If you are planning to attend the December 6, 2001 Drafting Committee meeting here in Columbus, Ohio and have not already made your hotel reservations please do so as soon as possible in order to get the discount AEP rate. Their discount rate for AEP is $92 per night plus tax. Apparently, they only have so many rooms with the discount rate. The hotel is Courtyard by Marriott - Downtown, 35 W. Spring St., Columbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 228-3200. I will be checking other hotels in the area to find out about discount rates and forward to you the information. Please forward any names of individuals that you know will be attending the meeting who are not listed. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Hotel Reservations
Hunter, My name is Adrian Clark and I am an executive recruiter in the energy industry. One of my industry sources referred you to me and said you were the head of a trading desk there. My firm, First Call Associates, searches for qualified candidates for energy trading and marketing companies across North America and Europe. I am curious to know if you would be interested in discussing new job opportunities we are working on. You can find more information about my firm at www.firstcallassociates.com. We are very familiar with the nuances of the energy trading business and have built relationships with many energy companies enabling us to present qualified employees for their consideration. Be assured that any information we discuss will be completely confidential. My apologies for sending this to your email at work but I have not been successful reaching you during business hours. Adrian Clark Director First Call Associates, Inc. 8 Andrew Dr. Canton, CT 06019 (860)693-4122 (860)693-4118 (fax) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Answer: First Call
Here is an email: Elizabeth, Background: On Wednesday, October 10, the NPUC voted to authorize its General Counsel to seek to void or renegotiate certain SPP/NP long-term power contracts by either going to court or filing a complaint at FERC. According to the utilities, the contracts are out-of-the-money by approximately $800 million. Enclosed, you'll find. . . . : Attached is a spreadsheet showing all of the physical Enron-SPP/NP deals that are (1) currently flowing or (2) scheduled for future delivery. I have left off transactions that have been completed because the tenor of SPP/NP's statements indicates that they are seeking prospective relief, not refunds. I am also going to fax to you two pages showing our credit exposure to SPP and NP. Worst case, back of the envelope, we are looking at approximately $400 million in MTM exposure for all deals. However, the prices under these deals range from $27.50/MWh to $311/MWh (the $3.60 deal is for transmission). It's extremely unlikely that FERC would (1) void every transaction or (2) reduce the price for every deal to $0. Therefore, the true amount at risk is less than $400 million. Bottom line: All in all, I think the risk of FERC undoing these transactions is unlikely for the following reasons: 1. The ALJ in the Pacific Northwest refund case rejected claims for refunds of bilateral transactions because (1) the non-California long-term market was competitive, and (2) because of the concern about "ripple" claims. Although the Commission has not yet adopted the ALJ's recommendation, I expect they will because it's the path of least resistance and has popular support. 2. SPP/NP is the only party arguing that the Southwest market is uncompetitive. This aspect was fatal to the Pacific Northwest claims because the majority of the market did not want refunds. 3. SPP/NP was not required to buy power under these contracts----unlike the California utilities, which were required to buy from the PX. Presumably, these were the lowest prices available at the time.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Sierra Pacific Power/Nevada Power
Q: Below is a link to the Proposed Decision by Com. Bilas on the Gas Industry Restructuring proceeding that has been lingering on the agenda for most of the year. This was just issued late last week and published today. I'm still in the process of reviewing it but the good news is that he is proposing the adoption of the Comprehensive Settlement which Transwestern helped design and supported along with most other participants. The decision does however make some modifications which may not be in our best interest i.e. the adoption of a price cap for secondary market transactions. Due to the lapse in time on this proceeding, Com. Bilas has granted participants the right to file comments by Friday, October 19, 2001. Please review and advise if you agree we should file comments (I also have a call into Mark Baldwin). Note this is 140+ pages--you may wish to review the summary and pertinent sections.
Propose a subject line
A: GIR Proceeding--I99-07-003
IN: Attached is the final version of the Standstill Agreement that Larry Witalis and I have been working on. As has been discussed, the Standstill Period would be until June 20th, the LCs would be extended until June 29th and the draw condition re 20 day expiry would be deleted. Please review the attached and let me know if this would be OK to execute tomorrow and send to PG&E for signature. Bill - please confirm the amounts of the LCs. Thanks

Generate a subject line.

OUT: PG&E Standstill - Final Draft
IN: This is an email
I am sending out a second confirmation due to the additional attendees. Dan Leff and Randy Maffett will be calling in. This is to confirm the monthly Industrials meeting for Thursday June 22, 2000 at 1:00 pm.

What is the subject?

OUT:
Industrials