Q: All: We have set up the following recurring meetings: 1. One hour on Thursdays with Mark Haedicke and his legal team 2. One half hour on Monday and Wednesday with Bill, Molly, Teresa, Sharon, Tracey, and Lisa. Also Rita Bohner, Paul Darmitzel and Ed Essandoh of EES legal will attend. This meeting will be primarily for the dealing with the high volume of small EES deals. The aim is to define the process and drill on implementation (notices, termination, physical disconnection, proofs of claim, etc.). Molly has made great strides here. 3. Sharon Sullo and Tracey Kozadinos are developing a standardized database for the effort. Debbie Brackett has gotten involved on system feeds. More to come on this. The initial thoughts with Mark Haedicke were to parse the debtors into two or three baskets. Smallest size would be a process. We are grappling with whether we need a mid size and a large size process. As not all these deals show up on the Hot Deals Report. I have scratched out the top ten, high touch, efforts below: 1. PG&E 2. Edison 3. 360 4. NPW 5. Polaroid 6. California PX 7. Global Crossing 8. DPC LNG 9. EPIK 10. Cuiab? Turbine 11 Regards,
Propose a subject line
A: Getting organized
IN: I talked with Anne Koehler in Legal today to determine her understanding of what is required from Energy Operations prior to the effective sale of HPL. Anne believes that she may have been the one to introduce the term "protocol" into these discussions. To clarify, according to Anne, the "protocol" is not anticipated to be a formal legal document. Instead, Anne envisions simply e:mails or memos between Enron and AEP with regard to any sharing of information, agreements on processes to be followed in the transition, etc. Operational details to be decided between Enron and AEP have been handled exactly in that manner to date, with e:mails being sent from Bob Ball (Enron) to Steve Jackson (AEP). Only critical changes to the Purchase and Sale Agreement will be formally documented. Bob Hall identified the treatment of cash accounts in the original Purchase and Sale Agreement as incorrect relative to cash flows for gas to be delivered in the month of May. He has worked with Enron's treasury group to establish the correct procedures and has worked with Sandi Braband in Legal to document this change to the Purchase and Sale Agreement as an Amendment to that agreement. As of today, Legal has completed revisions to that amendment and Anne Koehler is sending it to Mary Perkins in Enron's Treasury group for her review. Upon Mary's review, Anne will forward the amendment to AEP for their review before final signatures. We devised this week a new format for incorporating the AEP-HPL transition issues on which my team has been focused and have provided that to both of you. This new format incorporates the various memos and e:mails which have to date captured the status of transition issues. Items that only require actions by Enron will be our "to do" list. Each item has a due date and we will update you weekly on progress. Those items that fall under the AEP list or which appear in both the Enron and AEP list will be the items to which we will evidence communication to AEP and/or their agreement via the e:mails or memos as suggested by Ann Koehler. I believe that this should satisfy your requests earlier this week for written "protocol". We will also update you weekly on the status of those e:mails and/or memos between ourselves and AEP. I understand that the two of you have a regular weekly meeting for an update on the HPL sale. To provide clarity for these update meetings, may I suggest that we incorporate one of the following two approaches: 1) Brian and I hold a regular meeting just prior to your update meeting so that Brian has a full understanding of operational transition items and their status, or 2) I attend the first part of your update meeting in order to provide a firsthand update to the two of you. Please let me know which one of these works best for you so that we can incorporate that into our schedules for next week.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: HPL Sale - Energy Operations Task List
IN: This is an email
Holli: I have still not received the above-mentioned comments. I have also not received EWEB's proposed form of legal opinion. I will go ahead and blackline the Schedule once again. When the lawyers last spoke, we agreed to execute all docs prior to the end of the year. Would you please call EWEB and inquire about these items? Thanks. Sara

What is the subject?

OUT: EWEB's comments to the Credit Support Annex
QUESTION: Almost two years after issuing a decision in PG&E's GRC, the Commission issued it rehearing order on October 16th and, lo and behold, actually granted TURN's rehearing request in part. The overall result is to reduce the capital revenue requirement by $24.8 million and expenses by $37.3 million. In addition, some portion of PG&E' estimated $171 million in electric distribution capital spending will be subject to rehearing. Listed below are the areas in which the Commission granted rehearing. 1. Electric Distribution Capital Spending. The Commission will, in essence, reopen the record, and allow PG&E to put into evidence how much it invested in its electric distribution plant in 1998. PG&E had used a 1998 forecasted amt of capital expenditures to develop its test year forecast. TURN argued that there was substantial evidence on the record that this amount was never spent. PG&E argued that the record closed prior to the end of 1998 so the best it could do was an estimate. On rehearing, the Commission agreed with TURN, that there was evidence that the forecasted amount was never spent, so they are allowing PG&E to prove it. The rehearing order states that any rates that are raised based on the electric distribution capital forecast adopted the GRC decision may be subject to refund. 2. Emergency Response Work This work category under electric distribution capital spending was reduced by $17.2 million. 3. Vegetation Management. The Supplemental Tree Trimming Program was reduced by $9.2 million. 4. Meter Reading. PG&E had primarily used accounting changes to justify the large increase in this service. On rehearing the Commission stated that PG&E had failed to substantiate those changes and reduced the allowed amount by $7.9 million. 5. Account Services. On rehearing the commission stated that PG&E had failed to show (a) why it cost so much more to provide services to CIA customers than residential customers ( $43.30 vs. $10.20); and (b) that money was not going for marketing activities that the Commission had disallowed in the previous GRC. The result was that the commission disallowed $20 million. 6. Customer Information Systems. The Commission disallowed $7.2 million as funds which ratepayers had already expended for CIS rewrites for which they had not received any benefits.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Rehearing on PG&E's GRC
Please plan to attend a reception and dinner for those Analysts and Associates due to rotate in the near future who have made significant contributions to Enron North America. The function will be hosted by the Office of the Chairman at Morton's Steak House located at 5000 Westheimer on July 27, 2000. The reception will start at 7:00pm with dinner to follow at 7:45pm. Please RSVP to Ted Bland at ext. 3-5275 no later than close of business Monday, July 24. This will be an informal gathering to discuss the progress of ENA and an open forum to interact with the management team on a one on one basis. See you on Thursday. Mark, Dave and John
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Dinner with ENA Associates & Analysts