We know you have questions about recent events impacting Enron and our plans for the future. Ongoing investigations and pending litigation have made it difficult, if not impossible, to share information in a timely manner. While we can't address certain issues, we can tell you about our initial plans to move Enron forward and emerge from bankruptcy, and we are eager to do that. We had planned to hold an all-employee meeting tomorrow, January 23, at the Hyatt Regency. However, we don't want to subject you to the media frenzy that would certainly surround such a meeting, so we've decided to postpone it. We are currently making arrangements to hold a series of employee meetings within the building to protect your privacy. We will provide the date and times to you as soon as the logistics for those meetings are finalized. Prior to the employee meetings, we will provide an overview of Enron's new organizational structure. You can expect that memo shortly.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Employee Meeting Postponed
I regret to inform you that Kay Mann's father passed away this morning. I will get funeral arrangement details to you as soon as I receive them. I will also send flowers on behalf of the company. Please keep Kay's family in your thoughts and prayers today. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Kay Mann's Father
Hi Mark, I know we spoke about some of these things yesterday, but I thought I'd give you some specifics of the things we would look. Many of these topics may be tied into the "Accounting, Administration" portion of the Word document you sent out. Finance - Loan documents* related to the debt financing of the project (especially any covenants or provisions in regard to the transferability of the debt under new ownership) *If the debt is not specifically tied to this project, then it would be valuable to know what percentage of corporate debt they have allocated to the project. - Book Value of the Assets - CapEx budget going forward (I saw that you already mentioned the need for historical CapEx numbers.) - Depreciation Schedule of Assets These are the issues that would be most important to us given all the other subjects that you have already address in your list. Thanks,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Additions to Data Request
Meeting covered Market Power and Market Monitoring issues. First presenter was David Patton, from Potomac Economics. This firm has been jointly hired to provide technical support to SPP, MISO and Alliance. Many initial questions on what is market power, how can you define a well functioning market, etc. David envisions a market monitoring organization. If a problem emerges, it has to work with the RTO. IMM should not recommend power mitigation measures, but it should report any problems to FERC. It (has to go via FERC). General feeling is that Market Monitoring should be much more than market power, but to make sure that the market as a whole is functioning. It seems to me that the proposal is aligned with what Christi has advocated as part of the Southeast Mitigation. Multiple questions on how power market should be handled for must run, out of merit (constrained on and contrained off plants) and inflexible plants (e.g. hydro or take or pay gas contracts). Proposals to establish price caps were not accepted. Instead a proposal to deal with one or more generators with potential mkt power: they should have caps on bid prices. David proposed some market rules to deal with specific circumstances. It was generally accepted that demand side response should be used to mitigate market power. Other questions on how demand side bidding shold be operationalized (Mike: are there rules for DSB as part of the MISO Market Rules compendium?) Second Presenter - from WPPI. He raised serious concerns about potential market power in the region (Michigan Peninsula). Should utilities have approval to sell at market based rates? How should ATC be calculate to take into account counterflows? Issue is more pertinent until RTO enter into day 2 phase. Presenter's proposal, which faced a lot of resistance, was to assume that all Gs have market power, unless they prove otherwise (except must run agreements for reliability purposes). Roberto disagreed: this goes beyond MISO's authority. RTO has to work with IMM if market power is suspected. Dynegy requested David to further explore the situation of must run plants. David asked whether or not we had filed our position on MM for MISO. Mike: you may want to send him a copy, just as a courtesy. LM
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer:
MISO Meeting last week