Here is an email: I got a call from the Lower Colorado River Authority today asking us if we would like to put a power enabling and ISDA Master Agreement in place with them. I spoke to Liz Sager and it appears we have already done a physical power trade with them. Of course, we can still not do financial trading until we run through all the hoops with them. I don't know who you directed your marketing package to, but he wanted some information on online trading and I said we would send him a packet. Richard Ramirez Fuel and Energy Risk Management Lower Colorado River Authority 3701 Lake Austin Boulevard Austin, Texas 78703 Thanks!
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: EOL-Lower Colorado River Authority
Q: = = = = = = = = = = = Intercontinenta= lExchange = = = = = =20 = = = = = Firm P= ower Price Bulletin = = = = = =20 = = = = = For Po= wer Delivered on Wednesday, September 26, 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = =20 = = = = = = = = = = = (Trade Date of = Tuesday, September 25, 2001) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =20 Click here to access index history . = = = = =20 = = = = = = = = = = = * volume repres= ents sell-side only * = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =20 Hub=09High=09Low=09Wtd Avg Index=09Change ($)=09Vol (Mwh)=09 Cinergy=09 $17.90=09 $16.00=09 $17.69=09- 1.49=09= 84,000=09 Comed=09 $19.00=09 $17.60=09 $18.08=09- .59=09 = 4,800=09 Entergy=09 $17.40=09 $15.50=09 $16.96=09- .94=09= 14,400=09 Nepool=09 $41.50=09 $40.75=09 $41.22=09- 2.78=09 = 6,400=09 PJM-West=09 $25.25=09 $24.90=09 $25.08=09- .78= =09 21,600=09 SP-15=09 $25.25=09 $23.50=09 $24.13=09+ 1.25=09 = 4,000=09 TVA=09 $17.30=09 $17.00=09 $17.20=09- 1.07=09 = 6,400=09 = = = = = = = = = = = Includes all tr= ades done from 6 AM to 11 AM Central Prevailing Time on the trade date spec= ified for financially firm power delivered during the on-peak hours (6 AM -= 10 PM CPT for Eastern hubs / 6 AM - 10 PM Pacific Prevailing Time for West= ern hubs) on the delivery date(s) specified. = = = = = = = = =20 = = = = = In= tercontinentalExchange is the world's most liquid trading platform for over=
Propose a subject line
A: Power Indices
IN: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, issued a ruling today on the EPA Section 126 Rule. (As brief background, the 126 Rule would have required compliance with more stringent summer-season NOx caps starting in May 2003 in several northeast and Midwest states) The Order states: "It is Ordered that EPA's Section 126 Rule is remanded as to all cogenerators, but vacated only as to those cogenerators classified as electric generating units ("EGUs") under the rule that supply equal to or less than one third of their potential capacity or equal to or less than 25 MW to the grid for sale per year." Translation: This part of the order appears to "vacate" or completely throw out the 126 rule for small cogen units (under 25 MW) or cogen units selling less than 1/3 into the grid. For all other cogenerators, the court remands the rule to EPA for re-working, consistent with some of the court's earlier objections about EPA's handling of cogens. Impact: EPA will need to go back and formulate rules for cogens altogether, so there is currently no NOx compliance schedule in place for cogen units. EPA will need to start from scratch for smaller cogens. "It is Further ordered that as of May 15, 2001, the date of this court's decision, the three-year compliance period for emissions limitations applicable to EGUs under the Section 126 Rule is tolled, pending EPA's resolution of the remand of EGU growth factors ordered by this court." Translation: This more significant part of the order "tolls" -- or puts on hold -- compliance with the 126 Rule for ALL ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS (EGUs) until EPA resolves EGU growth factor issues that the court identified in its May 15, 2001 ruling.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Court Decision on NOx - EPA Section 126 Rule
IN: This is an email
NGI's Daily Gas Price Index published : October 29, 2001 ALJ Clears Transwestern of Market Power Charges A FERC administrative law judge has found no improprieties, nor evidence of the exercise of market power in negotiated rate contracts between Transwestern Pipeline and two shippers on its system, which resulted in the shippers being charged as much as $27/MMBtu last February, far in excess of the pipeline's allowed transportation rate of 38 cents/MMBtu (RP97-288-009). ALJ Jacob Leventhal had only one fault to find, and that was with Transwestern's method of posting capacity. The judge said, and Transwestern agreed, to modify its tariff "so that all posting, bidding and award procedures are set forth in a separate provision with an appropriate caption" on its Internet bulletin board. Shippers had said that reviewing capacity on the Transwestern web site was "a tortuous process." Indicated Shippers claimed Transwestern's inadequate capacity posting and award procedures did not provide all interested parties with an opportunity to bid for the capacity that was available. While "both Indicated Shippers and (FERC) Staff find it curious that SET (Sempra Energy Trading) and Richardson (Products Co.) were the sole bidders on the contracts awarded to each of them...curiosity does not translate into proof," the judge said. Witnesses in the expedited hearing testified no bids were considered in advance of the capacity posting. The judge subsequently found the capacity was awarded in a manner consistent with Transwestern's tariff. Similarly, Levanthal could find no evidence that Transwestern exercised market power in negotiating the rates with shippers or withholding or threatening to withhold capacity. The capacity was available at recourse rates, and the shippers knew those rates were available. "Staff's arguments really are criticisms of the posting and award procedures, but do not demonstrate the exercise of market power." The two shippers said they made a business decision to propose the "index-to-index" formula that produced the higher rates, rather than take the recourse rate "to minimize any risk on transportation options." The index-to-index formula refers to taking the difference between the daily published commodity prices at two different points and subtracting to get the transportation rate between them. In this case the two points were the San Juan Basin and the SoCal Needles delivery point. The case was set for expedited hearing last summer by the commissioners acting on staff recommendations.

What is the subject?

OUT: NGI Article on TW Ruling
IN: This is to advise you that we are still working on your individual issues regarding the lack of representation in your specific areas on the Associate PRC Committee. I will keep you posted on the outcome. Thanks,

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
ASSOCIATE PRC