Kevin/Hunter We are short 4 interviewers for the ENA Trading Track Interviews on Thursday, November 1. John asked me to contact you to get some more names. Attached is the current list of interviewers we have thus far. Rgds, Karen.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: gas & power interviewers Trading Track
Davis Signals Utility's Grid Could Be Seized Power: Governor says eminent domain is a possible last resort against PG&E, which is balking in state sales negotiations. By DAN MORAIN and NANCY RIVERA BROOKS, Times Staff Writers On the eve of a new round of rescue negotiations with a reluctant Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Gov. Gray Davis suggested Wednesday that as a last resort the state could seize the utility's prized electrical transmission system through eminent domain. That saber-rattling cut against the grain of some rare good news in the state's continuing electricity crisis. The energy supply crunch eased slightly as grid operators pumped up the cushion between supply and demand, and for the first time in more than five weeks the statewide power grid was operating under a relatively mild Stage 1 emergency. Negotiations with the state's two other big utilities--Southern California
Answer: Davis Signals Utility's Grid Could Be Seized
Here is an email: Privileged and Confidential This email contains legal advice and confidentiality should be maintained The attached memo describes a recent decision from the National Labor Relations Board regarding an employee's right to be "represented" by a co-worker or other person during a disciplinary meeting. Employees in unionized settings always have had this right, but it now has been extended by the NLRB's ruling. The ruling was contentious -- there were dissents -- and I expect it to be
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: NLRB Ruling
Q: Here is the Eta Amendment that we sent to Randy Osteen. He has a correction that he wants to make and siad that he would be calling you. Carol
Propose a subject line
A: ETA Amendment
IN: Attached is an Excel file of the EES IT FTEs. The first tab lists all employees and is sorted by job title and then by name. There are two columns. One is labeled Top 10% and the other Critical. Asterisks are place in the columns as indicators of employees classified as the top 10% talent and the employees critical to retain. The second tab is a summary sheet of the top 10% and the employees critical to retain. Employees are sorted by title and then by name. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: EES IT FTEs Top 10% Talent / Critical to Retain
IN: This is an email
Lorraine, here are a few notes from my review of the Val Verde contract, and my initial impressions. Let's talk more about how to approach the issue after we meet with Ron tomorrow about MAOP. 12/31/92 Interconnect Agreement: Sec. 1.3 specifies pressures and states that unless there is an agreement to provide firm compression service TW will accept up to 200,000 on an interruptible basis. Sec. 2 states that the Blanco Hub MAOP shall not be exceeded. Sec. 4.2 limits damages (no consequential damages). The contract also has a fairly standard force majeure clause. 2/18/93 letter amendment: Sec. 3 obligates TW to provide firm compression service in order to accept 200,000 into TW's system (provided MOGI has pressure of at least 650 and quantity of at least 140). Acknowledges that this is an agreement to provide firm compression in accordance with Sec. 1.3 of 12/92 agreement. 9/25/95 letter amendment: Increases quantity to be received at the interconnect to 250,000 once the San Juan expansion is effective. My initial conclusions: It is pretty clear we have an obligation to accept 250,000 on a firm basis, provided that Burlington complies with the pressure requirements. Probably the only way we can avoid this obligation is if accepting 250,000 would cause us to exceed the hub MAOP. In that case we can argue impossibility of performance. Also, we could avoid the obligation because the summer heat above certain temperatures constitutes force majeure. This argument is strengthened by the fact that temperatures seem to have gotten hotter over the years. The fact that we entered into our most recent agreement with Burlington in January of this year weakens the credibility of our arguments (they will say we should have known by now). Burlington might try to argue that we have an absolute obligation to comply with the agreement, even if it means expensive system modifications. That argument is not a very strong one because the agreement contains no such affirmative obligation and in fact quite clearly describes the facilities that are the subject of the agreement.

What is the subject?

OUT:
Burlington: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION