IN: market_relations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants A new menu option is now available on the Bidding and Scheduling page. The 'Daily Transaction Summary' report will provide customers with centralized information on transaction bids they are associated with. This is a continued effort to provide information flow to customers.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: NYISO Daily Transaction Summery Page
IN: This is an email
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?

What is the subject?

OUT: Municipals (including municipal utilities and other regulated entities) vs. investor owned utilities ("IOUs")
QUESTION: Hi there, I think a good next step while the counterparties are reviewing the docs is the creation of a closing checklist, since we have a good starting point with the Intergen closing list. We can get organized on putting together a package of the next traunche of docs, such as the parent guaranty, escrow agreement, etc. Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Next step on Panda/Delta/Sunlaw
Nancy, I've prepared the attached outline in response to FERC Staff's request that we provide "something in writing." This is basically just a description of our proposal. I've tried to keep it brief so that staff members are not reading while we're trying to talk to them. It should be enough information to raise a lot of questions. Please wait until Shelley or I give you the go-ahead to pass this along to the relevant Commission people; I'd like to give the other addressees the opportunity to comment on this to the extent possible. Everyone else: please give me your comments ASAP as Nancy has been asked to provide something to them tomorrow.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Outline of TW Options Program
October 24, 2001 To: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation Customers and Shippers Re: System Imbalance Notice Please be advised that Transco has been experiencing excessive negative transportation imbalances (deliveries in excess of receipts) on its system throughout the month. Effective immediately, shippers are advised to avoid any additional negative imbalances and return to a balanced position. Absent voluntary compliance, it may become necessary for Transco to suspend make-up deliveries for the remainder of the month. Additionally, effective October 26, 2001 and until further notice, Transco will institute more restrictive practices at its pooling points. Transco will reduce the 4% tolerance currently allowed at its pooling points to 1% or 1,000 dts for Shippers with negatively scheduled imbalances (i.e. deliveries into the pools are less than receipts away from the pools). Shippers with positively scheduled imbalances at their pools will be held to the 4% tolerance levels. Transco will not enforce these pool imbalance tolerances during the timely nomination cycle; however, Shippers are expected to balance their pools to the limits identified above by the ID2 nomination cycle. Transco may proactively decrease markets to bring them in line with supplies at pooling points.
Answer: System Imbalance Notice
Q: Please see attached Resolutions for use in this afternoon's board meeting at 2:00 pm. Thank you. Donna M. Cagle Executive Administrator to President & CEO Mariner Energy, Inc. 580 WestLake Park Blvd., Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77079 281/584-5511 (phone) 281/584-5515 (fax) dcagle@mariner-energy.com <<RESOLUTIONS 9-12-01 Mtg.doc>> - RESOLUTIONS 9-12-01 Mtg.doc
Propose a subject line
A:
Resolutions for the Special Telephonic Board Meeting