QUESTION: Clint/Jeff: ENA has an ISDA master agreement with an affiliate of CSFB (but not CSFB). Can you provide me with the name of a CSFB lawyer so that I can send over a form of ISDA Master Agreement with Enron Corp.? Thanks. Sara
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Credit Suisse First Boston ("CSFB")
You had asked for more information regarding Canadian renewal rights. I found language in tariff in Transcanada's website (www.transcanada..com) under the following: NOVA FTS-R, Sec 12, FTS-D, Sec 10 BC system, Sec 4.9 Bottom line: 12 month notice prior to end of term. Once notice given, irrevocable! Must extend for at least one year. Please call if you have questions. Please call if you have any question. Steph
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Canadian Tariffs
COPY ANY DVD MOVIE ON CD-R!!! With our revolutionary system you can copy virtually any DVD Movie using your existing equipment! Conventional DVD copying equipment can cost thousands of $$$ The revolutionary system is less than the price of 2 DVD Movies! ORDER within the next 48 hours and we will include a secret source for thousands of new DVD movies online and available for free!CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO If you wish to be removed simply Click Here
Answer: The Perfect Gift For DVD Movie Users! PU
Here is an email: Kim - Attached is a workbook with tabs reflecting the August 2001 Palo Alto calculation, Enron calculation and the manual invoice we sent to Palo Alto. I will fax you the Enron Unify invoice and supply verification. We met with Anne Bike to go over the deals and the Palo Alto calculation prior to forwarding the manual invoice. We are now in the process of trying to get the deal correct in Sitara and Unity. Please review and let me know when you are ready to discuss and how you want to go forward.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Palo Alto Invoice
Q: As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, on October 17 Dynegy filed a complaint against ComEd. This proceeding may be of particular interest to Enron given EES's plans to offer physical delivery in Illinois in early 2002. I've outlined Dynegy's principal arguments below. Dynegy requested fast-track processing, so any intervention and comments we file are due Friday, Oct. 26. In order to file a timely intervention (and meaningful comments, if we decide to comment), I need to know your thoughts on this as soon as possible. Elizabeth and Harlan, I'm copying you because I would especially like to know what you think of Dynegy's characterization of the Firm LD product. Main argument: Dynegy challenges ComEd's published Business Practice that allows "marketer firm" (Firm LD) contracts to be designated as Network Resources. Dynegy argues that this practice conflicts with the OATT provisions that 1) Network Resources are generation "owned, purchased or leased by the Network Customer designated to serve Network Load," and 2) a Network Customer "must demonstrate that it owns or has committed to purchase generation pursuant to an executed contract" in order to designate a Network Resource. Dynegy's theory on why Firm LD should not be a Network Resource: - permits designation of network resources that are committed for sale to others, creating reliability problems - Firm LD under the EEI contract is not capacity-backed, nor is it a commitment to purchase generation - allows transmission customers to get the advantage of generation capacity without actually paying the cost of that capacity - since retail providers are allowed to rely on "over-the-counter" firm instead of securing long-term contracts, adequate reserves are not being carried to serve retail load Dynegy claims that ComEd's practice has deprived DMG of payments for capacity and the ability to earn revenues for capacity properly designated as network resources. It cites specific instances in which ComEd has accepted transmission reservation requests from New Energy and Cilco in which these parties designated Illinois Power as a network resource, when only a Firm LD contracts were in place with IP.
Propose a subject line
A: Dynegy vs. ComEd (EL02-6) -- further info
Here is an email: I have more info on this deal - according to Colleen Sullivan, this is a CES Retail fuel management deal. ENA has the right to use the capacity and does all the nominations on the CALP contract. I still need the counterpart set up. Thanks Victor, for January, I have set this up as and exchange deal (deals 149775 & 149776). We may need to create 2 delivery exchange deals for constrained and unconstrained citygates. Scott, this is the deal we spoke about this morning. For January, we will treat this as an exchange. We need to chat about Feb and March.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
New Counterparty