Harry: At the meeting yesterday, we concluded that it would be a good idea to take the proposal that you put together based on your meeting with EES and use it as the "base case" to start running the numbers. Idea being that before we shop anything around, we need to know what the numbers look like to determine whether the thing's got any legs. Once we have a clear understanding of how the base case numbers shake out, we thought we might then want do some sensitivity analyses around the variables, come up with a final proposal, and then go back to the commercial groups for buy-in. We hoped that your folks could get together with Roger Yang et al and provide some assessment of what the base case numbers look like by middle of next week. How's this plan sound? Few other points: We assume that bullet 6's reference to "net" means that the deferral is calculated by taking any "overcollections" and subtracting them from any "undercollections" over the entire 3 year period,not year-by-year. What is the significance of the 3.1 CTC roll-off date? We're assuming it's commercially driven. We correct? If so, what's the driver? Same goes for the 2004 ending date. Some tweeks were made to the proposal at the meeting to create an "Option 2" for folks to consider. (Though we don't think that any numbers need to be run on "Option 2" until after having completed the analysis on option 1, since those results could influence any scenarios we decide to construct). Option 2 would: Keep the hydro with the utility and apply Edison's proposed ratemaking treatment. Beginning 6.1.01, make large customers "noncore," similar to the gas model in California, and force those customers to choose an ESP. Beginning 1.1.03, introduce competitive default service for remaining "core" (i.e., rez and small commercial) customers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Finally, couple of things that occurred to me after yesterday's meeting that I want to throw out for folks to react to: Seems that, to be successful, the proposal needs to remain as stripped down and simple as possible. When the proposal nets out the deferral costs, does it include the over/undercollections associated with utility residual generation? In option 2, by adding the "noncore" feature, and by implementing that feature and the default service feature prior to the 04 ending date, the proposal gets more complicated (and adds significantly more risk to the utility's position). This is not to say that the complications can't be worked out, or that the added risk can't be accounted for, but wanted to highlight it for folks to consider. Attached is the original, with just a couple of minor edits, and "Option 2." Best,
Answer: PG&E Proposed Solution
Here is an email: FYI - I have a futures agreement for Gary which he needs now so I'll handle as I don't know if you are overwhelmed. We still need to talk sometime. SS
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: general
Q: This is David Lasater's resume. David grew up in Houston, got his PhD from UT, taught at Michigan State, and has been in our NYC office for about 13 or 14 years. He is an effective testifier and has been involved in a number of securities cases. I saw the complaint this morning shortly after we spoke. If you would like to brainstorm or if we can assist you in any way, pls do not hesitate to give us a call. Rgds Dean (See attached file: Resume1.doc) *******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer******************* Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. - Resume1.doc
Propose a subject line
A: Securities resume
IN: As requested, please see attached list of bonds that we have received cancellation notices on. I spoke to Kate Joslyn, Enron Direct Canada and she said they are working on the sale of Enron Direct Canada. If you need any more information, please let me know

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Bond Cancellation - EES/Enron Energy Marketing Corp/Enron Power Marketing/ENA
IN: This is an email
Hunter... I spoke with Louise on executing MGU. She wants us all to sign the dash that I provided you yesterday and then I can sign the contract. Of course the conversation went to value and I described the arrangement as such 1) Original mark to Russell of $2 MM - I described that the value would either a) fall out of the structure or b) you and I would determine another manner and 2) trading and origination would share the go forward value in the transaction as 60/40 unless you were required to create $2MM and then you would be covered on the monthly cost annuity first and then a sharing of 60% to you 40% to origination. I emphasized the exercise of tracking this transaction against structure to determine the merits of our current analysis/internal process. Attached is the dash for you to review and then call me with 1) your changes or 2) your approval. Thanx,

What is the subject?

OUT: MGU
Norma, Happy New Year. Look forward to working with you in 2001. Can you send the resume of L Xu to me in an electronic form? Thanks
Answer:
L Xu