Here is an email: I would like to invite each of you to participate in a brainstorming session with me on Friday, January 12 from 8:30 am through lunch. The purpose of this meeting will be to surface and capture ideas around the potential commercialization of mid and back office services that we provide. I know that many of you have ideas about services and/or products that could be marketed and some of you have been involved in arrangements where we have or are currently providing services to outside parties. While there are efforts underway with certain modules under CommodityLogic, I want this session to be used to take a broader look at how we might market mid and back office services. I hope that you will be able to attend. Details on location of the meeting and more exact timing will be sent to you on Monday when Patti returns from vacation.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Brainstorming Session - Friday, January 12
Q: Another Tino-gram. DOE disclosed to Team Tino that they pay a $7.06/mo demand charge per KW in addition to the $.053/kwh energy charge. Tino didn't know whether that was per KW of monthly demand, per KW of non-coincident peak usage, or what. The PNM tariff for govt. service is priced at $7.16/KW of "demand above 10,000kw during peak period" (peak period is daytime) so I assume that is how it is calculated. If that is the tariff ("Schedule 4000B") under which DOE really takes service, this is interesting because that is not a very big discount off of the stated rate. It is also interesting that DOE is paying $.053/kwh for energy since the Schedule 4000B energy rate is $.05072/kwh (maybe the difference is surcharges or something). Tino's consultant has figured out that the demand charge equates to an incremental $.011 in addition to the $.053/kwh energy charge, for a total delivered PNM rate to DOE of $.064/kwh. This is not as good as the 7 cent number Tino threw around earlier in the week, but its still not terrible. If the bogey is a 10% reduction to the current rate, our number to beat is $.0576/kwh. Tino promised us copies of DOE's actual energy bills to confirm these numbers. That would be great and solves the due diligence problem you and I talked about yesterday, Kevin. Tino also passed along a rumor he heard from the Isleta's consultant that the Cobisa Belen project is dead. Do we know anything about this??? Interesting. I'm waiting to hear back from Bill Votaw to line up a due diligence call to Tino's government contracts lawyers in DC to confirm whether the "sole source" strategy is legit. Kevin, I'll let you know when this is scheduled in case you want to be on the call. Thanks. DF
Propose a subject line
A: Pueblo
IN: I was promoted effective February 1, 2001 to Managing Director of Global Risk Management Operations for Enron Corp. in Houston. In this role I manage all mid and back office services for all commodities markets within Enron's wholesale businesses: Enron Americas, Enron Global Markets, Enron Industrial Markets and Enron Europe. I received my BBA from UT-Austin in 1975 and my MBA in 1977. My maiden name while attending school was Sally White.

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Professional Update
IN: This is an email
Please check the physical and fin index positions for prompt. The index totals do not match the volumes in the Consindex tab in newcurrentday. Thanks,

What is the subject?

OUT: prompt index
QUESTION: Thank you all for being so responsive. I'm still waiting for claims on: Ameren AIG CLECO Colonial ConAgra Dominion Enterprise Chase Noble Cornerstone Occidental Carolina Power and Light Southern Co. Western Gas Resources Anyone? Please let me know by noon today. Thanks again for your help.
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Counterparties
IN: Hey guys. Let's try this. Take the data from 2000 and change the following. Take Keystone West volumes to 850,000/d rateably, then add the new gen numbers posted below. You will need to add this demand to the EOC S ML demand numbers (Is Salmayuca included in this number?). We should use the 2000 waha west volumes for now. You should end up with reduced ehrenberg volumes for the reduction in Keystone west volumes and the addition of New Gen demand. Run the storage balance at 2000 Socal in this scenario. We will then plug forward with waha west volumes to balance Socal in 2001. Also, add columns to adjust (90%, 60%, 50%, etc) the burns for new gen in SW. We should then look to adjusting socal demand down for the high hydro/increased NW imports to CA scenario that could happen. Use the SP-15 2000 gen numbers and then back out the avg of 1999 and 2000 power imports. I would like to avoid averaging 1999 and 2000 socal gas demand. Use a 10,000 heat rate to reduce gas demand. Have Jay adjust EOC demand for normal weather. We may have to refer to the load sensitivity data from west power to reduce the SW electric loads and then back out of gen numbers using a 10,000 heat rate. We will then be exposed to EPNG and the OPS increasing Keystone west volumes between now and next summer - run the 2001 with this possibility as well. Take Key West to 1.1 bcf. Let me know where my errors in approach may be. This should give us a picture of the Socal deliverability for 2001. Thanks,

Generate a subject line.

OUT:
APR-OCT Analysis