Here is an email: Peter, I can't recall if I've sent you this override letter before. Essentially, it is a letter which is in effect for as long as the equipment is owned by E-Next Generation, but which ceases to be effective once the equipment is assigned to a third party. We will need something along the same line for the ABB equipment. If you can send me a redline of the final form of the ABB facility agreement against the master, we can discuss how to proceed. Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Override letter for ABB
Q: We have previously told the TX PUC Staff we will be posting required collateral of $100,000 by the end of the month (as required by Rule 25.107(f)) in order to maintain EES certification. The requirement is that we maintain "unused cash resources of at least $100,000, which will allow the REP to incur in Texas up to $250,000 in total monthly billings from TDUs." Staff says we can meet this requirement by posting the $$ to an account of our choice. We just need to notify them where the money is and state the money is for the purpose of this rule.
Propose a subject line
A: TX Collateral posting
IN: We have a new lawyer that started in our group yesterday. His name is Jason Peters. Can you get him added to the Master Swap Agreement database ASAP. Thanks.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: New Lawyer
IN: This is an email
Gerald, Are you familiar with the Dow Chemical Storage contracts with LRCI? I am trying to determine what we should be billed from Dow and what we should pass through to Bridgeline. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks,

What is the subject?

OUT: Dow Chemical Storage contracts with LRCI
QUESTION: Ken, in response to the letter from Mr Miguel San Juan, my suggestion would be to offer up the Falcon for their use; however, given the tight time frame and your recent visit with Mr. Fox that it would be difficult for either you or me to participate. I spoke to Max and he agrees with this approach. I hope this meets with your approval. Regards
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Greater Houston Partnership
IN: On October 17, 2001 Rockland Electric Company and PJM filed with FERC a joi= nt application for the transfer of operational control from the NYISO to PJ= M of certain facilities located in Northern New Jersey. The facilities are= the transmission assets in the Eastern Division of Rockland's service terr= itory. This includes approximately 400 MW of load in Bergen County, NJ and= transmission facilities that are already directly interconnected with PJM = (note that other Rockland facilities located in NJ, namely those in norther= n Passaic County and Sussex County (Rockland's Central and Western Division= s respectively) will not be transferred to PJM and will remain under the op= erational control of the NYISO since these facilities are not directly inte= rconnected with PJM nor with Rockland's Eastern Division). The filing requ= ests approval of the transfer by November 30, 2001 which would allow PJM to= take operational control on February 1, 2002 (the filing does not address = what, if any, changes to the operation date might be if FERC does not appro= ve this by Nov 30). Rockland Electric is a subsidiary of Orange & Rockland= Utilities which is a subsidiary of Con Edison. The transfer adds approximately 400 MW of load and 56,000 customers (mostly= residential and commercial) to PJM. There is no increase in supply, there= fore the total load of PJM is increased by 400 MW without any additional re= sources. The transmission assets include 138-kV (8.3 miles), 69-kV (35.9 m= iles) and 35-kV (12.4 miles) transmission lines and 11 substations (the fil= ing includes a detailed description of these assets). Let me know if you require any additional information.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Rockland Electric Transfer to PJM