QUESTION: A meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, November 28, 2000 with regard to the new Trading Track program. The meeting will be held in 49C1 from 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. If you have a conflict, please contact Kim Hillis at x30681.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Trading Track Meeting, Tuesday, November 28, 2000
market_relations@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Dear Market Participants: The NYISO back-up dispatch system is scheduled to be tested on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. The test will begin at about 10:30 a.m. and last for approximately one hour. Security Constrained Dispatch (SCD) will be stopped, but the mainframe computer will continue to operate, allowing the NYISO to monitor security. If a situation occurs, the Shift Supervisor will be able to re-start SCD and take appropriate action. The Market Information System (MIS) and Balancing Market Evaluation (BME) will remain available during the test. If you have any questions, please call Customer Relations at 518-356-6060.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: NYISO Back-Up Dispatch System Testing
Please be advised that a conference call has just been scheduled regarding Project Stanley and has been set for Friday, June 30, 2000, 10:30am central time. The dial in number for this call is 1-800-998-2462. The pincode is 4309724.
Answer: Project Stanley Conference Call
Here is an email: Ken, I've sent your letter to the Governor and top legislators. I'm also working with David Freeman in the governor's office as well to try to keep sce out of bankruptcy. It's unfortunate that government doesn't work more like business. There seems to be no sense of urgency in finding the facts to make an intelligent decision, just people who don't want to make any decision even to do that. On a side note, Propel develops software that makes it much easier to develop 24x7 mission critical systems including very advanced data management. Is there someone who you'd recommend I can talk with on the energy trading side of enron to explore the potential of our helping you make your systems more reliable/scalable/easier to maintain? Thanks!
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: calif power letter
Q: > <<IPW100101.PDF>> > Good Morning, > > Attached, please find the latest issue of our Independent Power Weekly. > > Summary: > 1. IPP's Rise 3.9% Last week our IPP composite increased 3.9%, > underperforming the NASDAQ (+5.3%) and the S&P 500 (+7.8%). Orion Power, > which was up 38.1%, was the strongest generator in the group. AES Corp > was the weakest performer, declining 47.1%. > > 2. Generation Oriented Utilities Fall 0.6% Our universe of generation > oriented utilities fell 0.6%, underperforming the NASDAQ and S&P 500, > while outperforming the UTY (-4.8%). Black Hills Corp, which was up 7.5%, > was the strongest performer in the group. PPL was the weakest performer, > declining 11.9%. >
Propose a subject line
A: CSFB Independent Power Weekly-Issue #45
Here is an email: Executive Summary California Treasurer Angelides Sets Dates for Bridge Loans & Bonds California's Supreme Court May See Challenge to "Plan B" Angelides on Bridge Loans and Bonds CA Treasurer Angelides has said that beginning 15 August, the state will se= t up a bridge loan. The revenue bonds will not be issued until September o= r October. Angelides is not concerned about a cash crisis in July or Augus= t. However, he is quite worried about problems with cash flow in October a= nd November. This is based on calculations he has done with numbers from t= he DWR and from other parts of the government, not on payment terms for pow= er. He fears there will be a cash management problem. California Supreme Court to Challenge "Plan B" California Attorney Michael Sturmwasser is expected to challenge "Plan B" b= efore the California Supreme Court on the basis that it results in a retroa= ctive rate increase and that it removes the PUC's authority to review power= purchases. This is because "Plan B" enables SoCal to collect a dedicated = rate component to pay both its undercollect and its expenses going forward.= SoCal (and PG&E) would have to be guaranteed this dedicated rate componen= t to be able to operate going forward and remain credit-worthy. This takes= the burden of financing the energy crisis away from the state and off the = state's balance sheet, a key goal of lawmakers. However, at the same time,= it also abrogates the PUC from its responsibility to review power purchase= s. The state cannot give the utilities a blank check (in the form of a ded= icated rate component) to operate without taking authority away from the PU= C. According to the California constitution, the legislature can add to th= e responsibilities of the PUC, but it cannot take away powers from the PUC.= At the same time, ratepayers will be paying an additional surcharge for p= ower that they have already used. Sources describe Sturmwasser's case as "= arguable"; in other words, it has a fair chance of succeeding. However, re= gardless of whether the challenge succeeds or fails, it is very likely to c= loud the issue of the bail-out and significantly deflate the prospects of t= he Plan B. If FERC were to impose cost-based controls on power prices, sources believe= it might "go a long way toward avoiding these problems." Were this to hap= pen, the PUC could declare FERC's rates "just and reasonable," which would = likely greatly lessen the crisis and keep SoCal liquid. However, such meas= ures by FERC require significant lead time. Sources state that "the state = needs to tease the feds into doing this." This can be done by conducting s= tudies to obtain current cost data and update the data FERC would use for d= etermining the cost controls. Sources report that this process of "teasing= " FERC has not yet started. This is chiefly because California politicians= are focused on flat price caps, which FERC is very unlikely to impose. It= appears the state is asking FERC for the wrong measures, which is delaying= the process. The only way for the state to avoid these constitutional iss= ues would be for the state to purchase the utilities, as municipal entities= would not be subject to PUC regulation. However, there remains very signi= ficant opposition to this idea, especially on the Republican side. A state= purchase of the utilities would likely only gain momentum once Plan B bega= n to fail for the reasons cited above. Additionally, a state purchase of t= he utilities would be less expensive were both utilities in bankruptcy. Sturmwasser is a partner at Sturmwasser & Woocher, a Santa Monica law firm.= (His offices are on the top floor of the tallest building in Santa Monica= , overlooking the beach.) He has been a utilities lawyer for over 30 years= . His clients include the consumer advocacy group TURN (Toward Utilities R= ate Normalcy), among others. Sturmwasser will reportedly look for funding = to support the legal challenge, but if he cannot find money elsewhere, he w= ill likely be able to support it out of his own pocket.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
California Update 5/29/01