Split (1)

train · 1k rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

prompts stringlengths 590 30k	text stringclasses 8 values
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: fyi - there has been some concern that this deal was being put together without Connecticut authorities knowing the full extent of our interest in FCEL. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: The New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners (NECUPUC) filed an Answer if Support of the Motion of the Maine Public Utilities Commission for Disclosure of Information. NECUPUC supports the request for the release of the unredacted copies of ISO-NE's September 21 2000 Answer in this case. In the alternative they would ask that the Commission provide to the regulators that are parties to the proceeding unredacted copies of the ISO's September 21 2000 Answer subject to an appropriate protective order. Duke Energy North America (DENA) filed an Answer that opposes the MPUC request for public information. DENA argues that only a three month lag in the release of confidential information is impermissible under a prior FERC ruling in the NSTAR Services Co. case which set out a six-month lag rule for the release of information. Their second argument was that the request seeks information for all NEPOOL markets and not just the ICAP market which is subject to the suit. If the FERC authorizes the release of confidential information then it should be subject to a protective order which contains the following: The information may only be used for the purposes of this docket. Only specifically named reviewing Reps associated with the MPUC may review the information. The confidential materials may not be removed from the NE-ISO's premises. The reviewing rep must execute a nondisclosure certificate. Answer to the MPUC's Motion for Disclosure of Information from Northeast Utilities Service Company and Select Energy and request for expedited commission action. NUSCO and Select Energy Support MPUC's request for disclosure of information that the ISO has filed under seal but opposes the selective disclosure of this information to the MPUC and other regulatory commissions and not other participants. NUSCO and Select Energy request expedited action due the financial implications and there is also considerable uncertainty regarding prices in the residual ICAP market in January February and March of 2000 due to the suspended settlement pending Commission guidance. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Yes Phillippe left to join a firm in New York -- I don't know who. Christopher Culberson <cmculbe@us.ibm.com> on 06/26/2001 02:42:53 PM To: skean@enron.com cc: Subject: Philippe Steven I hear Philippe is leaving for Putnam any truth to this? I've been unable to contact him directly. Thanks in advance. Best Regards Chris M. Culberson cmculbe@us.ibm.com (281) 556-8104 [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: JOSEPH KOOTHRAPPALLY (713) 853-6819 jkoothr@enron.com [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I just spoke with Mary to make sure we have the same information. Here are the facts we have so far. On November 4th the CPUC filed a motion with FERC to adopt the form of protective order that the CPUC entered to compel the production of documents and to shorten time to answer. According to Exhibit B (read to me by Nancy Pickover at Bracewell) the following CPUC moved against the following entities: AES Williams Duke Dynegy Reliant and Southern. Enron entities were NOT named in exhibit B. This is not to say that we could not be easily added to the group. While the motion reads as if the CPUC was moving against everybody in fact in footnote 2 they state they are only moving against the entities named in Exhibit B. We will have Exhibit B in hand first thing tomorrow via FEDEX to confirm this. To repeat Enron is not named yet. Thanks Gary [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: As discussed. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Re-read your reply. Just wondering what it means to possibly add a provision which I understand is a may -- dealing with FERC's authority to change existing RTOs. Depending on what that means it could seriously hamstring FERC's efforts for a 4-5 RTO model as sought and we support by not letting FERC change existing RTOs (particularly if that includes pending but not approved) to change. For example would the language under consideration block a Northeast RTO of PJM NY and NE since PJM is existing and NY has filed? What would be the rationale for such a serious limitation on FERC's authority? Thanks. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I've finished marking up the drafts and thought perhaps a few thoughts would give you some insight into the reasons for my revisions . Unfortunately I was engaged in discussions about the course to pursue in light of Arthur Anderson's comments until almost 10pm when I lost my typing help so not much headway was made in inputting the changes last night. My secretary is supposed to be in early ( it is now nearly 8:00 and she still isn't in ! ) and I will enlist whatever other help I can get to turn these documents around. For those not involved in the discussions last night Roger advised us that Arthur Anderson had changes to the Xonon Technology Implementation Agreement designed to make clear ENA had no primary or secondary obligations under the XTIA. The principal change suggested by AA - the deletion of the last sentence of the BOLD language in Section 2.2 - removed the obligation for ENA to pick up any obligations under the agreement owed by West LB in excess of the Cap. Note that this same change applies in the Agreement in Principle related to the purchase of turbines. XTIA Revision 4G. AA's change did not appear to address comprehensively the principle AA espoused ie clarifying ENA had no primary or secondary obligations under the agreements. After much discussion and some consideration I decided to prepare alternative markups of the XTIA - one that attempts to meet the AA directive while preserving a level of comfort for GE. I attempted this by increasing the limit on West LB's liability in Article 10 to $20 million from $9.9 million so that GE's recourse against West LB is the same as it had against West LB and ENA in the prior drafts and by obligating West LB in the default provisions to pony up for an ENA default. I also extensively modified the Section 2.2 language ( taken verbatim from the LM 6000 deal ) to eliminate the limited recourse provisions favoring West LB and in doing so made it easier to conclude that references to ENA in the agreement are references to ENA acting in an agency and not its individual capacity. This notion is still pretty vague in the revision because I did not want to create too much discomfort in GE since ENA explicitly acting in an agency capacity would mean there was no recourse against it ( since ultimate recourse would lie with the principal West LB). Roger suggested I delete the limit on ENA's liability in Article 10 to remove the implication it had any which I did ( and which means we have no upside protection if we are construed to have obligations under the XTIA. The upshot is that in my opinion the 4g revision goes as far as possible toward placating AA while still retaining a possibility of selling it to GE. The sheer number of changes required by the substance of AA's comment however is bound to be disconcerting to GE at this stage of negotiations particularly when GE's expectation was for a markup incorporating the new business terms agreed yesterday afternoon (calling for payment of the Development Funds to be completed by September 302000 with the possibility of a refund of a portion of the Development Fund Payment if the December 31 Milestone is not timely completed) and some clean ups/clarifications. Note that in both revision 4g and 4ga Section4.3 now provides that the Xonon credit created is only exercisable by CCSI on and after December 312000 so that the credit amount can reflect the deduction of any Milestone 4 refund amount paid by GE if it does not complete that Milestone on time. I think the dollar value of the credit should be adjusted downward if a portion of the Development Funds paid on September 30 are in fact refunded in December. We need to make sure to make provision in the Acquisition and Development Agreement that any Milestone 4 refund received by West LB is paid over to ENA since West LB will have been repaid its advances on September 302000. XTIA Revision 4GA . This alternate revision to the XTIA takes a minimalist approach and incorporates only the new business terms some minor clean up/clarifications and the AA change to Section 2.2 and the change to Article 10 ( to remove a cap for ENA's laibility) suggested by Roger. It seems to me it does not address meaningfully the AA admonition that ENA may not have primary or secondary liability under the XTIA if it wants to stay outside of the rigors of FAS 97-10. However it has the singular advantage of looking a lot like what GE and West LB expect to see in the revision. Option Repurchase Agreement. This revision was complicated by the possible refund of the a portion of the Development Funds by GE if it failed to complete Milestone 4 by December 312000 ( an attempt to retain some accountability for GE's performance given that it is being paid for that Milestone on September 30 to satisfy CCSI ). Because the option repurchase must occur on or before September 30 it isn't clear what will happen December 31 so its hard to figure out what to pay if the contract is not cancelled by September 30 or what the credits are worth on that date. Since CCSI is the direct recipient of the credits under the XTIA I first thought ENA could hang onto $2.1 million ( the amount formerly allocated to Milestone 4 before its payment obligation was collapsed into Milestone 3) by deducting the refund from the amount payable to CCSI on the option repurchase date and leaving CCSI to bear the risk of GE's repayment of any refund in order to make CCSI whole. If GE did meet the Milestone on time and so did not pay the refund amount directly to CCSI I thought ENA could always make CCSI whole by paying the $2.1 million in December when the refund matter was decided. That approach- subtracting the refund amount from the September 30 payment to CCSI- was decidedly unsatisfactory since the option repurchase formula could result - depending on the Milestones paid on the option repurchase date - in a negative payment to CCSI for the option. What I settled on in this draft was to go ahead and pay CCSI the amount of the premiums it has paid to September 30 plus $200000 if the turbine contract has not been cancelled on September 30. This would include repayment to CCSI on September 30 of premiums paid by CCSI under the spark spread on September 30. Assuming CCSI made all its premium payments and West LB made all of its Development Fund advances ENA would have received $9.9 million from CCSI by September 30 paid out $9.9 million plus interest to West LB by September 30 and purchased the spark spread from CCSI for $10.1 million. If the turbine contract is not cancelled but GE has to pay the refund I think the $2.1 million ought to go to West LB or its designee (ENA). If we cancel the turbine contract and do not go forward with Pastoria the dollar amount of the credits vested in CCSI and exercisable after December 312000 are equal to the Development Funds advanced less the refund amount. Since the document now reads that the $2.1 refund amount goes back to West LB or its designee if GE pays the refund and CCSI is holding a Xonon credit of only $7.8 millionit seems to me it will be necessary to pay the refund over to CCSI instead of ENA in order to make up for the fact that it paid $9.9 in premium and only received $7.8 in credit in September. This quick liquidation of $2.1 of the credit seems to be an ancillary benefit to CCSI occasioned by GE's refund. We could provide in the agreements that GE makes this payment directly to CCSI or we can continue to have the right to receive the payment from GE under the XTIA and the obligation to pay it to CCSI under the Repurchase Agreement. [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Sorry I had saved your list for the Europe AA PRC and didn't include them in my draft of the memo. I am sending another version shortly that has that information included. I don't think I need anything more from you unless you have other comments on the memo. Thanks [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: revisions From: Mark Palmer on 06/07/2001 01:46 PM To: Paula Rieker/Corp/Enron@Enron James A Hughes/Enron@EnronXGate David Leboe/Enron@EnronXGate Andrew S Fastow/Enron@EnronXGate Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: release draft Please get back to me ASAP. Mark Palmer 34738 [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Hey -- you're talking about our future President! I am soooo looking forward to my next Biennial Resource Planning proceeding. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Purely Personal	<s>[INST] [/INST] Purely Personal </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Maybe we should knock down the walls of those cavernous offices on the top= =20 floor. Mark Frevert@ENRON 07/24/2000 06:17 AM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mark=20 Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: =20 Subject: Canary Wharf - Update for Executive Committee Just a quick update on our real estate escapades. Regards . Mark ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Empty message(due to missing attachment)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Empty message(due to missing attachment) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: print first attachment only [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Fax the attached word document to Jeff ASAP thanks. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: So why did the ISO make the attachments confidential if it does not believe that they are confidential. If the attachments are to be released they should be released to everyone. How do we make that happen? Sue Mara Enron Corp. Tel: (415) 782-7802 Fax:(415) 782-7854 [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Attached is revised draft of Enron comments on the NERC bill. The helpful editorial revisions came from Charles and Sarah. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Following up on last night's e-mail here are some specific suggestions to strengthen the draft EPSA letter on the Barton RTO draft. The second paragraph and the first few bullets after it should be rewritten as follows to make it clear that the current legislative proposal on RTOs is far off the mark as opposed to being fixed by technical corrections as the draft letter now states: You have identified RTOs as critical to the development of a well-functioning transmission system and we wholeheartedly agree. We commend you for including all transmission-owning utilities in the RTO provisions and for requiring that transmission be conducted on an open-access basis. However to accomplish the RTO and transmission goals we share it is essential that any legislation on RTOs not slow down the process already underway at FERC. Unfortunately the discussion draft as issued on October 9th does not meet this test. Specifically the proposal Establishes a lengthy and cumbersome process that will delay the formation of RTOs by imposing procedural requirements that advantage those who oppose properly functioning RTOs including evidentiary hearings and court appeals review under standards of judicial review not normally applicable to Federal Power Act cases. Removes the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to deal with an evolving marketplace by statutorily freezing market and operational structures in place as of date of enactment regardless of changed circumstances. [rest of the bullets as in the draft letter] We appreciate the opportunity to offer these suggestions to strengthen the draft letter. Please call with any questions or comments before the Legislative Affairs Committee meeting tomorrow. Thanks. John [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: No. We have reallocated some of the responsibilities but Cindy has a significant part of the HR organization and continues to manage Community Relations so her title is accurate. Thanks From: Kelly Johnson/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/19/2001 01:06 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: RE: ENE Officer Elections Thanks Steve. Do we need to change Cindy Olson's title? Let me know. [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Please be advised that the CalPX has received a subpoena from the California State Senate Select Committee to investigate price manipulation of the wholesale energy market. The subpoena is posted on the CalPX Web site and is available through the link below. The subpoena seeks confidential information including materials that are confidential under Section 19.3.2 of the CalPX tariff. Confidential materials provided by the CalPX in response to this subpoena will be treated by the Senate Select Committee in accordance with the terms of the May 15 2001 letter from Senator Joseph L. Dunn that is also posted on the CalPX Web site. The date for production by the CalPX of the requested materials has been extended beyond the May 18 2001 deadline stated in the subpoena and letter. If you desire to assert a claim of confidentiality or privilege you should direct your written statement by Tuesday May 22 2001 to the name and address below: Larry Drivon Special Counsel to the Select Committee Office of Senator Dunn State Capitol Room 2080 Sacramento CA 95814 Tel: (916)445-5831 Fax: (916)323-2323 E-mail: You may also deliver a copy of your statement to the CalPX as follows: Lisa Urick Managing Attorney California Power Exchange Corporation 200 South Los Robles Avenue Suite 400 Pasadena CA 91101 Tel: (626)537-3100 Fax: (626)537-3159 E-mail: lgurick@calpx.com Thank you. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: My suggestions are attached. Take the gloves off. James D Steffes 07/06/2001 10:04 PM To: Jeffrey T Hodge/Enron@EnronXGate Robert C Williams/Enron@EnronXGate cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON Alan Comnes/Enron@EnronXGate Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron Susan J Mara/NA/Enron Robert Frank/NA/Enron@Enron Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON dwatkiss@bracepatt.com Subject: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGDE - Draft FERC Brief on Settlement Process The attached is a rough draft of a potential filing Enron would make in to Judge Wagner in the Settlement process (it is unclear if this would remain confidential per the gag order). Please provide Ray Alvarez your comments. This would be filed as early as Monday am. Jim [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I attended Cmmr. Wood's two-day hearing on Wholesale Markets which concluded today (8/24) in San Diego. Three Commissioner's were present (Wood Lynch and Neeper) with Duque and Bilas participating by phone. Administrative Law Judge Wetzel was present and a transcript was taken. The quasi-legislative hearing was the beginning of a record developed for the investigation into the workings of wholesale/retail markets. This session focused on Wholesale markets. There will be subsequent sessions on retail issues market structure and other related issues in the future. My conclusion from this session is that Wood is looking for support for increasing regulatory intervention in the market. Dan Larcamp Director of the Office of markets Tariffs and Rates FERC was present. He relayed FERC's concern of this matter and a desire to hold hearings in San Diego. He also relayed that Hoecker held a press conference announcing the opening of a 206 investigative proceeding into the operation of the wholesale markets in California which carried with it refund authority. The format of the hearing was to respond to pre-filed questions developed by Wood/Lynch. Each member of the panel would respond to the questions and any questions posed by the Commissioners the Judge or the CPUC Attorney. No questions were posed by members of the audience. Yesterday's panel of academics were comprised of: 1. Dr. Timothy Duane-UC Berkley 2. Dr. William Hogan-Harvard 3. Dr. Frank Wolak-Stanford (ISO Market Surveillance Committee) 4. David Marcus-Energy Consultant for the Coaltion of Utility Employees 5. Dr. Gene Coyle 6. Dr. Jean-Michel Glachant Universite Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne The panel was asked to speak as individuals and not on behalf of any institutions they may represent. While the purpose of the panel seemed to be to determine that market power was being exercised and that prices were too high and therefore not just and reasonable the panelist stopped short of blaming generators and market participants in behaving illegally. The concensus generally was that market power did exist at various times but the mere existence did not constitute bad behavior. None with the exception of Dr. Wolak who is in the process of doing a study using recent data as part of his role for the Market Surveillance Committee had done a study. There was some discussion though not much of the monopsony power of the utilities. I think ultimately the group conceded that scarcity of supply amplified concerns about the exercise of market power as even the increase in gas costs did not fully explain the recent spikes. Wolak believes that encourage utilities to enter into forward purchases will reduce the exercise of real-time market power. Hogan seemed to be there with Sempra's interests in mind. He continued to promote expansion of the ISO's abilities to dispatch load as well as maintain system reliability. There was alot of discussion about forward purchase ability for utilities so as to be less subject to volatile market prices. The concerns were also discussed about the appropriateness of a distribution utility making purchasing decisions on behalf of its customers. This included discussion of separation of these functions and the default provider role. Most everyone agreed that rolling back to a regulated market was not feasible without raising other major and serious concerns however there seemed to be support for some interim measures where cost-of-service regulation may be a good idea and that was during peak periods. All agreed that a demand response and price signals are important in the long-run although not to the extent currently experienced in San Diego. Today's panel included representatives from SDG&E SCE and PG&E TURN UCAN and ORA. While yesterday's panel maintained objectivity as to whether or not generators were exercising market power to the detriment of the system today's panel made no bones about the generators being to blame. SCE/PG&E indicated their need for relief for recovery of market costs in excess of the rate freeze. SDG&E was still on the hot seat for their inaction in hedging any of their supply. SDG&E brought up their failed PBR proposal and ORA and UCAN thought that that may be one way to incent the utility to be more responsible with their purchases. UCAN discussed the Governor's direction and the potential for putting rate caps into affect for residential and small commercial. He mentioned that C&I customers are experience difficulties as well. TURN raised the need for cost-based bid caps and cost-based peaking contracts. Mike Florio TURN urged against any further divestitute of assets and alleged market concentration on those assets that had been divested. In fact TURN urged the Commission to seek legislation to clarify the Commission's authority to order retention of assets. Neeper urged that part of the solution should be changing the current requirement to use the PX as the only authorized exchange although TURN disagreed. Bruno Gaillard 08/24/2000 06:09 PM To: SF Directors Edward Hamb/HOU/EES@EES Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES Chris Hendrix/HOU/EES@EES Greg Cordell/HOU/EES@EES Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES Martin Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES Douglas Condon/SFO/EES@EES James M Wood/HOU/EES@EES Gary Mirich/HOU/EES@EES Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES David Parquet@ECT mday@gmssr.com Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Marcie Milner/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mary Hain@Enron Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES Karen Denne@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Daily Update/ Legislative activity - 08/24/00 Siting related bills 1. Good new - The Williamson Act passed the Senate 34-1 It should be heard at the assembly Saturday or Monday if it is not redirected to a Committee hearing. 2. There was a long meeting with Ducheny with regards to AB 970. The enviro's boycotted they want to draft a bill with Keeley. Labor was obstructionist - they wanted to gut all the expediting siting language with regards to all facilities except for the peaking plants. Rate Cap related bills 1. The Edison Language on Rate Stabilization may not go anywhere. Edison has not found an author because of the efforts of Enron and others lobbying against it. Furthermore there are signs that Gov. Davis opposes it. 2. The Governor's office has issued a proposed language for a rate cap bill. The language however is not available as of yet. It may be released today or tomorrow. SDG&E has shown concerns over the content of the bill. They seem to think that it is worse than initially proposed by the Governor in his press release. The bill includes retroactive rate caps through 6/1/00. The rate cap could reflect Wood's rate cap proposal (6.5 cts cap on the energy component The bill does not specify who or how the costs associated with the cap will be recovered. (The reasoning is that UDCs will be more cautious in their procurement if there is uncertainty on who is responsible for the costs.) All of this is speculative. We hope to see the actual language soon. 3. Enron has been working with the Republican leadership to promote a rate cap proposal similar to the amended language we have proposed for AB2290. The bill focuses only on SDG&E customers and our major principals are the following. The Interim Rate Cap should be limited to residential and small commercial customers plus specific institutions that have a significant public role such as schools and hospitals. The Interim Rate Cap should be limited to the period ending December 31 2001. The Interim Rate Cap must be structured so that any undercollection is eventually recovered from the same customers who benefit from the lower rates provided by the rate cap. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: See if there is anythiing of use in here for your high tech group messages. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: You are awesome. Linda Robertson 04/13/2001 03:58 PM Sent by: Lora Sullivan To: Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON Tori L Wells/HOU/ECT@ECT Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON Carolyn Cooney/Corp/Enron@ENRON Lora Sullivan/Corp/Enron@ENRON Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron Carin Nersesian/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Cheney Meeting Briefing Book Attached is the Briefing Book for the 10:00 AM (EDT) Cheney meeting on Tuesday April 17 2001. We will be making additions to this book over the weekend and a final document will be ready for Ken Lay and Steve Kean on Monday evening. By fax we are sending the attachment documents which were not available to us electronically. [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: calendar ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: FYI. These are the items I left Ken a voicemail about. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: fyi ----------------- [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Document editing/checking(collaboration) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: When we talked about me speaking at the conference in Nov. Enron's management conference had not yet been scheduled. Now it has and of course it conflicts... it also conflicts out just about every other senior person at Enron. I will take care of finding a substitute but wanted your thoughts on a couple of candidates: how about Seabron Adamson Richard Tabors or Scott Magrane(sp?). The latter is at Goldman Sachs and last time I talked to him was working on Transcos. Let me know what you think and let me know who you were working with at FEBA so I can take care of the problem. Thanks [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Humberto - I forwarded your resume to Barry Hunsaker who is general counsel at EOG Resources. As you may know EOG used to be Enron Oil and Gas a majority-owned Enron subsidiary. A couple of years ago Enron sold its interest in EOG and it became a stand alone company. EOG Resources has been doing very well. I don't know if they are looking for lawyers now but I think I sent your resume to the right place. Humberto Kuhn <BetoKuhn@msn.com> on 05/21/2001 11:17:21 AM To: <skean@enron.com> cc: Subject: Humberto (Beto) Kuhn resume Dear Steve:? With sincere and advance thanks and pursuant to your recent conversation with my brother George I attach a copy of?the short version?of my resume.? I have a longer detailed version as well as numerous references that I will be pleased to furnish you.? In addition I am at your disposal at any time that?you or any others at ENRON should wish to meet with me.? Again?my thanks for your assistance and guidance. ? Kind regards ? ? Beto Kuhn Cell:? 713/ 906-8463 Res:? 713/ 467-3974 - RESUME HGKShort Form 05-01.doc [/INST] Category: Employment arrangements(job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Employment arrangements(job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Yes. Maureen - please schedule. From: Michael on 07/06/2001 03:05 AM GDT To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Meeting Request - July 25th Steve - I'll be in Houston July 23-26 and would like to get together to bring you up to date on the latest developments in Japan regarding EBS and EGM as well as energy markets. Would you have half an hour on the morning of Wednesday the 25th? Thanks Mike [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Jeff At the end of last week there was a very interesting TV news story on NBC KRON Channel 4 in San Francisco. You lead the story which also includes Governor Davis President Bush. What most catches my attention are the visuals and chant of the protestors during the Enron segment. The props and signs are very TV camera friendly. For instance there is a larger then life mask of you and a mockup of a paycheck to you from the people of California. The chant rhymes with your name. From my perspective this was no simple pie in the face. This protest was very organized and sophisticated. I think it would be prudent to gain more information about who was behind it and who was behind them. I tried sending you the video file in mpeg format but at 8400k it was too large to email. To see the news clip you may double click this link After downloading the video will play on a computer that has Real Player. Kevin [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Anybody at the CFTC or on the hill we want to send brochures to? ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Western Wholesale Activities Conference Call - Gas & Power Date: Today and Every Thursday Time: 1:00 pm Pacific 3:00 pm Central and 4:00 pm Eastern time Number: 1-888-271-0949 Participant Code: 936022 In Ray's absence I am facilitating today's call. The proposed agenda (Item numbers refer to the proceedings document row number): Electric 1. Responses to ISO and CA utility RTO filings due June 19 (item 9a) 2. ATC Complaint - next steps (item 20) 3. RTO Seams Conference 6/19/01 and request to speak due tomorrow 6/8/01 (item 37) 4. ISO withholding of as-bid and OOM price data 5. Generator data requests - (Hatsoe) Gas 6. Response to FERC to Re-Impose Transportation Price Caps (item 36) 7. Quarterly reporting requirements (item 35) 8. Gas-related data requests (item 33) [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Piotr I can pick up my E-mail messages from here. You can E-mail me with the place and location for tonight. Vince [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: You may want to forward this to your customers. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Thanks so much for your message. Your communications are always complete firm clear and polite. I am sorry that perhaps the most critical aspect of your efforts -- security-- has been so confused by our end. I understand from John Brindle that the confusion generated by our end has not kept you from accomplishing a great deal of the work anyway. I have asked John to lead the effort to the extent you need him. John and his team are very experienced and have been in contact with and coordination with the London office. Mike Hicks is a good hand but for the most part all I have asked him to do is be in a position to identify outside resources skilled in the area in question. It is a bit too much to ask Mike to be hands on for all of Enron's corporate security needs. A little background I'll bore you with: after Andre Legallo (formerly VP of Security for Enron) left we did not replace his function. Most of the operating companies had their own security and business controls groups. When Andre left we reduced the corporate function to a default provider role -- if a business unit had a need it was not otherwise meeting Mike Hicks (as well as an outside consulting firm) would help identify competent resources in the area. With the reorganization of EBS I have inherited the very competent and experienced team they had assembled (led by John Brindle). John identified some concerns regarding India mid last week. I urged him to get in touch with Rebecca he did. It was clear after further inquiries by John that the India team had already addressed many if not all of the concerns and much of the remaining work involved implementation. John volunteered to send some people over to help and I said OK. He had already been in touch with the London team and Mike Hicks (who I have asked to return to Houston). The last thing you need right now is confusion caused by a group saying we're from corporate and we're here to help. If you don't need any help or if the situation gets anything other than significantly better let me know. To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Rebecca McDonald/Enron@EnronXGate James A Hughes/Enron@EnronXGate Subject: India Help Steve As you are well aware we are facing a lot of things happening fast in India. We are using several parts of your team and are very pleased with most. I want to mention a couple of areas HR and Security. 1. HR: I heard that some folks in Houston had raised concerns about the quality of the India HR team and their preparedness. The HR team is doing an outstanding job and I wanted you to hear that from me. Once we realized we had a major issue on our hand and I received clearance from Rebecca and Jim to bring some HR folks into the loop HR had someone on a plane within 20 hours of my first call. We have always had great HR support through Drew Lynch and Bob Sparger helping our team led by Sandip Malik and this time Scott Gilchrist has joined in and helped as well. But the two workhorses have been Bob and Sandip. Bob got on a plane immediately and came over and he and Sandip have been working around the clock so that we are much better prepared now than we were just a couple of days back. We really relied heavily on HR and Drew had his team there for us. 2. PR: top notch team of John Ambler and Johan Zaayman working with and supporting Jimmy Mogal on the ground. Johan and Jimmy have been a strong team on the ground and John has provided leadership and all coordination with Houston. Great efforts and productive work. 3. Security: This area has not worked as well and if you ever want feedback on our one-time experience with this group I will provide it. I don't have any idea who is in charge from Enron's perspective here. There are 2 groups headed this way. Mike Hicks will arrive Thursday night and Mike has informed us that he will be leading all security efforts. Jim Rountree is apparently travelling with Mike and Don Hawkins sent me an e-mail earlier today telling me that Don has instructed Jim that Jim is in charge of coordinating our security. John Brindle has sent me an e-mail saying that you have asked him to coordinate and help in the ongoing efforts and John is sending 3 people over arriving Saturday night. First we are very happy to have the help but I just hope that Mike Jim and John know which of the three are in charge. If you could just let me know who you want to be in charge we will coordinate with that person. On a side note the people who have really been helpful were brought in through Drew Lynch of Europe HR. They are Jim Roth and Dave Lawler both of whom work for John Sherriff. They had a great attitude were willing to work day and night and were planning on coming to coordinate until Mike decided he would come. At Mike's earlier suggestion we engaged Hill & Associates to help on security. Because I was having to meet with them 3 to 4 times per day I asked Jane Wilson to help coordinate all our security efforts. Jane has done a fantastic job in an impossibly short time frame. The tasks she has been overseeing include coordinating with Hill & Associates removing (in a lowkey yet rush manner) over 400 boxes of files and documents and getting them through customs and to Europe removing 2 container truck loads of files from the Dabhol site and getting them out of the country and overseeing a complete security check and file removal of all our electronic files from servers desktops and laptops. In addition she has coordinated security for all expats and families as well as worked with EOGIL expats and Anthony Duenner of EBS Asia. Again we appreciate all the help. Wade [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Empty message	<s>[INST] [/INST] Empty message </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Thanks for the information. It would be helpful if you would send the detailed worksheet that you mentioned. I am surprised to hear that the only restricted shares left are the ones granted this January. I have always elected to defer any distributions of restricted stock. I believe I selected the minimum amount required to be kept in enron stock (50%). Are you saying that all the previous grants have fully vested and been distributed to my deferral account? Thank you for looking into this issue. Phillip [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)	<s>[INST] [/INST] Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you) </s>
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Thanks to Jim and Charles for the reports on the NERC conference call earlier today. Aside from whatever is done directly with NERC on details of their internal operations to respond to our concerns (i.e. Jeff's presentation to their board and the list of issues Charles had) the NERC/PJM drafting process will continue in DC in coming weeks. In addition Congressional staff are likely to be drafting electricity legislation including a reliability title during the August Recess that will start at the end of this week (i.e. we will likely be asked to comment on reliability legislation before any meetings with the NERC board are completed). I will analyze the shortened NERC and PJM Revised versions and share some thoughts based on our objectives. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])	<s>[INST] [/INST] Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics]) </s>