QUESTION: Davis' deadlines on energy much easier set than met By Emily Bazar Bee Staff Writer (Published Feb. 23, 2001) Exactly one week ago, Gov. Gray Davis sounded hopeful, optimistic even, when he predicted that the state and its debt-ridden utilities would forge an agreement by today on a plan to save the companies from financial doom. Problem is, it won't work out that way. Negotiations between state officials and the investor-owned utilities have produced no comprehensive agreement to announce today. Davis' predictions during the energy crisis have been wrong before. For weeks, he has set deadlines for agreements and legislative action that haven't been met. On deadline days, even when there's little substantive progress to report, Davis often holds news conferences anyway -- many of them
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Davis' deadlines on energy much easier set than met
Attached is a clean and redlined version of the Capacity Assignment and Release doc. for Calpine. The redline has Calpine changes in light purple with Enron's changes is red. Please review. Stephanie, I did not resend the revised confirm which I sent earlier today. There were no changes to that doc. since the revised version I sent this morning.
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Revised Assign and Release Doc.
Here's your chance to be on the news tomorrow morning if that rings you bell! Sorry for the short notice, but we just received this opportunity a few minutes ago. Please respond ASAP only if you are planning to be there. Thank you.
Answer: URGENT - WANT TO BE ON THE NEWS TOMORROW?
Here is an email: Steve, Attached, for your information and reference, is copy of a presentation tha= t=20 was created as an internal briefing document on the business activities=20 within EGM. The purpose of this presentation is to communicate our=20 activities and provide individuals with a more detailed reference document = on=20 these businesses in case they come up in Q&A. This is a confidential and internal document, which includes earnings=20 targets, goals and objectives. We have a shorter more external version tha= t=20 we use to describe our businesses. I can provide that copy if you are=20 interested. Please don=01,t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would l= ike=20 to discuss this in more detail. =20 Thanks,
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: EGM presentaion and update
Q: Gary and Caroline, as of today, we have emailed a list by station (7 and/or 16 day charts) to the measurement group which needs to be read for PPA's to correct the daily volumes fro the following shippers: MidAmerican - 147 stations (It is my understanding you have already 44 of the 147) IES - 87 stations Interstate Power - 6 stations Wisconsin Power and Light - 11 stations In order for Gas Logistics to keep track of the ones that need to be corrected, we would like for Measurement to send us updates on the following information ASAP: 1. Which station numbers have or have not been corrected for October. 2. How many October charts have been received and how many are outstanding 3. Provide status of November chart information. Gas Logistics needs the October corrections in the system by December 19th, which is the time frame for the first prior period run. This is important for us to be able to review the prior period invoices. As you find there are missing charts, if we can be of assistance in calling the field, please let us know. This way, the measurement group can concentrate on reading the charts. We appreciate your assistance and help in tracking these prior periods and helping each of us to keep focused to get these prior period corrections done by the next months billing. If you have any questions, please let Rick or I know. Thanks. Lynn
Propose a subject line
A: October (Forward) Positive Displacement Meter PPA Status
Here is an email: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CPUC Terminates Direct Access PG&E/SoCal Bankruptcy Developments Direct Access Despite the information that a CPUC representative responded favorably to a vote-delay request sent by the state's major business interests, and pressure to delay the vote from Governor Davis, the CPUC effectively terminated direct access in a 3-2 vote. Our estimates regarding the votes of commissioners Brown, Wood, and Lynch did play out, as well as the CPUC's failure to pursue retroactivity for DA agreements. The CPUC's move to carry forward the DA vote is not a complete surprise, as President Lynch has historically presided independently from pressure by Governor Davis. Dismayed that the California Legislature was unable to offer resolution, Lynch and other commissioners felt obligated to provide direction and move the state forward in securing the State's economic base. Note that DA agreements signed within the last three months may still be held under review by the CPUC, though no official word has yet been issued. The CPUC also passed two measures that were preventing the progress of California's $12.5B bond sale. There is still no clear date as to when these bonds will be issued. SoCal/PG&E Bankruptcies Mirant and Reliant (with Mirant leading the push) are reported have approached several entities as potential third parties for a creditors committee to take SCE into involuntary bankruptcy. The City of Long Beach has been approached, but we believe Long Beach will use its leverage as a potential third party creditor to negotiate an independent deal with SoCal for payment of debt. Orange County, Coram, and San Gorgonio Farms are also suspected to have been asked to sign the petition. Contrary to rumor, it is not confirmed that Dynegy is considering joining Mirant and Reliant. However, such a move by Dynegy "would be logical" and note that Dynegy funded, with Mirant and Reliant, recent polling research examining the public opinion effects of such a move. Dynegy is reportedly discussing the possibility. We are attempting to determine SoCal's response to the PG&E filing, the Mirant-Reliant effort, and to try to pulse the likelihood and timing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition. Per earlier media reports, PG&E just announced it is filing three months early of a reorganization plan with the court. We believe that the utility was motivated, in part, by its desire to scuttle any chance of a state MOU with SoCal in the third special session of the Legislature. The reactions of key lawmakers (Burton, Bowen, Hertzberg, Keeley), and of course the Governor, will be important to watch. The key elements of PG&E's plan include: Assumes all responsibility for debt. No state aid requested. The utility will be split into two, with a distribution company remaining under CPUC regulatory authority and the native generation spun off into a new company free of CPUC oversight but regulated by FERC. PG&E commits to provide 100% of its native generation to the State of California for 10 years at cost. Cost of power includes both cost of generation (currently about 3.5 cents per kw/h) and cost of financing (estimated by our sources at 1.5 cents per kw/h). All debt will be paid, with 90% of QF debt paid immediately and the remainder over a longer term. Large generators will be "substantially" paid immediately and be asked to carry remaining debt over a longer term.
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
California Update 9-20-2001