IN: Mr. Griffith, Hello my name is Garth Camp and I am a close friend of Jeb Ligums. I wanted to first thank you for the contact at Carr Futures, Mr. Heffner, I really appreciate it. At this point have have emailed Mr. Heffner a few times. I know that he must be busy, however, I would like to know if he received my emails, resume and cover letter. I know you have been kind enough for the connection, I was wondering if you could help me find out if Mr. Heffner did receive them. I wanted to thank you again for your time and your help. If

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Mr. Heffner
IN: This is an email
Listening in by phone is so much better than traveling to these meetings. It greatly reduces one's exposure to the toxins of this process. 1. A learned expert on Secured Transactions from Mike's firm gave an opening address on the principles of granting and receiving the grantation of security interests. Almost completely irrelevant. The guy up and suggested that for a given transaction, the parties might consider giving a security interest in an office building, ie.real estate, as collateral. 2. A cannabalized EEI Credit Support Annex was tabled by Deedee Russo of Reliant and muddled through. The format was typically: Mike: "Okay guys, why don't you explain to me what you want." Member: "We think we need this...blah blah blah, " Mike: "Okay, we'll put that into our next draft and have a conference call in December and a meeting in January and remember, none of this is binding, its all optional." 3. At the very end, a lawyer from PacifiCorp managed to raise the vital issue and Mike got his hackles up very quickly. The PacifiCorp guy was basically saying that the WSPP was becoming more and more like the EEI and that this made it more and more difficult for parties to decide which agreement to use. His implication was that the WSPP should try to remain different or throw in the towel and be just like the EEI. Small reacted from a position of religion, dogmatically and loudly asserting that the two agreements were fundamentally different. Here is where he left himself open to the shining light of rational analysis: if someone, had the time, and we thought it mattered enough, the approach to take would be this: Dispassionate Spokesperson: A question has been raised: is the WSPP agreement becoming more or less like the EEI? To fairly answer this question one needs to look at all the changes that have been made by the WSPP in the last three years, comparing each change to the EEI agreement. (prepare comparison document). If we look at the evidence do we see convergence or divergence? The answer will be overwhelmingly convergence. If this objective study could be placed before the "Membership" it would speak for itself. Nobody would have to utter a word. The comparison document would do the job. If we are going to bother playing with these guys, this is what we should do. It would take some time, but if we circulated it to the membership and then merely raised the question of future direction, we might deal this tedious process a mortal blow. Believe it or not, the solution to this process is to follow the same process that went on when the King James Bible was put together in 1611. Various scholars took various views on how various Hebrew passages should be translated, and it took a committee of draftsmen, appointed and sent to Geneva by King James to pound out the form that has stood the test of time for centuries. The Joint Drafting Committee's time on the historical stage is finally arriving. I am going to talk to this Pacificorp fellow and Brenda Anderson at BPA and see what happens. ----cgy

What is the subject?

OUT: Summary of WSPP meeting
QUESTION: I am putting a Master Gas Agreement in place w/ Connective. Russell Diamond has asked me to contact you re their guaranty. I need for their guaranty to us to also cover physical gas trades. Please advise. Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Connective Energy Supply, Inc.
Bob, On the Texas desk, the majority of our deals are nominated manually (on Excel or preprinted forms), with most of the information pulled from Sitara instead of Unify. So, these noms were not late. For a couple of 3rd party pipelines, we do use Unify. But we did not have nom changes for 5/4. Our only problem was sending noms to HPL. Which is sending information to yourself, but it still delays the confrimation process for the pipeline. This nom was sent about 30 minutes late. Let me know if you have any questions. Daren
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Unify
This is really weird. I do not know why I can't find your email with your comments (I really think I saw them), unless it blew itself up (or operator error on my part). I will look for a hard copy. Kay
Answer: Fuel Cell
Q: In September, ENA agreed to purchase capacity from New Power on Transco. The total demand charge should have been $9,000.00 on contract 4.0159. New Power released the capacity volumetrically and I didn't catch it. The actual demand charge billed was $270,000.00. New Power agreed to reimburse ENA for the difference of $261,000.00. ENA will pay the pipeline the billed demand charge of $270,000.00 and bill New Power $261,000.00 on deal 1110019.
Propose a subject line
A:
Trco/New Power capacity for Sept 2001