IN: You have an electronic contract awaiting your review and execution. Use the Execute Electronic Contracts screen to print and electronically execute a Request(s) for service To Print/Execute Electronic Contracts: 1. Click on the Contracts folder 2. Select the Execute Electronic K from the Contract Administration Drop Down menu 3. Select the service requester from the Service Requester drop down menu 4. Choose the print option of either View Later or E-mail. 4a. If View Later is selected then the contract can be printed from the Utility folder: View Report Selection 4b. If Email is selected then the contract will be emailed to the address displayed in the Email Address Field. This field will default to the email address currently associated with the Navigator Id that is currently logged on the system. You may change the designation of where the contract is to be sent by typing in a different email address 5. Click on Retrieve 6. To print a contract, place a check in the Print Contract select box beside the Bid/Request No. that you want to print 7. To execute your contract, place a check in the Execute select box beside the Bid/Request No. that you want to execute. Note: It is strongly recommended that you print your contract prior to execution. You can select the print option independent of the execution option; that way you may review the printed contract then if the terms were agreeable, return to this screen to execute the contract 8. Click on Submit. 8a. After the contract is executed the screen will display the contract number assigned and the date it was executed 8b. The executed contract information will be displayed on the screen for one full day following the date it was executed Note only those Navigator Ids with execution authority may electronically execute a contract. The contract must be executed before the "Execute by Date" expires. This document was created by TCOAPPS in the DB2P subsystem in job IPAT0100, job number 06687, program AT12000

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Columbia Contract Awaiting Your Execution
IN: This is an email
Guys, can you start working on your presentations for the offsite. Dave I would like you to focus on the new generation of capital products that you are working on for the IPP market which should be able to source short and medium term commodity liquidity and be syndicatable(?) on the capital side. Go into some detail and speak to a couple of specific opportunities. It may also be interesting for you to give an initial cut on the economics of coal generation (including emissions control) given current power and gas markets and a quick view of the development process. How should we participate in this market? Gasification technology? Jeff, in your talk, can you focus on the emerging distributed generation sector ie) the technologies, the users, the VC's, etc. Specifically, how will these technologies change our business model and the overall power business model? How are we positioning ourselves in this market? What is the PI strategy with this regard? Dorie Hitchcock and Tammy Sheppard can do a lot of the heavy lifting; however, we need a first cut by December 8th. Thanks

What is the subject?

OUT: ENA 2000 Offsite
QUESTION: Mike Moran has informed me that the FTC and U.S. DOJ, as part of their review of the El Paso-Coastal merger, have decided to take a close look at the merger's possible impact on competition in the Chicago-Wisconsin market. In this regard, those agencies need to set up a conference call in the next two weeks to discuss that issue with experts on that market from Border and Northern. This will not be an on-the-record deposition. It will be a conf. call and what I expect to be an informal question and answer session on what we know. Representatives of the Wisconsin and Illinois Attorney General's office (or whatever agency it is in those states that deals with antitrust issues) will be on the phone as they are working with the Feds on the merger. I think either one of you guys, with appropriate supervision, would do a fine job. Please let me and Mike know who gets the black bean and what your general availability is and we'll get it set up. Thanks. DF
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: El Paso-Coastal Merger
Vince, I am attachings the revised Employment Agreement forms for Mike, Vasant, and Krishna so that you can review the numbers with Whalley. Please just let me know when you are ready to pull the trigger or if any changes need to be made. Additionally, I am attaching the final ratings for all of your people. Some people have NR by their names, but that is only because they have not been here long enough to be reviewed. If you need any additional info from me, please let me know. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Employment Agreements and Final Rankings
We currently have $21.4 million in reserve for potential Northwest refunds. $10 million currently sits in the LTCA book and $11.4 currently sits in the LTNW book. During the summer, FERC initiated an investigation into the potential of unjust and unreasonable spot prices in the northwest from December of 2000 through June of 2001. Seatlle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Eugene Water and Electric Board, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District all filed claims at FERC for refunds from EPMI. The claims totaled close to $100 million. However, many of these claims were, on their face, spurious. For example, Eugene Water and Electric Board filed for refund of forward purchases which was clearly outside the scope of FERC's proceeding. We hired consultants from Charles River Associates (CRA) to help us with this process. One of their tasks was to apply the CAISO competitive benchmark pricing methodology to the Northwest market. That is, CRA attempted to reverse engineer the CAISO's methodology in order to estimate our Northwest risk. I was informed by our litigation team that EPMI's realistic potential exposure using this methodology was roughly $30 million. We decided to reserve roughly 2/3 of this amount which came to about $21 million. In September a FERC Adminitrative Law Judge heard the case and submitted a draft decision to the FERC. The draft decision recommended against any refunds. This draft decision is supposed to come in front of the FERC commissioners for approval before the end of the year. If this draft decision is approved, it would be appropriate to remove these reserves.
Answer: Northwest Reserves
Q: As previously discussed, please see the attached GISB draft for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me with your questions and or comments. Regards,
Propose a subject line
A:
GISB