Q: Now that the celebrating has died down, lets decide whether to seek rehearing or clarification of the order. If there is anything in it that disadvantages us, we should consider rehearing, particularly since it is a nearly certain that our friends at SoCal will file a nasty one. (It might be good for Steve H. or Bill or whoever has the best relationship with SoCal to make a high level courtesy call to extend the olive branch and tell them that we'll work with them to minimize their concerns blah blah blah. At minimum, we'll probably learn if they do intend to seek rehearing) I see two things that may be worth seeking rehearing on: 1. The requirement that we disclose our discount agreements in 15 days. FERC really punted this issue. They say that "since the expansion capacity is fully subscribed we see no reason why Transwestern should not publicly disclose the agreements. . . . " This is the first time I've heard of any rule that if your project is fully subscribed you therefore lose your right to confidential treatment of sensitive pricing info. At minimum, we could argue that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious because FERC didn't even mention its normal regulations and procedures governing filing of discount reports. It just cited the certificate regulation that requires an applicant to "file" its rate information with the Commission (which we did) and ignores the regulation (Sec. 284.7(c)(6)) that doesn't require a pipeline to publicly disclose its discounts until 15 days after the close of the billing period to which the discount pertained. The commercial people need to decide if we care about this issue--i.e., how upset will the customers
Propose a subject line
A: Gallup Order: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
IN: Chris, did we get the DASH completed and approved on Pasotria and LV Cogen? Rob, I have not heard what the plan of action is with Moore? Rob, what would be the necessary steps needed to book all or some of the Bruce deal in Q3? Regards

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Generation Strategy
IN: This is an email
Kal: As we discussed, enclosed is a draft of the letter. Please review and make sure that I have accurately described what will take place and if you find acceptable, please forward on. If any changes need to be made please call me at 33989. carol

What is the subject?

OUT: Letter
QUESTION: You left 2 TRCO invoice questions on my desk. 1. Contract 3.3558 - this is a volumetric release from PSNC for CES Retail. The demand and commodity invoice come in together I believe. 2. Contract 3.3509 - ??? I don't understand this one. Take a look at k#1.3473. Did we receive a demand charge on 1.3473 and not have the demand estimated in Sitara? I may need to add 1.3473 and 0 3.3509. Let me know what you find.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: TRCO invoices
Barry, I have spoken to my insurance agent. Please take the car in for an estimate and let me know what they say. After that I can work with the insurance company to get them to do the rest of the coordination. Thank you. I am sorry for the inconvenience and for the whole incident.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Car Repair
Paul: I need to get some hard evidence (paperwork) that subtantiates the gain collected by Eco Holdings on the LPG hedging contracts for the year 2000. I do have copies of the contracts, but for audit purposes we need to have probably the worksheet where we signed off with Enron as to the amounts collected. Who can I talk to to get this?
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
Year 2000 Hedging Gains