IN: This is an email
Dale, since Okaloosa turned back all of their FTS-1 capacity for April and October effective at the in-service date of Phase IV their NNTS of 500/day for these two months must also be taken to zero. Please take the NNT volume of 500/day off Okaloosa's K#5986. Please send them an amendment to reflect the change. Thanks.

What is the subject?

OUT: Okaloosa's NNTS for April and October
QUESTION: Steve, Make sure that we circulate a DASH on the disposition of the QWEST note which we discussed on Friday. I want to reinforce the concept of RAC signoff of asset sales, including the sale of financial assets such as notes and receivables. When can we close the sale? Thanks.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Qwest Note
Jeff, this Agreement should replace the GISB and any other gas agreement between the parties. The collateral language is incorporated into the document. Also, with respect to the Collateral Agreement for Duke Energy Merchants LLC ("DEM"), Duke would like to propose assigning all of the Enron transactions with DEM into one Enron entity and then using the form of collateral agreement submitted to ENA (with some tweaking to allow for a Guaranty from Duke Capital Corporation) to cover the transactions between the Enron counterparty and DEM. Duke can present a list of companies which it has outstanding transactions with if Enron would like. Please let me know if you have any questions in this regard. Thanks - Joe (See attached file: DETM Master 10-29-01.doc) - DETM Master 10-29-01.doc
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Master Gas Agreement
Management Committee Offsite Wednesday, October 24 11:30a - 5:00p Four Seasons Hotel, Whitney Room Lunch will be provided An agenda will be distributed prior to the meeting. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks,
Answer: Confirmation of Management Committee Offsite - Wednesday, October 24, 11:30a - 5:00p
Here is an email: Dear JEFFREY DASOVICH, Thank you for your online order #E0059401! Please refer to the detailed description of the item(s)you purchased for specific shipping details: IN-STOCK ITEMS: If the item(s) you selected is in-stock and ships directly from our warehouse, it will ship within 2 business days. Upon shipment, we will send you an email that will include shipping and tracking information. CUSTOM AND/OR MANUFACTURER DIRECT ITEMS: If the item(s) you selected is custom and/or ships directly from the manufacturer, please refer to the detailed item description or approximate ship times. Note - we will send you an email confirmation when your custom item is ready to ship and/or the manufacturer notifies us that they have shipped this item to you. MULTIPLE ITEMS SHIPPING SEPARATELY: If you have ordered multiple items that ship separately, you will receive separate email confirmations for each shipment released. If you have any questions about this order, please contact our Customer Service Department. We recommend that you save this order confirmation and reference it when communicating with us about this order:
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Wine Enthusiast Order Confirmation
QUESTION: Gerald, See the attached schedule for Docket 010441, the Gulf/WFEC dispute. There is no schedule yet for the Gulf rate hearing. We expect that in early October and I will forward it to you. You asked about the effect of intervention in the rate case on the territorial dispute. In addressing this question it is useful to know that the FPSC rate hearing intervention rules are very liberal (Enron can intervene at any time) and that the rate case will not proceed rapidly. For procedural purposes, a prompt intervention decision is not necessary. Also, I think that Gulf has the stronger position in the territorial dispute. Because an Enron intervention in the rate case could confuse the staff and raise questions from WFEC, I think it best from ECS's perspective to await a decision in the territorial dispute before petitioning for intervention. I've reviewed the questions in Harry Kingerski's e-mail that you forwarded. Preliminarily, I note two corrections. First, we expect a decision in the territorial dispute in early December, not November. Second, Harry said that; "Gulf proposed surcharge treatment for the capital costs of Smith earlier this year, but eventually withdrew the application because the PPA it was trying to get in place, whereby Southern would take ownership of the plant and sell energy and capacity back to Gulf, drew a lot of flack". I don't know if it matters, but Susan Clark was told that Gulf withdrew the application because the discovery order in the docket would have required the release of Southern Company strategic planning material that Southern considered very confidential. Withdrawal was preferable to disclosure. (I recognize that this may be only Gulf's "spin" on the withdrawal and they may have withdrawn for exactly the reason Harry suggests.) The strategic questions posed in Harry's e-mail are complex and involve more than one Enron entity. His questions defy a prompt response, at least from us. We suggest that it would be useful to convene a meeting in Houston, including us and a representative from each wholly-owned and potentially affected Enron entity. That would facilitate the development and handicapping of a regulatory stance that is best for Enron. Susan's experience as a Florida Commissioner for nine years (and General Counsel for years before that) is useful in understanding the factors that inform staff's recommendations as well as a Commissioner's decisions in this context. (I've attached Susan's information.) Let me know what you would like us to do. Bill - The information in this and related pages was automatically generated from the Case Management System.doc - SFC BIO.doc
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Schedule For Territorial Dispute