IN: This is an email
Stacey I need to get the ENA Cal files for December. I'm really mainly looking for the liquidations and the rollforward at this time. Please let me know if there will be any problems getting those to me. Thanks

What is the subject?

OUT: ENA CAL Dec Files
QUESTION: About Members Events Ne= ws Contact Jobs = December 19, 2001 APLF.org = Festo - Virtual Roundtable = On January 8th Oral arguments will be made before the Suprem= e Court on the Festo appeal. A number of our members will be in attendanc= e, and on January 10 we will hold a panel discussion to report back and di= scuss the issues and provide some insight. Time: 1.00pm Eastern Duratio= n: 1 hour Call in telephone number: If you wish to join us, please RSVP f= or the dial in toll free number to info@aplf.org . The format will provi= de an opportunity to pose questions to the panel and to other experienced = patent law attorneys. For a full briefing on the Festo case, please see t= he presentation on www.aplf.org/events/festo . About = Members Events News Contact Jobs =09 To Unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: European "Community Patent" Proposal Derailed Again - APLF
I haven't answered him yet. I just plan to let him know that the contracts should be executed next week with the capacity release to occur thereafter. Any thoughts?
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: JM Huber
I am trying to distinguish these two types of entities both practically (what are we able to negotiate) and legally (what do we really need in our Schedule). I am also interested in your experiences in dealing with these parties. ENA's form of "municipal" Schedule ("the ENA Schedule") was essentially taken from the 1992 ISDA U.S. Municipal Counterparty Schedule ("the ISDA Schedule"). In addition to other provisions, the ISDA Schedule (1) adds reps designed to avoid "an Orange County" type meltdown and (2) incorporates the concept of "Incipient Illegality" (which occurs before the Termination Event of Illegality). The "Incipient Illegality" concept is used in Section 2(a)(iii) (obligations) as well as the Section 3 (reps) of the ISDA Schedule: the concept is added to the Section 3(b) rep ("..absence of Event of Default, Potential Event of Default, Incipient Illegality...), and for purposes of notifying the other party of its occurrence. Interestingly enough, the ENA Schedule does not include the Section 3(b) rep change. I think we need to add this change to ENA's Schedule. With respect to IOUs, we need to clarify our position on "Regulatory Development" (which is actually a watered-down "Incipient Illegality" concept). If such an event occurs, ENA should be advised of the event (Notice). But, does ENA really want the ability to terminate trades at mid-market ("Additional Termination Event") or simply to have this event included as part of a Section 3(b) rep such that the occurrence of the event merely triggers an Event of Default at ENA's side of the curve (for breach of the Section 3(b) rep)? I have found that negotiating with IOUs for the "Notice" provision can be difficult. Extracting the Additional Termination Event is tough. Arguing for a Section 3(b) change may be easier (and would mirror the municipal format). I think ENA really needs the ability to decide when to halt trading with a counterparty experiencing a Regulatory Development (which we may only learn about through notice from the counterparty). Thus, I recommend that for IOUs, we add a notice provision and Section 3(b) rep change incorporating our latest definition of "Regulatory Development." But we really have to negotiate for this protection. Otherwise, why bother to include this additional language? What do you think?
Answer: Municipals (including municipal utilities and other regulated entities) vs. investor owned utilities ("IOUs")
Here is an email: HOEGH GALLEON, DATE: 03-06-01 12:00 14:00 (UTC) A) Position at noon: N 26 44 W 053 25 B) Dist. From last noon: 468 nm C) Dist. To go to next port: 2363 nm D) ETA next port: LAKE CHARLES 9th 04hrs LT E) 1: Average sea/wind Sea: var 2 Wind: 1 2: Average speed 18.72 kn RPM: 92.08 3: BOG 229.9 m3 5: F.O Consumed 41 m3 6: G.O. Consumed 0 m3 7: Average vapor press Average liq. Temp: Tk1: 0.126 bar -158.22 ?C
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: POSREP 3 JUNE
QUESTION: Here is the draft letter agreement. We are still discussing it with ECS and can make whatever changes are appropriate. Note that the letter agreement ties back to Article 6 of the Compression Services Agreement. That article, you may recall, is where ECS agreed to create a computerized system that would monitor Continental Divide's electric system utilization and warn when their system peaks were occurring and then automatically take the compressor offline (subject to manual override) so we and ECS could avoid peak period demand charges. Instead of creating such a system, which apparently turned out to be mostly a manual system anyway, ECS is going to pay us a monthly fee to monitor CD's system peaks ourselves and decide when we need to get off line. The load management service has to do with operational management of the load we place on CD's electric system, and is not a jurisdictional gas transportation or storage service. Note that the service goes on for 10 years (as required by the accountants' 10 year amortization rule) and thus may be vulnerable to scrutiny and potential revenue crediting in TW's 2007 rate case. Any way to avoid that? DF
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
TW Letter Agreement