Last week, the WSPP drafing group met in sunny California to continue the slow and steady march towards a standardized, "national" agreement. Schedule C , the service schedule for firm transactions, was the primary topic and the following is a summary of where the group is headed. After much discussion, we proposed that the group consider the definition of firm energy that Tim, Christian and others have been considering. The following is proposed language (the base was EPMI's version) that the WSPP group is currently reviewing: Firm Power is power that is sold and scheduled in accordance with applicable reserve requirements for which the only excuse for the failure to deliver or recieve are those set forth in Schedule 3.9 of the WSPP Agreement. Seller shall take steps necessary for the power to be considered Firm Power under this definition. Schedule 3.9 only allows interruption if (i) within agreed recall time, (ii) due to an Uncontrollable Force or (iii) power is need for native load; provided, however it was agreed that a party would neverless be liable for LDs if it interrupts due to native load requirements (this last point is a major accomplishment that apppears to have uniform agreement and will be implemented in the next draft - the group claimed that the "optics" are necessary to help traditional utilities). As a further note, the group agreed to do away with all references to C1 and C2 and have just one Schedule. Changes from EPMI's proposed definition where the result of the following discussions: 1. Generated vs. Sold - "Sold" was elected over "generated" because the group thinks that it is the receiving control area that determines the generator's reserve requirements. 2. "Schedule" was added to bolster the scheduling requirements. 3. "Reserves" instead of "Operating Reserves" was used because the group thought the word operating may be too restrictive. 4. "WSCC reserve requirements" was replaced with "applicable" reserve requirements because the group thinks that the WSPP Agreement is national in scope and should not be limited to WSPP. 5. References to Non-firm supply as being excluded from Firm Power was excluded because the group thought it was redundent - no control area would accept a non-firm supply as being firm. 6. Power rather than energy is being used only bacause that is the decision that has already been made. This defintion will be further discussed at the next meeting on Aug 20th in Denver. Prior to that time, I would like to get your thoughts on how this is shaping up and what additions/deletions are appropriate. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: WSPP - Definition of Firm Energy
Greg: A rumor is going around that Andy Fastow's employment contract had language that would allow him to be paid $9,000,000 or some amount if a change of control of the corporation occurred. Several questions come to mind related to this issue that I would appreciate your response: 1) Please confirm the existence of such a clause or similar clause in Mr. Fastow's contract that would allow him a claim of additional money from an Enron entity. 2) If such a clause does exist what is Enron's intent as far as payment or litigation? 3) What other Enron employee's have such clauses that would allow them to benefit from the merger? Your clarification of the above questions would be appreciated! Thanks, Jim
Answer: Fastow Rumor
Here is an email: One of my GARP connections at El Paso has put forth a white paper for discussion. He is hoping it will be adopted across the industry. He will be presenting it June 5th, at the next GARP meeting in Houston, to be hosted by El Paso at El Paso. He is collecting feedback before the upcoming meeting. Please review, and comment to either myself of Lloyd at the address below. Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: A Two States Model For Power
Q: Steven : I have finally had a chance to go over the outstanding credit issues with Rod Nelson, our credit person, and here are his responses: 1. We cannot agree to the additional language in the cross-default provision. We need a trigger that is not subject to interpretation and second-guessing and the language that you proposed does just that. 2. On credit event upon merger, we would prefer to define the standard for "materially weaker" as below investment grade. Is that a problem for you? 3. With respect to payment netting, we would prefer that netting apply to Transactions that are of the same product line (i.e. all commodity swaps). Is that a problem for you? We thought that your operational issue had to do more with netting across product lines. 4. In the Credit Support Annex, we would prefer that the number of days to resolve disputes over exposure and/or value be 2 business days instead of 1. I am in the process of reviewing the new drafts of ISDA and CSA Schedules and will get back to you shortly on remaining comments. Carol
Propose a subject line
A: Credit Comments
IN: Attached is your daily market research report. Please contact me if you would like to hear about a certain company, or sector, and I will get right on it! As you may or may not know, we have access now to research from Goldman Sachs, CS First Boston, as well as First Union Equity Marketing Group. T hank You, Hank Emery

Generate a subject line.

OUT: Research Report for Wednesday, August 29, 2001
IN: This is an email
I found a mistake in the first Excel spreadsheet when discussing with Kim Kouri. Cost Estimate Summary sheet (2nd tab) did not add all of the rows down for the San Juan portion. The attached was corrected. It made a difference of $5,000,000 total project cost. Ron M.

What is the subject?

OUT:
Sun Devil Project - Level B Request "REVISED"