QUESTION: Attached is a list containing the new MG counterparties. You can see it by clicking on the second tab at the bottom of the Excel spreadsheet where it says "MG New Cpys". Ignore the first tab. I am told by London Legal that our deadline for responding to this list is Monday. Bandwidth team, in talking to London Legal, per my current understanding, the only two jurisdictions approved to trade bandwidth are the US and UK. We've got Japan and Bermuda approved to trade US segment only. So unless we hear otherwise from you, it is our intention to give all the other counterparties "read only" access.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Metals counterparties approval
Are you working on a contract with this company? Dan said you were looking at their paper. They are close to signing our Master with a few revisions. My contact is Marc Rubenstein. Please advise.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill Incorporated
I've looked into whether we can terminate our Val Verde interconnect agreement with Burlington, and have determined we may do so only if we take the following steps: 1. Terminate the OBA by giving 30 days notice to Burlington. Paragraph 13 of the 6/1/94 OBA with Burlington (as successor in interest to Meridian) provides that either party may terminate the OBA "at the end of the primary term, or thereafter by providing thirty (30) days prior written notice" to Burlington. (The one-month primary term ended June 30, 1994 and has since gone month-to-month.) 2. On the effective termination date of the OBA, terminate the interconnect agreement by giving 30 days notice to Burlington. The 12/31/92 Interconnect Point Operating Agreement, Paragraph 6, provides that either party may terminate on 180 prior notice after expiration of the primary term. This is of limited use to us since the primary term does not expire until 12/31/02. However, the paragraph also provides that the agreement "may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice in the event the OBA between the parties is terminated." As we've already discussed, termination of the agreement is an extreme measure from a customer relations standpoint and we probably need to weigh our other options first. Let me know if you have further questions.
Answer: PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION Terminability of Val Verde interconnect agreement
Here is an email: Yesterday evening I phoned both the state of Arizona ( agency for stations 1 and 2) and Region 9 EPA ( agency for stations 3 and 4) concerning the status of when the air permits would be issued by both agencies for the Redrock expansion. I was surprised to find out that both agencies stated a 2-4 month delay prior to issuance. They cited back log of other permits, public comment periods, and workload as being the main reasons. I am particularily disappointed because there were pre meetings with both agencies identifying what was to be included in each application package, and even after the applications were submitted in March of this year, each agency came back and asked for different information that from what was discussed at each meeting. I have a call into the state of Arizona ( construction is to begin at Station 2 and they have jurisdiction for this station) to see if we can initiate some construction activities such as laying pipe and building foundations prior to receiving the permit. I have been given these types of approvals from other agencies in the past, but these types of approvals are extremely narrow and restrictive. If this flys I am sure that they will require us to make sure the turbine is not brought on site until the permit has been issued. I know this will require written approval from the agency, but this may allow us to proceed on schedule and avoid any delays. Ill keep you apprised of this issue.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Air Permit Delay, Red Rock Expansion
Q: Michelle, Can you and the comp team help us identify who has contractual bonus targets for performing at the top 25%, 33% or 50% of the PRC "criteria" or "performance scale". Obviously we have a number of contracts we entered into between Jun 99 and the beginning of the end of last year which have some sort of wording along the above lines in them. There are some critical questions I would like to get clarity on: If BU's and support functions simply stop at 10/80/10 in their PRC's how will we deal with these contracts? Presuming all commercial staff are also relative ranked for bonus purposes separately to the PRC, can we use this scale instead (where it will be easier to identify a to half or quartile performance). Do we need to ensure that BU's and Functions that have people with such wording do split their middle 80%. If so how should we do this? Do we need to amend those contracts to wording that is easier to interpret? What proof or disclosure will we need to those individuals with this wording? I have a PRC committee meeting Thurs and while I don't anticipate raising this issue in that forum, I'd like to know we are working on a solution. David
Propose a subject line
A: Y/E PRC and Contractual Bonus Targets
Here is an email: Kam, I see your name on SITARA #1186462, so I am requesting help in getting the counterparty named changed from PEOPLES GAS COMPANY, to THE PEOPLES GAS LIGHT & COKE COMPANY. Please give me a call on Fri morning. Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
CounterParty Name Change