QUESTION: This message contains the text of Sidney Weintraub's Issues in International Political Economy for the month of October. This month, Dr. Weintraub focuses on the argument that the treatment for the cause of the terrorist attacks lies in reducing poverty. To go directly to the web version, click on:
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: CSIS Column on Treating the Causes of the Terrorist Attack
Dear Mr. Lay, I am one of many long time employees who has lost my life's savings and my kid's college fund. Today I am receiving my 15 Years of Service Award and having my Anniversary luncheon. Would you like to attend? My Department would appreciate a candid picture of how this could have happened to such a great company. I have gone through tough times and many good times with Northern Natural Gas, InterNorth and Enron. I was always so proud to be a part of this company. Should I have seen this coming? I was just another sheep following and believing everything our leaders, Skilling, said regarding the probability of Enron's stock splitting. I didn't play the market but looked at my 401K stock purchases as long term retirement and continued to put money into the 401K even when we (my family) were struggling to do so. I too grew up on a farm in Missouri. I was raised under the same Midwest rooted values and the strict convictions of my father that you did not take charity or borrow money. He also preached that to sue was not the way to correct a wrong. I was always a little prideful that you too were a Midwesterner, with those rooted values of high integrity, compassion, and honesty. Life goes on. I hope to continue my employment though all of this and will continue to be a great employee, only now for Dynegy. This is also a concern since I am in my late 40's. My job, my kid's education, and my retirement weigh heavily along with the atmosphere we are all currently living in. This reality is a struggle with many unanswered questions and devastating concerns for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. Respectfully yours,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Anniversary Luncheon
According to Kimat this is flash to actual stuff now. I made these adjustments today for Nov 30th. Joann, Alvin, the deals listed below are bookouts.
Answer: P&L
Here is an email: Kim: If you're still there, I'm checking on prices for United Cogen's 38 month strip at the PG&E citygate, running from June'03 through August '06. Hope things are getting better there. Thanks a lot.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: 38 month Gas Supply at PG&E Citygate
Q: Drew, here's an excerpt from a FERC letter order accepting for filing a nonconforming agreement filed by Dynegy Midstream...sounds a little bit like what the TW guys are trying to do, if I understand the concept of volumetric rates correctly. Left a message for my friend at DMP but he (like everyone else) is out 'til next year. But since there were no subsequent orders issued in the docket I assume there were no problems with the filing. I'm still leaning towards recommending the $0 demand/ $0.02 commodity + file as nego. rate approach. If Steve Harris is OK with the idea of doing a deal that requires filing, I will draft something and send it your way. * * * The referenced negotiated transaction provides for a transportation service under DMP's Rate Schedule FTS. Rather than paying a reservation charge, the negotiated agreement specifies that KGS will pay a volumetric rate. The volumetric rate will equal DMP's maximum interruptible transportation service rate as set forth in DMP's tariff. . .The contract also (a) specifies five Dth/d as KGS' maximum daily reservation quantity, (b) lists KGS' primary receipt as Meter # 9999999 and (c) identifies five primary delivery points for KGS. . . Upon filing Docket No. RP99-240-000, DMP stated that it agreed to the above negotiated rate so that KGS could serve small residential customers on DMP's system under a firm rate schedule.
Propose a subject line
A: TW/Red Cedar deal
Here is an email: Almost two years after issuing a decision in PG&E's GRC, the Commission issued it rehearing order on October 16th and, lo and behold, actually granted TURN's rehearing request in part. The overall result is to reduce the capital revenue requirement by $24.8 million and expenses by $37.3 million. In addition, some portion of PG&E' estimated $171 million in electric distribution capital spending will be subject to rehearing. Listed below are the areas in which the Commission granted rehearing. 1. Electric Distribution Capital Spending. The Commission will, in essence, reopen the record, and allow PG&E to put into evidence how much it invested in its electric distribution plant in 1998. PG&E had used a 1998 forecasted amt of capital expenditures to develop its test year forecast. TURN argued that there was substantial evidence on the record that this amount was never spent. PG&E argued that the record closed prior to the end of 1998 so the best it could do was an estimate. On rehearing, the Commission agreed with TURN, that there was evidence that the forecasted amount was never spent, so they are allowing PG&E to prove it. The rehearing order states that any rates that are raised based on the electric distribution capital forecast adopted the GRC decision may be subject to refund. 2. Emergency Response Work This work category under electric distribution capital spending was reduced by $17.2 million. 3. Vegetation Management. The Supplemental Tree Trimming Program was reduced by $9.2 million. 4. Meter Reading. PG&E had primarily used accounting changes to justify the large increase in this service. On rehearing the Commission stated that PG&E had failed to substantiate those changes and reduced the allowed amount by $7.9 million. 5. Account Services. On rehearing the commission stated that PG&E had failed to show (a) why it cost so much more to provide services to CIA customers than residential customers ( $43.30 vs. $10.20); and (b) that money was not going for marketing activities that the Commission had disallowed in the previous GRC. The result was that the commission disallowed $20 million. 6. Customer Information Systems. The Commission disallowed $7.2 million as funds which ratepayers had already expended for CIS rewrites for which they had not received any benefits.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
Rehearing on PG&E's GRC