All, Just wanted to touch base with you to see if you have had a chance to review the full time Analyst resumes that were delivered to you on May 14th. Please see the list below of remaining Analysts and let me know ASAP if you would like one of them for your group: Andrew Bermack Bali Bukenya Belinda DeLa Cruz Deborah Freire Neeloofar Haghighat Blake Lasuzzo Jaryn Levitas These Analysts will be starting on July 17th and be attending orientation for a couple of weeks. There are also three real time Analysts that were recently interviewed and made an offer to join Enron as a full time Analysts: Timothy Weil - will be starting July 17th with the other full time Analysts Vacharapol (Eddie) Sanguanruang - He will be able to start as soon as his visa is transferred which is already in progress Nat Kreamer - He would be able to start June 4th if needed We will be forwarding resumes to each of you on the real time candidates and if you have an immediate need, please let me know. Thanks in advance for you consideration.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Full Time Analysts
Per our discussion this morning, below is a summary of items to discuss with Glynn: Adding Enron's "negative CTC claim" to the list of claims: PGE's filing included a list of top twenty creditors. Our negative CTC claim was apparently not taken into account in compiling that list. The list is nonbinding, however. PG&E will be required to file schedules of creditors on April 20. Our negative CTC claim should be on Schedule F (for unsecured claims). You may want to remind Glynn of your previous conversations and state our expectation that the negative CTC claim will appear (preferably as uncontested) in the April 20 filing. (Note: if PG&E does not include the claim we have an opportunity to file a proof of claim and ultimately the court determines the validity of the claim). Including Enron on the Creditors' Committee: PG&E may have the opportunity to influence representation on the creditors' committees. There are several reasons to suggest to Glynn that we be included: 1) we are a big creditor, 2) we could be helpful in crafting a broader solution, and 3) we are one of the real parties in interest behind the PX and ISO (who were listed as significant creditors but are really just "passthroughs" for the suppliers ... and PG&E likely would not want to have those political bodies serving on the creditors committee anyway).
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Call to Bob Glynn
I have reviewed the La Plata Facilities O&O Agreement. Lee, could you please review the same and see if you agree with this assessment? It appears to me that the pigging facilties could qualify as either of the following: Special Services. This would be subject to prior written consent and agreement between the Operator (TW) and the Operating Committee (TW & NWPLRepresentatives). If NWPL agreed, their share of the cost would be in proportion to their ownership interest. If we did obtain their approval, future O&M cost attributable to the pigging facilities could be shared among the owners. (We've agreed to a flat fee for 2000 through 2003 with a 3.5% escalator starting in 2001.) Addition or Expansion. Demonstrate that the pigging will add incremental transmission capacity. We have to give notice to NWPL and they have 60 days to participate. If they participate, they share in the cost at their ownership interest, but they get a share of the incremental capacity at their ownership interest. If they don't indicate a desire to participate in 60 days, we can proceed with the Expansion (without any approval, but also no cost sharing). Also, any incremental O&M associated with an expansion cannot be passed on to any owners not participating in such expansion. I think if we went the Special Services route, we would need to justify the need for these facilities to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the facilities at current levels. I think we would spend alot of time arguing this with them and in the end they would probably approve it subject to them not incurring any cost. (They probably don't have $260,000 ($1.5MM * .174) sitting around in a budget somewhere that they'd like to fork over for these facilities.) Rich, what do you think? How difficult would it be to demonstrate that these facilities are necessary for maintaining the current operating levels of the facilities? Recommendation: To save us the 60 days notice period of an Expansion, I think we should notify them that it's a necessary Special Service and ask for approval (& to pass along their share of the cost), but to be prepared to eat 100% of the costs to obtain their timely approval and proceed with the installation of the facilities. In this event we would need to agree on the inclusion of future O&M attributable to these facilities. FYI, their ownership interest is still officially 22.3% since they have not executed the Amendment that has been tendered to them 3 times, first by me and twice by Lynn Blair. If they execute the Amendment that incorporates the 4/1/98 expansion of the facilities, their ownership interest will be 17.4%.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Installation of Pigging Facilities
MARKET NOTICE January 4, 2002 Resumption of Preliminary Invoicing ISO Market Participants: SC Settlement Contacts: The ISO will resume issuing Preliminary Invoices starting with the November 2001 trade month. On August 30, 2001, the ISO distributed a notice indicating that it would temporarily suspend making cash distributions based on preliminary invoices. The notice further indicated that this practice was to be effective for the June, 2001 billing cycle. Beginning with the July 2001 trade month, the ISO temporarily halted issuance of the preliminary invoices entirely. Subsequently, the ISO issued a single monthly invoice on the date that it issued the Final Settlement Statement for the last Trade Day of the calendar month. Thus, the ISO neither collected nor dispersed funds until the final invoice was distributed. This suspension of the "two invoice" settlements approach was a temporary action. The ISO will resume issuing Preliminary Invoices starting with November 2001 trade month. This is consistent with ISO's proposal in the November 21, 2001 compliance filing for FERC's November 7 order. November 2001 Preliminary Invoices are scheduled to be generated on January 29, 2002. If you have questions regarding this procedure, please contact your Account Manager. Client Relations Communications.0921 CRCommunications@caiso.com
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
DRAFT CAISO Notice - Dual Invoicing to resume trade month November 2001