IN: This is an email
The following reports have been waiting for your approval for more than 4 days. Please review. Owner: Christopher J Gaskill Report Name: Gaskill111301 Days In Mgr. Queue: 5

What is the subject?

OUT: Expense Reports Awaiting Your Approval
QUESTION: If you have not already responded and would like to attend this CLE program, please RSVP by e-mail by today, Wednesday, August 15. Thank you. Jamie Serota and Allan Van Fleet with Vinson & Elkins have developed a one hour CLE program covering the antitrust issues encountered when non-regulated entities such as Enron compete with regulated utilities for market share. An outline of the program is attached. Jamie Serota and Allan Van Fleet will present the CLE program on Wednesday, August 22, 2001 at the Doubletree Hotel, 400 Dallas (La Salle B room) from Noon to 1:30 p.m. The program will be accredited for 1.00 hour of CLE credit including at least .25 hours of ethics credit. If you would like to attend please RSVP by Wednesday, August 15, 2001 by sending an e-mail to my assistant, Janette Elbertson. Lunch will be served.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: FINAL REMINDER - CLE - ANTITRUST ISSUES
Gavin, Thanks for taking time to explain how county ad valorem taxes in Texas work to both me and Becky. As I understand it, there are two types of county ad valorem taxes that might be relevant in this lawsuit: a tax on reserves in the ground pre-production, which is typically paid by the producer, and a tax on gas that has been produced and then stored in some sort of storage facility in that county (although I didn't ask, I again assume that the owner of the gas in the storage facility or the owner of the gas storage facility pays that tax). If I recall correctly, you advised me that none of the three Enron defendants named (Enron Corp., Enron Gas Marketing, Inc. and Intratex) had paid either of these two types of ad valorem taxes back as far as your records show. I am hoping that you can say that based on your records, none of these entities owned any reserves in Zapata County or stored in gas in Zapata County or owned any storage facilities in Zapata County (whatever the relevant question is) for as far back as your records go (I recall you mentioning that none of these entities stored gas in Zapata County, but I can't remember if I asked you if I also asked you to confirm that none of these entities owned any gas reserves in Zapata and I don't know how far back your records go). (Of course, if I have gotten any of this wrong or mischaracterized what you've said, please let me know). If I haven't worn out my welcome, would you be the right person to be able to sign an affidavit supporting the foregoing? I am anticipating that we will need to file an affidavit confirming these facts in the near future to support a motion to dismiss. I look forward to hearing from you. Britt
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: RSM Production v. El Paso
Jeff and Sue: The Governor proposed the following energy-related budget cuts today: Biomass Grant Program - Revert $5.5 million of the $11.5 million budget back to the General Fund. The program provides grants to operators of biomass plants to offset loses. Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Fund - Revert $29.9 million back to the General Fund. The program would have required the Trade and Commerce Agency to guarantee loans made by financial institutions to eligible businesses for the permitting, manufacturing, acquisition, construction, or installation of renewable energy systems that are intended to decrease demand on the grid. Powerwalk Program - Revert $3.2 million of the $20 million budget back to the General Fund. The program requires the Conservation Corps to distribute energy efficiency information and light bulbs in low income communities. Agricultural Peak Demand - Revert $29.4 million of the $86.3 million budget back to the General Fund. The program requires the state to provide grants to the agriculture industry to install energy efficient hardware. Expedited Siting Applications - Revert $3 million back to the General Fund. The program would have aided local governments by enabling them to hire additional consultants to review siting applications. Power Plant Construction Bonuses - Revert $14 million of the $20 million budget back to the General Fund. The program provided bonuses to power plant owners who got their plants on-line within a specified time period. Renewable Energy Program - Revert $24.9 million of the $25 million budget back to the General Fund. The program would have required the state to establish a renewable energy program to provide financial assistance to public power entities, independent generators, utilities, or businesses manufacturing renewable energy generation components or systems, or both, to generate new and renewable energy sources. Oil and Natural Gas Pumping - Revert $9.6 million back to the General Fund. The program would have provided for energy efficiency audits of various oil and natural gas facilities.
Answer: Budget Cuts
Here is an email: Our upstream is Dynegy deal # 570332.1 Mid C HLH Our Downstream is WWP deal # 339963.1 The path: West Kootenai (G)-BCH(T)JUANITA/BCUS O#M335781A-WKPL-DYPMI-SNPD(T)BPA(T)BCUS/AVA O#96062 HNF-DYPMI-EPMI-WWP MONTH LONG TAG 26019 HE 0700-0800 we are warned by SNPD that the transmission MAY BE curtailed to Zero. When I spoke with Susan at WWP she finds this very suspicious, as it was described to her as a "West of Hatwai" problem she is suspicious of this and is investigating. Please get with DYPMI and get their re-supplied transmission before this schedule flows in the morning. Cara
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Schedule cut on a "west of Hatwai" problem for 7/06/01
QUESTION: Dear Mark; Because of the excitement of the wedding we almost forgot to wish you a Happy Birthday. We also send you and Sukran All of our Love. Dad and Mother
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Happy Birthday