Here is an email: Please plan to attend a meeting regarding TW's Order 637 filing immediately following Steve's staff meeting on Monday, March 24. We will remain in 39C1 following Steve's meeting to discuss the strategy for resolving TW's Order 637 issues. FERC Chairman Pat Wood has pledged to get all 637 orders issued by this August so we need to consider what we need to do to eliminate those proposals we no longer want and, hopefully, trade them for deferring segmenting until the next rate case. Please invite anyone else who could benifit from or contribute to this meeting.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: TW Order 637 Filing
Q: Dear Mr. Schrum, I attended Sing! last night to watch and support my daughter perform with her Tri Delta friends. I enjoyed the performances of the various groups, which were within the bounds of what I expected. Unfortunately, I am not writing to tell you how much I enjoyed it. I'm writing you to encourage the administration to not take lightly the indecent exposure incident which occured in the second act. The act was beyond offensive, it was criminal, especially in light of the young children present. During the first act, I was sitting on the first row, and there were 4 young children sitting in the front. In fact, at the end of the first act I had regretted that I had not brought Paige's six year old brother to watch her perform. I cannot tell you how glad I am that I did not bring Michael. Even I was offended, and I'm a forty-two year old lawyer (we don't offend easily) who was in a sorority at UT. I was glad I had moved back at intermission to sit with my daughter for the second act. Again, I urge you to not view this as an act of youthful indiscretion. It was offensive to the individuals present, and degrading to a fine university which prides itself on "encouraging contributions toward the well-being of humanity". My husband, Neil, who was a Pike at SU in the seventies, joins me in this request. Thank you,
Propose a subject line
A: Sing!
IN: Attached is a revised LOI for WT1. I took out all the language concerning materials and equipment obligations incurred by ECS. After talking with Knippa, I understand that after the sale of the motor to TW, they will be doing all of the installation. Please review and provide comments.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: WT1 Docs
IN: This is an email
Do you want to be on the distribution to see the daily Excel Spreadsheets when they have Japanese counterparties for approval? For online, what I daily do is send my new counterparty lists to each of the relevant trading legal groups. Each of the legal trading groups has one day to respond or I will consider their products approved for the counterparties on that day's list. I have been giving the approvals for Japanese counterparties. Currently, I am approving them for all products (with the only restriction being on bandwidth, where they can only trade the US segment, which happens to be the only bandwidth products we have opened online so far!). I understand that when we offer Japanese based products the approval process may get more complex. Saying all that, do you want to be on the list for the daily approvals, or do you want me to continue to respond for Japan w/o running it by you?

What is the subject?

OUT: Online Japanese Counterparties
QUESTION: We parked 25,000 dt/day on the 25th-27th (deal 225515) on CNG and we will be taking it out during April (deal 225534). ENA will pay CNG $.02 x 75,000 dt = $1,500.00 in April. Please let me know if you have questions.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: CNG Park & Loan
IN: Just wanted to give you an update on my progress so far - I'm changing these deals in between each of my other daily tasks, and I'm also having a hard time reading some of the deal numbers. I've made it through the first page and a bit of the second. I've changed all but four of the deals to "no confirm." Here are the questions I have on those deals: 1. 552516 - why are we not confirming a City of Riverside deal? Should I ask Jeff? 2. 553037 - looks like it's already "no confirm" 3. 553666/667/668 - are we not confirming any deals where PGE is the counterparty? I thought it was just where PGE System was the delivery point? 4. 553926 - this deal is killed. Do we have to change settings on killed deals as well? Also, if you have a slightly bigger copy of the document you faxed over, or if you could e-mail it to me, that would save me a lot of guessing time. Thanks for your help!

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Deal Changes - No confirm