IN: Here is an update on Oakhill power sourcing: Wholesale Generation + Ancillaries ? Electric cooperatives and municipalities are exempt from retail deregulation. We can not directly contract with AEP or whoever the wholesale generation provider would be because it constitutes a retail sale in a non-deregulated area. The prevailing utility in the area must be the buyer of the power. ? Generation + ancillaries will be provided by the chosen entity, through NTEC, and then through Rusk. The wholesale generation + ancillaries contract will be a three party agreement between AEP (or whoever is chosen), NTEC, and Rusk. ? Swing - There are consumption penalties for using more or less than the contracted 5.0 MW 7x24 block (meaning there is no free swing). These penalties are part of the ancillary services, which means that we will not have the exact specifications until Rusk receives the bids on their RFP on 6/27/01. T&D ? T&D is provided directly by Rusk County Electric Co-Op. ? NTEC is charging us $0.20 / MW as an administrative fee (mark up), which is why the fixed T&D cost from Rusk County is $10.20/MW and not $10.00/MW. ? There will be a minimum T&D charge from Rusk, above which we pay for only what we use: o For example: We pay the minimum charge or actual usage, whichever is higher. Ricki is constructing the T&D only contract (which he claims will be similar in structure to the previous contract), with the inclusion of T&D pricing and swing. I also reminded him that he needs to provide the audited financial statements to us. Attached is a deal diagram with the most current information that we have. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards,

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Oakhill Power Update
IN: This is an email
We will send an e-mail immediately after the hearing this afternoon to let each of you know what occurred. After you receive the e-mail, please feel free to call us if you have any questions. We believe this will be the most efficient way to get the information to you as quickly as possible.

What is the subject?

OUT: Today's hearing
QUESTION: I am still waiting for my Brazilian visa (another single entry, unfortunately). It should arrive next week. I was hoping to spend the week of Sept. 5-11 in Sao Paolo but that is impossible to plan without the visa. Maybe the latter part of that week or the next week will work. If I arrive on a Sat. or Sun., what do you think about the two of us meeting over the weekend to work out a plan? I can then devote all of my time to dealing with Tozzini on the physical and financial issues and working with originators to explain financial trading procedures. I will need to determine if Jose Emilio (on the physical issues) and Antonio Felix and Renato (on the financial issues) will be available to meet during my trip. I have sent them e-mails to at least pose the question. I know that you are very busy. Please let me know what you think about my proposal. Also, I apologize for asking you to give up any of your weekend time. Maybe you have another suggestion that will work better for you. I look forward to hearing from you. Sara
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: trip to Sao Paulo
Everyone, J.C. asked me to send the following message: Yesterday, the Houston federal court (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas) entered an Order consolidating all cases "involving or related to the financial difficulties of Enron" before one Judge, Lee Rosenthal (who was the Judge to whom the earliest-filed case had been assigned and who conducted the hearing last Friday). The consolidation order grants a motion that we and other defense counsel had made. It means that all cases in the Houston federal court should proceed in a more orderly, coordinated fashion. A technical detail - the Order provides for three separate consolidated proceedings before Judge Rosenthal: (i) the federal securities cases; (ii) the derivative cases (at least those that have been filed in federal court); and (iii) the employee benefit plan cases. Finally, the Order allows parties ten days to file objections to consolidation. While someone may well file an objection, we cannot think of any meritorious grounds for an objection. As always, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call us. Terri Richardson Assistant to J.C. Nickens This e-mail and any attached files may be confidential and subject to attorney/client privilege. If you received it in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail or by calling (713)654-7600.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Order of Consolidation
Starting date: August 2000 - Feb 2001 (October sheet in Oct#2) Path: P:Scheduling:PreviousMonths_Year:Month:calpx-cisoexpense_month In October 2000 and Nov 2000, another spreadsheet was developed to keep track of margin and total revenue. This is located in P:Scheduling:previousmonth_2000:month:Margin-Cisocalpx. Thank You, Thank You very much!! !
Answer: ciso/calpx spreadsheet
Q: In an effort to promote consistency of approach, the attached Adoption agreement contains a few modifications and drafting notes that should make your due diligence review task easier at least as regards affilitat matters. I have reviewed the conceptual changes in this form with Travis and Marcus and are in agreement with the changes. If you have been fortunate enough to complete any Adoption Agreements at this time, I am not asking you to go back and make revisions; however, any new documents should be drafted taking into account the information and changes contained in the attached. Please call if you have any questions.
Propose a subject line
A:
Adoption Agreement Applicable to Power Masters