Here is an email: Here is a revised CA with CINergy. They also sent a clean version thinking that we might not have any changes other than what we had before. I am still trying to talk to Jeff about paragraghs #5 and #6. Thanks Ben
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Confidentiality Agreement
Q: 6/8/2001 Fri Notice: If any clients or potential clients that are getting duplicate e-mails just reply to this, and let us know and we will remove the extra recaps. If anyone feels that they may be receiving these in error please kindly reply to have you removed from the list and we are sorry for any trouble we caused you. IF ANYONE WHO DID NOT GET THE "PDF" FILE ATTACHMENT SHOWING THE THREE YEAR LONG TERM NUMBERS AND FULL CFTC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT PLEASE E-MAIL OR CALL TOLL FREE (800) 773-1713 AND WE WILL RESEND IT RIGHT AWAY Here were todays trades "Swing" S/P full size B 1278.50 open trade 6/7 s 1271.50 close trade 6/8
Propose a subject line
A: trades for Fri 6/8
IN: Just kidding! I'm fine. I've been cut off twice on telephone calls to the states so I may have problems calling you in the next hour or so when I leave the office. FYI: NTAP closed at 188-3/4 and CISCO closed at 132-3/16. It's too early for the mutual fund reports. The weather is again gorgeous; we had empanadas for lunch and they were much better than tamales. I read the tamale article in the Oxford American and it talked about the tamale man in Greenville, MS (whose name was Six Sixty-Six, being the sign of the devil so the tamales were really HOT). Tomorrow we meet with another law firm. Thursday and Friday I meet with the commercial people about ISDA agreements and one business customer is flying in from the province of Mendoza to discuss an agreement. I'll call you later and I'm going to try to go to bed earlier tonight (I'll try to call after 9pm BA time). Love, the DG

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Can you rescue me from BA?
IN: This is an email
Cheryl: We'll email the draft ISDA Schedule and CSA to you and Chuck. Please email me back with address, phone, email, etc. information as to how you would like the drafts sent. Thanks.

What is the subject?

OUT: ING Barings (U.S.) Capital Markets LLC
QUESTION: 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.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Court Decision on NOx - EPA Section 126 Rule
IN: DCongel@nyiso.com writes to the NYISO_TECH_EXCHANGE Discussion List: Market Participants: In the early evening hours on 8/8/2001 the NYISO inadvertently ran a billing job for 7/16/2001. This created a version 5 of the bills for this billing date. Version 5 is not valid, all customers should use version 4 when reconciling their advisory statements to their invoice.

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
July 16 2001 Advisory Statements