Here is an email: Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a staff report on electricity restructuring issues. It is an update of the July 2000 report done at the request of House Energy Chairman Tauzin and Subcommittee Chairman Barton. They requested the report be updated. A summary of the report and the full 80+ page text is on the FTC web site at www.ftc.gov on the upper left side of the home page. I read the summary and will read the balance. So far, so good. It basically says that even states that have opened up to retail competition are in transition with a hybrid of regulation and competition, thus the expected benefits of competition have not yet emerged. However, the report states that nothing to date indicates that competition, once the transition period is over, will not produce additional benefits for consumers. The report's major conclusion is that competitive wholesale markets are important to achieving effective competition in retail markets. The summary includes something that sounds promising on RTO policy, saying "And as wholesale and retail markets become regional, governing policies and jurisdictional approaches also must move in that direction for wholesale and retail competition to be successful."
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: FTC Staff Report on Electricity Restructuring
Q: The Commission issued a draft decision yesterday (September 4) on DWR's revenue requirement. While the Commission had been scheduled to vote on the revenue requirement at tomorrow's (September 6) meeting, the vote has been postponed to allow for comments on the PD. Comments are due on September 11th. Cmmr. Lynch stated at her press conference held today that it was her intent to vote on the PD no later than the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on September 20th, and perhaps earlier if a continuation meeting can be scheduled. The PD approves the entirety of DWR's requested revenue requirement of $12.6 less the costs of certain demand side management programs which are not included as "authorized costs" under AB1X. The PD does not follow DWR's approach of a pro rata allocation of the revenue requirement among the three UDCs. Rather the PD follows a "cost of service" approach. The PD allocates DWR's energy procurement costs on a geographic basis, depending on whether the energy is delivered over facilities in northern California or Southern California (Transmission Path 15 is the line of demarcation). Energy sources procured north of Path 15 are allocated to PG&E customers and those procured south of Path 15 are allocated to SCE and SDG&E customers. The result of such allocation is to have 54% of DWR costs allocated to PG&E, 33% to SCE and 13% to SDG&E. Each of the UDCs are then allocated the same percentage of bond proceeds. In revenue requirement terms this means that for the period of January 17, 2001 through December 31, 2002, PG&E is allocated $6.53 billion; SCE is allocated $4.01 billion and SDG&E is allocated $1.53 billion. Along with the revenue requirement allocation, the PD adopts a DWR charge for each UDC. The UDCs are directed to begin dispersing payment to DWR based on the relevant DWR charge for each kWh sold by DWR to the UDC's customer. For PG&E this charge is 13.99 cents/ kWh; for SCE the charge is 10.03 cents/kWh; and for SDG&E the charge is 9.02 cents/kWh. The PD also notes that given the fact that PG&E's DWR charge is !3.99 cents it may need to remit to DWR an additional 4 cents for each kWh that was provided to its customers by DWR since June 1 until this order becomes effective. As for the necessity of raising PG&E and SCE rates to account for the DWR revenue requirement, the PD states that such a determination cannot be made until a decision on the revenue requirement for the UDCs' retained generation is issued. That proposed decision is due out later this month. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the order, please contact me. Jeanne Bennett
Propose a subject line
A: Draft Decision on DWR Revenue Requirement
IN: Tom, I have energy estimates for May 2002 attached. Graph 1 is site totals, graph 2 is (total lost)/(total actual production) where total actual production is taken from the kWh reported in the owner report, and graph 3 is the by turbine distribution (using box plots) of energy lost. The energy lost estimation method I employed is susceptible to problems with data recovery (10-minute data), which in May 2002 was especially poor at Klondike and Fenner, so those number are not as informative as those for the other sites. If these graphs provide you the information you need, I will continue with the remaining months (Jan - Apr). Otherwise let me know and we'll refine this process to get you what you need. Mark

Generate a subject line.

OUT: WR613 Pitch System Performance (Energy)
IN: This is an email
Trena: In the next week or so, I will be devoting most of my time and attention to Gary's world. I met with Gary last week, and he suggested that I give you a call to see if you needed any legal assistance. I am available for whatever you might need me for. My number in Houston is 713/853-5620. I'm looking forward to working with you. Regards. Sara

What is the subject?

OUT: I need to "catch up" with you
QUESTION: This spreadsheet shows trade counts by counterparty for the month of October. Each column represents a date, starting from today going back to October 1. Only counterparties with at least 500 trades in all of October are shown. The yellow highlighted rows are those counterparties that appear to be off their typical trading pace.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: trade counts for October
IN: Mark, Please, tale a look at the attached newsletter. An interesting story on gaming Cal PX. Let me know if you have problems opening the document. Vince

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Restructuring Today - 6/23