" of the shipper must have title policy.
Pipes  can still acquire upstream capacity without advance FERC permission, but only  if the acquiring pipe is going to use the acquired capacity for operational  needs or to resell under the selling pipe's release mechanism.
If the  acquiring pipe wants to use the acquired capacity to support sales of service  under the acquiring pipe's rate schedules, a specific waiver of the "must  have title" policy is required (see FN 20 and text).
We are right back to  where we started.
I guess the orders signal that FERC is  much more likely  to grant waivers of the "must have title" policy than in the past, but I  don't think we are good to go to acquire upstream storage, for example, and  resell it as FDD or IDD until we get permission first.
Shelley--let me know if you hear any expressions of outrage from other
Subject: TW Gas Sales: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

In anticipation of potential litigation involving TW's operational  activities, please prepare an analysis for me of the reasons for TW's sale of  excess natural gas at the California border.
I am aware of several of these  sales and have been  informed that excess pressure at the border is the basic  reason for them.
I'd like a more specific explanation that includes the  following information: 1.
What are the specific pressures and volume considerations that could make  it operationally necessary to sell gas at the California border?
2.
What is the process that is followed to make such a determination?
3.
Which individuals or groups are involved in determining whether an  operational sale is necessary?
4.
In what way have system operations changed since last year and how do  those changes contribute to the increased frequency of such sales compared to  previous years?
5.
What alternatives to operational sales are considered before the decision  to make a sale is reached?
Thanks for your attention to this request.
Please give me a call to discuss  and please designate your response as "Privileged and Confidential, Attorney  Client Privileged."
Subject: Houston

I got the call today.
Got the job.
I feel like the dog that caught the  car--enjoyed the chase but don't know quite what to do with the car.
DF
Subject: LRC Joint Venture

I don't see any problem with this transaction since it appears to be limited  to Louisiana assets, but the issue of whether we are impacted by the  noncompete agreement strikes me as a commercial call.
Please let me know if  you have any problem with the transaction and I will pursue it.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: RedRock

A couple of additional thoughts on this morning's conversation:    1.  if we really think the next 6 or 8 months will sort out the takeaway and  receipt point capacity issues, why not bet the whole farm and try to hold  onto the whole 150 mm/d until next winter or fall and see if the perceived  value goes up?
We could tell Calpine "no" on their bid and hold them off for  several months "negotiating" if that's what we thought would lead to the best  value.
I don't personally think this would be a prudent approach, but its  where our logic leads in the extreme, so we'd better be prepared to explain  why getting the bird in the hand from Calpine is smart.
2.
We'll research the question of whether we can reject any recourse bids  that come in over the next 6-8 months if we decide to hold onto the 60 mm/d  for awhile.
I've thought about it a bit more and I'm pretty sure you're not  going to like the answer.
First, FERC says we've got to have a recourse rate  in place for all capacity, new or old.
One reason is that there needs to be  a max rate that applies to long term capacity releases.
We have the option  on new projects to go with the existing max tariff rate or a new  incrementally designed rate.
We are going with the existing tariff rate on  RedRock.
Fine, but that makes the existing rate the recourse rate for all  purposes.
FERC's logic will be that TW could sell all of the RedRock  capacity at recourse rates (currently $.38) and never suffer a revenue  shortfall even if future rate cases reduce TW's overall rates, because the  costs of all TW's facilities--including the new project--will be considered
Subject: Trading Policy

Pls route Mary Kay and I on the next draft of the policy.
Rod mentioned this  morning that a new version would be coming out soon.
Thanks df
Subject: Federal lands issues for Energy Policy Debate

Barbara:  in case my voice mails didn't make sense, see the final section of  Shelley's paper on valuation.
ETS is working through INGAA to push in a  direction that is inconsistent with where Paul and Mark were hoping BLM will  go.
DF
Subject: TW/Mewbourne

Lets defer to MKM's group on whether to seek a waiver on this.
I don't see  any real value to us of solving Mewbourne's problems for them.
DF
Subject: Market

I would have jumped yesterday but couldn't figure out how to get my window  open.
Since I'm on the 7th floor and the snowdrift goes up to the 4th, it  wouldn't have done much good anyway.
Know of any good part time jobs--I need
Subject: David Hill

Hey, great talking to you.
I appreciate your willingness to talk to David  about the DOE situation.
He's a great guy and one of the best substantive  lawyers I've met.
Short bio--U. of Missouri undergrad, Northwestern law
Subject: DC

Porter and the whole gang called me while you were at lunch MKM.
I'll give  you a full report when I get off this conf.
call but short answer is they  don't want to meet next wk and want us to provide a bunch more info and then  meet.
DF
Subject: TW Neg. Rates

I got your message and understand you can't get all of us and Steve Harris in  a meeting before Friday.
Lets do it this way:  I'll call Maria and MKM  tomorrow am to discuss what we have learned so far and I'll grab Steve  separately to update him.
No need for all of us in one meeting.
Thanks for  trying.
df
Subject: Enron Wind

Congratulations Adam, and welcome to ETS to both of you!!
You guys may not  have heard this, but Mike Moran is retiring and I'm taking over for him as  general counsel of the ETS organization.
Does this all mean that I'm your  lawyer again just like in the old Zond days???
Weird.
Good luck and best  wishes!
DF
Subject: Monday mtg.

I had a prior obligation at lunch on Mon.
We need to reschedule the  Leadership Dev.
mtg.
Fran, could you work with Emily and find a time?
Sorry, I know I've disrupted this twice n ow!
I'm good for lunch on Wed if  that would work for everyone.
df
Subject: 1999 Enron Corp. Compliance Report

Can anyone remember if they worked on this last year?
I only remember that I  didn't know what it was then and I still don't know what it is.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: PEP

I am advised that some of you have not exhibited the requisite amount of  "pep."
For lawyers and paralegals, you need to pick your reviewers online if  you haven't already done so.
5 or 6 would be sufficient althought the  computer lets you pick up to 10.
For those of you who picked more than 5 or  6 I have reduced that number, based on my thoughts about which of your chosen  reviewers have had the most direct contact with you and are most likely to  give a thorough review.
Let me know if you think I really blew it.
For  secretaries, the online stuff is optional.
If you don't use it, I will  solicit input from the people you work with like I have in the past and  consolidate it with my own comments on one form.
Thanks.
DF
Subject: New ET&S Law Objectives

Here's one for you to chew on for awhile.
As we approach the transition to a  new organizational structure in ET&S, let's rethink the role and competencies  of the legal department.
I'd like each of you to answer the following  questions and circulate your answers to me and each other.
To avoid having  anyone's answers unduly influenced by anyone else's, please send your  responses at 12 noon on Thursday.
No, this isn't being graded, and doesn't  affect the PRC process or any other process.
I just want to get access to as  much original thinking as possible.
1.
What is the ET&S law dept.
currently best at?
(give one example).
2.
What is the ET&S law dept.
currently worst at?
(give one example).
3.
Without regard for any past objectives, what should our top 3 objectives  be?
(make these very specific--objectives like "We should manage legal and