Here is an email: I just sold David Scott 170 dth of TCO pool at $11.06 for the 22nd (deal 542442). New Power will schedule this gas out of our pool. Bottom line , this is Mikey gas which is different from Jeffy gas.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Sale to New Power for the 21st
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
IN: Hey Gerald, Just wanted to let you know I have followed up with the past due amount of around $12,000. I contacted both a/p departments; the invoice is currently still outstanding. Angie from Katz Kutter is faxing me the detail. I will bring it to your attention when I receive it in order to issue payment. Thanks!

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Katz Kutter Past Due Amount
IN: This is an email
Attached are the Enron Global Markets EOL Crude 24/7 Trading violation memos for Net Open Position, Maturity Gap Risk and VAR for August 16, 2001. The Office of the Chairman for Enron Global Markets is responsible for printing out hard copies of these memos, signing and returning the hard copies to Chris Abel at 3560f, who will forward them to RAC to obtain their signature. Thank You

What is the subject?

OUT: 8/16 Business Unit EOL Crude Violations
QUESTION: Great Lakes representative, Martin Wilde, is stopping by tomorrow @ 3:00. I have set up this time to discuss with him his operations and present to him any questions we have. Please let me know if you can attend. Thanks
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Great Lakes representative
IN: OK, I apologize, I've been trying to lock myself to the computer and crunch some #'s, but can't seem to get control of my schedule. Wanted to lay out the core/noncore model that's been pitched (and that CMA showed keen interest in this morning) to see if we're all on the same page; but perhaps this is the analysis that you're already working on: Split takes place either 1.1.03 or 6.1.03. Core and noncore are responsible for the "DWR past purchases" (spread over 15 years). Core will keep IOU gen, QFs and DWR contracts (which would eliminate the short for the core) Noncore, in return for giving up the lucrative IOU gen, effectively accepts the short position (i.e., goes to market) AND does not get sacked with DWR's going forward costs (with "forward costs" defined as all power costs attributable to the "post-core/noncore" transition date. Let me know if this tracks with where we're headed. Thanks. Best,

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
Concept for core/noncore Analysis