IN: This is an email
Jeff: I've spoken with Keith and Dan and have put in calls to Evie and Bill. We're all trying to figure out what to do and how to approach the CPUC. In Enron's letter to President Lynch and the utilities, Enron's states that "we plan to submit within the next week DASRs to the utilities to effect the return of a portion of our customer base to bundled utility service and to transition some of our other customers to alternative ESPs at the request of such customers". Since the letter was dated this Monday, Dec. 3, that means Enron - as of Monday - was going to start de-DASRs or switches to new ESPs by next Monday, Dec. 10, or even earlier. Is Enron still on this accelerated time schedule for switching to new ESPs or de-DASRs? I read this to mean Enron will literally exist the direct access market for all its customers no later than Monday, Dec. 3. Was something else intended? Has this schedule slowed down at all? I think that if the CPUC believes Enron is really leaving by Monday, it is just going to do nothing. What should I tell the CPUC re Enron's schedule? Thanks,

What is the subject?

OUT: CPUC
QUESTION: As discussed in our 3-Rivers/King Ranch meeting, I have set up purchases from the liquids group and the other 3rd parties at HGPL mtr 0012. Due to bridgebacks, I had to create new deal numbers for the days prior to 2/16/99. (I went back to Dec 1999, in case it is needed.) Please see the deal #s below. Teco 113858 &169759 HPLR Liquids 114099 & 169765 (existing deal to cover excess residue) Swift 93779 & 169761 ERAC 138094 & 169760 Tejones 133173 & 169762 Mandy - I understand that you will be setting up the buy and sale with HPLR Liquids to cover the transport on HGPL. Let me know if you have any questions. D
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: King Ranch
Rick 1 Limits. Here's how I interpreted the BOD approvals: The BOD approved an aggregate of $150MM, with $50MM of discretionary VaR, plus the new policy which doesn't recognise the concept of discretionary VaR. So here's what I did: Effectively I allocated all the $50MM of discretionary such that Pug's "Big Buckets" are now as follows: US Gas $100MM US Elec $100MM Europe Gas & Elec $35MM Global Products $20MM Financials $15MM Emerging Businesses $20MM If you have a calculator handy you'll see that this aggregates to $149.164MM (assuming zero correlation). At Business Unit level the individual commodity limits are unchanged, and I have put limits over the Business Units themselves as follows: Enron Americas $82MM EWS OOC (aka George Martingale) $3MM EEL $34MM EGM $23MM EIM $8MM EBS $4MM PGE $4MM ETS $1MM Again I used root-sum-of-squares, and remember the original commodity limits (by VaR, net open and mat gap) are still in place (e.g. gas = $61MM as before). So that keeps it screwed down pretty tight and preserves the discretion between the "Big Buckets" and the Business Units. I spoke to Rebecca C who could only remember the decision outlined above, but offered to call Pug and let him know. I said I would come back on that. I think we should do that ourselves, possibly with Lay in the loop (?). Cleared it with Whalley today (he laughed), mentioned the dwindling membership of the Risk Management Committee and said "In my current role I think I should be asking for limits, not approving them" ...and then... 2 The gas desk lost $98MM yesterday A combination of a very bullish AGA number (3 Bcf injection - not a typo - three Bcf !) plus some hurricane activity in the gulf sent prices up by between 25 and 30c all across the strip. The long and the short of it was we are long Nov - Jan but short (big-time) out beyond that - the rest is arithmetic. So we have two flavors of P&L notification, one at the business unit level (Americas) $89MM loss against VaR limit of $82MM; the other as a commodity, losing $126MM (the desk aren't the only ones with a gas position, as usual) against the Big Bucket number of $100MM. Total trading was a loss of $106MM against a VaR limit of $150MM so no calls to Pug required (thank goodness). That's it for now, hope you're having fun and remember: pan-fry the big ones and throw back the little ones. DP
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Policy and other items
QUESTION: Michelle In order to make this interconnect bi-directional the following work need to be performed: ( capacity 35- 60 mmcf/d at 800-850 # pressure) 1): Blowdown gas in 5.335 miles of 12" ( gas-loss) at 1000# pressure 2): Remove a flapper in the check-valve or turn around the existing check-valve The cost for this is approximately $8,000 to $10,000. Still waiting for Earl Chanley from Roswell to send me some facility information regarding the Pecos interconnect. Mansoor
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
TW/ Lonestar Ward County intercoonect-----Level-A cost