Robbie: I was in your class that you taught for the Princeton Review at Enron just recently. What I'm looking for is a private Math tutor. I wasn't sure if I had to go through the Princeton Review or if I could talk directly to you. I liked the way you taught the class and wanted to see if you taught one on one sessions. If you could let me know, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
Answer: Princeton Classes
Here is an email: Texas City Facility - The relationship between HPL and Calpine has become and continues to be strained. Calpine purchased the Texas City Cogeneration Facility from Enron and Dominion Resources in early 1998. Prior to that time ENA supplied 45,000 MMBtu of gas under a fixed price contract and a Market Price agreement was in place to provide any additional volumes that might be needed in addition to that which Union Carbide Corporation had the contractual right to supply under the historic arrangement, since they were the steam host for the facility. After Calpine took over, these contracts either expired or were terminated. At this point HPL became the sole supplier to the facility although the interconnection with the Union Carbide delivery point with the Calpine facility remained active and a new Transaction Agreement was put in place whereby Calpine agreed to certain minimum and maximum quantity obligations and agreed on the prices that would be paid for any short fall in volumes. Since then, measurement disputes have been alleged and Calpine has shortpaid HPL's invoices even after verbally agreeing that the amounts invoiced were correct. Additionally, as a result of Calpine's power purchaser's last minute notification to Calpine of reductions in the purchase of power for the next day, which notification is usually after Calpine's next day notification deadline to HPL, Calpine has resorted to the use of creative force majeure situations in an effort to reduce their costs. These notifications have occurred some thirteen (I think) times and Calpine has provided little explanation to HPL of the nature of these events of force majeure. When pressed for a more detailed explanation, they merely state that they had to take down various unit(s) to repair or replace leaking valves, etc. Clear Lake Facility - The relationship between Calpine and HPL is not as strained with regard to deliveries at this facility. This may be because the contract covering the base volume of gas being delivered by HPL has not changed since it was negotiated by ENA in 1995. Midcon remains connected to the facility and delivers certain quantities of market priced gas. Market priced gas is required by the facility when its requirements exceed the base volumes supplied under the 1995 agreement. Should the power purchase agreement be amended to allow Calpine not to deliver powered or should the power purchaser cancel the power purchase agreement, Calpine has negotiated an amendment allowing for the delivery of the base volumes at alternative delivery points. Currently, HPL has advised Calpine of an upcoming event of force majeure which will require a cessation of deliveries of gas to the facility which certain regulatory mandated tests are being performed on the A-S pipeline. It is not known whether the Midcon delivery point has the capacity to handle the entire facility gas requirements or not.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Calpine Cogeneration Facility(s) relations
Q: Best of luck. You've got a tough job. Guess you'll be working that much harder now that John Stevens is on his way to San Francisco. At last week's meeting, a request was made for peak and off peak prices. I've attached prices that we filed yesterday at FERC as part of its on-going proceeding of forward contracts. Few comments: We'd appreciate it if you could keep the information confidential, particularly since the information is covered by FERC's confidentiality provisions. Since we are not a "generator," we buy and sell in the market, which as you know is currently very volatile. Consequently, the quotes that we provide customers change daily to reflect changing market prices. These prices were put together and filed yesterday, but you may have heard that prices were down today. So quotes we made today were lower. And quotes we makes tomorrow will reflect tomorrow's market conditions and will likely be different from today's. Because these quotes were assembled yesterday, they are only "indicative." That is, if someone wanted to buy these products today, we'd have to recalculate prices, because the quotes established yesterday are no longer valid (for the reasons I mentioned above). Hope this helps. If you have any questions, let me know. Best,
Propose a subject line
A: Pricing Information
IN: Attached is your morning research report for Friday, August 31, 2001. Please contact me if there are particular companies or sectors that you are interested in hearing from. (713-853-2407) Thank You,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: fbsummary.pdf
IN: This is an email
Now that the celebrating has died down, lets decide whether to seek rehearing or clarification of the order. If there is anything in it that disadvantages us, we should consider rehearing, particularly since it is a nearly certain that our friends at SoCal will file a nasty one. (It might be good for Steve H. or Bill or whoever has the best relationship with SoCal to make a high level courtesy call to extend the olive branch and tell them that we'll work with them to minimize their concerns blah blah blah. At minimum, we'll probably learn if they do intend to seek rehearing) I see two things that may be worth seeking rehearing on: 1. The requirement that we disclose our discount agreements in 15 days. FERC really punted this issue. They say that "since the expansion capacity is fully subscribed we see no reason why Transwestern should not publicly disclose the agreements. . . . " This is the first time I've heard of any rule that if your project is fully subscribed you therefore lose your right to confidential treatment of sensitive pricing info. At minimum, we could argue that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious because FERC didn't even mention its normal regulations and procedures governing filing of discount reports. It just cited the certificate regulation that requires an applicant to "file" its rate information with the Commission (which we did) and ignores the regulation (Sec. 284.7(c)(6)) that doesn't require a pipeline to publicly disclose its discounts until 15 days after the close of the billing period to which the discount pertained. The commercial people need to decide if we care about this issue--i.e., how upset will the customers

What is the subject?

OUT: Gallup Order: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Ken, Attached is a revised draft of the Hanover Agreement based on all our discussions to date. Please review. I would prefer one more internal review prior to forwarding to Hanover. Please note where information is still needed concerning the specific units for the schedule forms. Sorry for the delay.
Answer:
Hanover Compression Agreement