Datasets:

neelblabla

/

enron_labeled_emails_with_subjects-llama2-7b_finetuning

like 3

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: FW: Jim Bannantine on eSpeak - March 23 Body:: Kelly raised this concern too. The system is set up so that questions do not appear unless we let them -- i.e. we can screen questions and answer only those we choose. Even with that feature though I think we should skip this one (or just reschedule for a later date). I'll contact Jim by separate e-mail. J Mark Metts@ENRON 03/21/2000 04:29 AM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: FW: Jim Bannantine on eSpeak - March 23 Can we get this killed or redirected? This seems very dangerous. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: CONFIDENTIAL Personnel issue Body:: just a reminder we already have on line training re sex harassment. i'll take a look at all. --Lizzette What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: California Power Crisis Update (No. 10) Body:: We have been pulling together these weekly(sometimes more often) summaries for internal purposes. Would you find it helpful to be on the distribution list? Hope you are doing well. Look forward to touching base soon. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Two Requests re: May 22-23 Forum Body:: I will need an LCD projector and a computer (or connections for my computer) so that I can show the presentation. Thanks. Heidi VanGenderen <hvg@carbon.cudenver.edu> on 04/24/2001 04:16:43 PM Please respond to <hvg@carbon.cudenver.edu> To: <hvg@carbon.cudenver.edu> cc: Subject: Two Requests re: May 22-23 Forum Greetings: Thank you for joining us for the May 22-23 2001 Forum on Securing the Energy Future of the Western United States here in Denver. If you require any audio visual aids for your presentations (overhead projector LCD etc.) please respond to this e-mail ASAP. Please remember that you will be asked to remain within the time limits outlined in the memo to speakers/discussants from Marshall Kaplan and David Olsen. We are compiling a series of articles on western state power problems and possible options to overcome problems for distribution to all Forum participants. We welcome your submission of any recent article or articles or their citations and/or web page references that you have found interesting and useful. These might address subjects such as power challenges alternate policies with respect to supply and demand management financing power related infrastructure use of innovative technology with respect to energy management and efficiency or the convergence of power environmental and carbon emission reduction policies. If you have an article or articles to submit for inclusion in the Forum Notebook please convey it electronically by responding to this e-mail or fax or mail it as noted in the signature concluding this message by no later than May 4th. If you are intending to write out your remarks to the Forum we would also welcome receiving those in advance of the Forum for inclusion in the materials provided to participants. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments. Thanks for your attention to these requests. We look forward to seeing you at the Forum on May 22nd. Sincerely Heidi VanGenderen Senior Associate Wirth Chair in Environmental and Community Development Policy Institute for Policy Research and Implementation University of Colorado-Denver 1445 Market Street Suite 350 Denver CO 80202-1727 Tel - 303-820-5676 Fax - 303-534-8774 Marshall Kaplan Tel - 303-820-5605 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Request for Confidential Information by the CPUC Body:: Per your request. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: nan Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Empty message <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Unbelievable! Body:: keep sending the message board quotes. Sometimes when I open them I have trouble locating the specific quote (other times I'm taken right to it). Do you imbed the URLs differently? What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Associations Body:: No special requirements but it's good to keep track of in case we want a point of contact. Thanks John Wack@EES 09/22/2000 05:05 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES Samuel Harrell/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Associations Steve a recent hire within my group of Risk Management Samuel Harrell is on two energy associations. They are the Association of Energy Services Professionals International (AESP) and the American Association of Blacks in Energy (AABE). Sam is a member of good standing in both and has recently been nominated to join the Board of Directors for the AESP. I was not sure if Enron had any special requirements concerning registration of employees in associations or not. If I need to do anything specific I would appreciate your guidance. Hopefully this will work as the needed notice. Thanks What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Kissinger Body:: Sorry I got overwhelmed by California. I have not talked to Ken yet and will be in Japan until Friday. Perhaps we can hook up then? From: Rebecca McDonald/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/11/2001 02:46 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Kissinger Steve We never closed the loop on Kissinger. If you are around next week why don't we talk and resolve what we want to do so that I can proceed? Does that work for you? Rebecca What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: FW: RTO/market power discussion document Body:: In the underscored language added to the RTO section I would insert access to between the words planning and maintenance. Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON 07/20/2000 06:22 AM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON dwatkiss@bracepatt.com cingebretson@bracepatt.com cc: Subject: FW: RTO/market power discussion document ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Demonstration Procedure Body:: Looks good nice work. Let's get it out Vance Meyer 06/11/2001 01:02 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Demonstration Procedure This is the demonstration procedure for Enron offices. It has been reviewed by Security Legal and at least 3 PR folks. Provided you have no issues I recommend that we put it out from Mark's machine with a tip-on note to 1) officers 2) PR people 3) security people. Vance What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Confidential information Body:: FYI Leslie What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: RTO Orders - Grid South, SE Trans, SPP and Entergy Body:: I'm still a junkie .... please email copies of the orders. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: <<Concur Expense Document>> - Elizabeth Linnell Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: EnronOnline Market Descriptions Body:: Per my voicemail. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: [Second Delivery: WPTF Friday Amen Burrito] Body:: Sorry about this gang but my new computer messed up the e-mail list. It's 4 am and I think I have fixed it. Maybe. Bear with me if you are getting this for the second time this morning. gba X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <398A81DA.E883D290@idt.net> Date: Fri 04 Aug 2000 01:42:26 -0700 From: Gary Ackerman <foothi19@idt.net> Reply-To: foothi19@idt.net Organization: Foothill Services X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh U PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: webmaster <charlotte@wptf.org> Subject: WPTF Friday Amen Burrito Content-Type: multipart/alternative=20 ?=20 THE FRIDAY BURRITO=20 ...more fun than a fortune cookie and at least as accurate.=20 Everyone is getting into the act.? When I started this gig I was the only= =20 guy in town writing to folks like you about the power industry in=20 California.? I wrote about what=01s new what=01s happening and all the= =20 important stuff.? This week Governor Gray Davis decided to write his own= =20 Burrito.? His epistle got more press than mine but why is he muscling in o= n=20 my turf?? Not to be outdone PUC President Loretta Lynch released a report= =20 which looks into every facet of California=01s power business.? No stone l= eft=20 unturned. I=01m telling you there isn=01t enough room in this business f= or all=20 of us.? They need to clear out.=20 With people like Herr (Hair?) Peace Governor I=01m-Not Mr.-Rogers Davis a= nd=20 Let=01s Do Lynch who needs a Friday Burrito?? They re-define our reality = each=20 week with mind-numbing aplomb.? For example starting in early June the PX= =20 was ordered to compete for business against other Qualified Trading=20 Vehicles.? Then two weeks later the Energy F_hrer legislated that idea to= =20 an early death which kept the status quo for at least one year.? This week= =20 the PUC approved 5-year bilateral deals for PG&E and SCE thereby opening t= he=20 PX to competition and emasculating the PX=01s Block Forward Market. Zip = bam=20 boom.=20 I can=01t wait to see what next week will bring.? I hear Senator Bowen is= =20 holding Committee hearings on re regulating the industry and the Governor= =01s=20 new Energy Security Council will meet to decide six things:=20 What=01s for lunch?=20 Who will sit at the head of the table?=20 Does anyone have good seats for next week=01s Democratic convention?=20 Is there anyone we haven=01t indicted yet in the power industry?=20 Who will crank up the air conditioning in this room?? It=01s getting too w= arm.=20 Then they will collect data from innocent businesses under subpoena ignor= e=20 the facts and publish a report.? It makes one want to take a deep breath= =20 and inhale the scented fumes of democracy.=20 You know I can=01t think about where to begin so let=01s start somewher= e.=20 Things on the Island of California=20 ?@@@ Is there anyone left at SDG&E with a brain?=20 ?@@@ The PUC issues its scathing report=20 ?@@@ The ISO invokes $250 price caps.? Duh!=20 Things at the throne of FERC=20 ?@@@ Amen for the Morgan Stanley Order=20 Odds and Ends (_!_)=20 Things on the Island of California=20 ?@@@ Is there anyone left at SDG&E with a brain?=20 Well the answer very clearly is no.? I have been astounded by repeated=20 attempts of SDG&E=01s most senior people to ape humans but instead they m= imic=20 apes.=20 Consider the following.? First they waltz their default customers into the= =20 summer with little of no protection from price spikes in the wholesale=20 market.? Forgivable in that it is human to err.? The prices skyrocket in=20 June and they start looking for who to blame.? =01&Must be them damn=20 independent generators=018 say their managers.? Gary Cotton informs the IS= O=20 Governing Board that hedging SDG&E=01s position in the Block Forward Marke= t=20 wouldn=01t have made any difference.? There=01s one nobel laureate who mi= ssed his=20 prime.=20 Next under pressure they ask for help from suppliers and anyone else who= =20 will assist the utility and their customers.? Nine offers show up at their= =20 table and they can=01t choose any of them.? Again Mr Cotton tells his fe= llow=20 ISO Governing Board members that these things take time and we don=01t to= rush=20 since there are many legislative barriers and well the surfing was good= =20 this week so why spoil it?=20 Now they are in a panic because the Energy F_hrer is visiting old ladies=20 living in trailer parks advising them not to pay their SDG&E electricity= =20 bill and to continue to operate their air conditioners.? SDG&E puts a full= =20 page ad in the local newspaper telling everyone that SDG&E is doing=20 everything it can to lower their electric bills including asking the ISO f= or=20 a $250 price cap but the public can help by calling the ISO [address and= =20 phone number provided in the ad] and urging them to lower the cap.? I alway= s=20 thought the location of the ISO was a State secret for security reasons.? N= o=20 secrets in San Diego.=20 But we are not done.? No sir we are not.? Those buffalo heads who run that= =20 company decide they will win a gold star on their collective foreheads and= =20 implement one of the four resolutions passed by the Electric Oversight=20 Board.? The one they pick is to petition FERC on an expedited basis to cap = at=20 $250 the price at which sellers may bid energy or ancillary services into= =20 the ISO and the PX.? The primary reason is that Western power markets are n= ot=20 workably competitive.? In other words they want FERC to set a max price on= =20 what generators can sell in addition to the price limit at which the ISO ca= n=20 buy!=20 What I find most astounding about this double talk is that SDG&E continues = to=20 collect tons of money from the sales of regulatory must run energy into the= =20 PX.?? These are sales from their stranded assets.? Their grief hasn=01t ab= ated=20 their greed.=20 So to recap SDG&E missed the boat on price hedging failed to win consume= r=20 confidence in public meetings asked for help from suppliers and did nothin= g=20 in response then filed at FERC to cap the sale price because the wholesale= =20 market into which they sell (over-priced?) energy is not workably=20 competitive.? Too much time in the direct sun light.=20 Things on the Island of California=20 ?@@@ The PUC issues its scathing report=20 The PUC report released yesterday is a gem with which I have not spent enou= gh=20 time.? I only read the Executive Summary and that only because our counsel= =20 Dan Douglass forwarded me a copy. Let me pick out some of the gems in=20 President Lets Do Lynch=01s burrito.? I would recommend reading the whole = text=20 if you have time and if you seek perverse entertainment.=20 =01&California is experiencing major problems with electricity supply and= =20 pricing caused by policies and procedures adopted over the past ten years.= =20 =01& Since June wholesale prices for electrical power in California have= =20 increased on average 270% over the same period in 1999 resulting in over $= 1=20 billion in excess?? payments for electricity.=20 =01&Hot weather aging power plant and transmission infrastructure and=20 dysfunctional bidding behavior in the wholesale power markets combined to= =20 drive prices up ...=20 =01&Because of serious market defects and tight supply of electricity=20 purchasers of California power will likely pay billions more in electricity= =20 costs this year. Moreover these price increases do not necessarily fund ne= w=20 investments in electricity supply or delivery reliability - they may flow= =20 solely to power producer profit margins.=20 =01&Despite the Electricity Oversight Board's legislative mandate to overse= e=20 those institutions we have been unable to obtain [bid] data. Nevertheless= =20 ... we believe enough evidence of questionable behavior exists that the= =20 Attorney General should conduct an investigation into these statewide marke= t=20 practices coordinating with other State agencies including the PUC and th= e=20 EOB. Such an investigation would provide the factual foundation that=20 California policy makers and regulators need to recover any illegally=20 obtained profits.=20 =01&A momentous consequence of California's attempt to create a market in= =20 electricity is that the federal government now regulates California's=20 electric system. Washington D.C. now controls pricing decisions directly at= =20 the wholesale level and indirectly at the retail level and to the extent= =20 that supply incentives are correlated to prices Washington D.C. now affec= ts=20 California's ability to attract new investment in power plants.=20 =01&Past administrations' willingness to cede the State's authority to the= =20 federal government combined with the legislative creation of two non-public= =20 supervisory organizations that have no duty to protect the public or consid= er=20 the retail customer. The Independent System Operator (ISO) and the Power= =20 Exchange (PX) the nonprofit private corporations that operate the State's= =20 transmission system and control wholesale pricing policies are governed by= =20 boards whose members can have serious conflicts of interest. Some of these= =20 board members or their companies financially benefit from higher prices in= =20 electricity markets. Neither of these private organizations is accountable = to=20 the State or its consumers ....=20 ?=20 =01&Despite the federalization and the fragmentation of the State's electri= c=20 services the State of California should protect its businesses and consume= rs=20 from cartel pricing collusive behavior inadequate power plant maintenance= =20 and lack of market planning for adequate electricity supplies.=20 =01&California consumers and businesses deserve to know in advance - as San= =20 Diegans did not this summer - how and when the price of an essential servic= e=20 like electricity will double. California is now largely constrained by=20 federal mandates from providing comprehensive retail price relief as long a= s=20 wholesale prices remain so high. If California tried to re-impose a price= =20 freeze in San Diego now federal regulators would likely prevent that=20 action.? ... Short-term price relief however cannot resolve market gaming= =20 or fundamental wholesale pricing problems controlled by federal regulators.= =20 ?=01&We have been precluded from obtaining the data necessary to know if th= e ISO=20 and PX failed to detect manipulation and gaming on several fronts. We do no= t=20 know how market players acted in price offering and bidding and scheduling.= =20 The FERC has just announced an inquiry into national pricing and energy=20 market issues. California should not wait for national findings before it= =20 investigates California market practices. We recommend that the California= =20 Attorney General immediately subpoena relevant records and data to determin= e=20 the pricing and offering behavior of market participants the actions of th= e=20 ISO and its board members and the actions of generators in supplying=20 California's energy needs.=20 =01&Ten Actions to Consider or Act Upon to Prevent Current Electricity Prob= lems=20 From Spreading in 2001: ...=20 ?=20 ? 2. Create a California Energy Council modeled on the National Security= =20 Council to unify State action to resolve energy problems and to perform=20 integrated energy planning=20 3. Ask FERC for extended wholesale price cap authority to moderate Californ= ia=20 wholesale market pricing=20 4. Ask FERC to recognize the defects in the California and western regional= =20 markets and find that no competitive market exists in California power=20 markets=20 ?...=20 ? ?8. Eliminate potential conflicts of interest in ISO/PX stakeholder board= s=20 9. Improve California's ability to obtain ISO and generator data and enhanc= e=20 the State's enforcement capability for power plant maintenance price=20 manipulation and generation gaming consistent with protection of proprieta= ry=20 business information=20 10. Provide the EOB with effective enforcement ability and additional=20 oversight authority for the ISO and PX. =01&Ten Issues to Consider or Act Upon Within the Next Six Months: ...=20 ? 4. Streamline state power plant siting procedures consistent with=20 environmental requirements and prioritize applications to advance clean= =20 BACT+ power plant proposals.=20 5. Institute use-it -or- lose-it permitting power plant licensing and=20 emissions credits rules to ensure power plants get built=20 ...=20 ?8. Reform PX pricing protocols and structures to lower wholesale and retai= l=20 prices and reduce excess profits=018 I told you I don=01t need to write a Burrito anymore.? The Democrats in=20 Sacramento are doing that for me.? Welcome comrade.=20 Things on the Island of California=20 ?@@@ The ISO invokes $250 price caps.? Duh!=20 It is really hard to describe the drama of an ISO Governing Board meeting= =20 especially when our favorite topic arises.? It seems the only time the Boar= d=20 becomes animated is when one of three issues are on the agenda: price caps= =20 FTRs and priorities for software enhancements. Otherwise its pretty much= =20 hum-drum.=20 =01+Round and =01+round we went once again.? A few more forced votes tippe= d the=20 scale in favor of the cap.? There were 15 yes votes which included a force= d=20 yes vote from our friend Jerry Toenyes by order of Secretary of Energy Mr.= =20 Richardson. [Jerry did you realize that the last letters of your name coul= d=20 be re-arranged to spell =01&NO ET YES=018?? Kind of a french thing.] I=01m= sorry=20 about that vote Jerry.? You still go in my book as one of the brave and bo= ld=20 for standing up to that sort of intimidation for so long.? Your picture in= =20 the SF Chron said it all.=20 The brave souls who stood tall and voted NO included David Parquet (Enron)= =20 Jan Smutny-Jones (IEP) Barbara Barkovich (CLECA) Caolyn Kehrein (CMA) Da= n=20 Kirshner (EDF) and Stacy Roscoe (Procter & Gamble).? Now I must admit tha= t=20 Dynegy=01s Greg Blue did help by voting a Texas No spelled =01&A-B-S-T-A-= I-N=018.??=20 I have instructed Dynegy trader Dave Francis in Houston to work with Greg t= o=20 correct that problem.? We=01re going to work things out.=20 The Energy F_hrer addressed the Board again.? I didn=01t mind that I only= had=20 a few brief very brief moments to address the Board and Herr (Hair?) Peac= e=20 got over 20 minutes.? That didn=01t bother me at all.? He did more damage = to=20 himself in 20 than I could do in 2.? He blasted away at everyone who oppose= d=20 him.? He pined about Camden quitting the Board.? He said he knew how prices= =20 and markets work that it isn=01t the way those academic egg-head FERC-lo= ving=20 economists tell you who pray to the gods of competition.? He lambasted WAPA= =20 for withholding generation to protect fish and wildlife (what was that all= =20 about?).? He predicted that on Thursday=01s PUC meeting he and all the oth= er=20 powerful Democrats Republicans and angry citizens of San Diego would deman= d=20 that the PUC impose a rate cap on retail electric rates in San Diego that a= re=20 just and reasonable (it didn=01t happen).? And on and on and on.? This man= is=20 very delusional. He believes that Steve and only Steve Peace can save the= =20 world.? He believes that political will trumps judicial quasi-judicial or= =20 independent Board actions.? This man makes relevant all the abstract musing= s=20 of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) ... The will to power t= he=20 ?bermensch the transvaluation of values etc.=20 But we are getting under (uber?) his skin with the help of the press.?=20 Wednesday afternoon I called Commissioner Dick Bilas to see if he thought= =20 whether the next day=01s PUC meeting was going to be a roll over. Dick sai= d he=20 got a call from Peace and that Peace said he would not come to the meeting= .?=20 Apparently Peace had received a lot of press and all of it bad.=20 That=01s the thin line of freedom which keeps tyranny at least one step aw= ay=20 from our front door.=20 ?>>> Things at the throne of FERC=20 ?@@@ Amen for the Morgan Stanley Order=20 And now the good news.? You deserve this.? FERC gave the California market= a=20 little wiggle room last Friday.? FERC issued a last minute reply to the=20 complaint by Morgan Stanley Capital Group relating to the ISO=01s intent t= o=20 lower the price cap.? FERC denied the complaint but they didn=01t waste t= ime=20 with an Order to simply deny a complaint.? FERC danced on the head of the I= SO=20 and pulled the bite out of the price cap.=20 Here are some excerpts:=20 =01&We accepted this [Amendment 21] not because it was a cap on sellers=01= prices=20 but because it would promote order and transparency in the market by clearl= y=20 telling sellers of the maximum price the ISO was willing to pay and allowin= g=20 sellers to make informed economic choices on whether to sell in the ISO=20 market or to sell elsewhere...=20 =01& ... The ISO has no more or less ability to procure capacity and energy= than=20 any other buyer of these services ... If the ISO is unable to elicit=20 sufficient supplies at or below its announced purchase price ceiling (becau= se=20 generators are free to sell elsewhere if they choose) it will have to rais= e=20 its purchase price to the level necessary to meet its needs. ... Therefore= =20 an increase in out-of-market (OOM) calls for generation may be necessary to= =20 maintain system reliability.? Because the current payment for OOM is not=20 subject to a maximum purchase price the resulting overall payments may be= =20 higher.=20 =01&To the extent the ... ISO Board resolution contemplates implementing a= =20 directive that generators must bid their capacity into the ISO markets unde= r=20 any circumstances (e.g. when system load exceeds 38000 MW) such a=20 requirement is not permitted by our ... Order and the ISO tariff. ... Futur= e=20 implementation of the ISO Board resolution with regard to a requirement to= =20 sell would require significant revisions to the ISO market rules.? Such=20 market changes could not become effective absent a corresponding amendment = to=20 the ISO tariff which would have to be filed under section 205 of the FPA.= =018=20 Well. What do you think about that?=20 Just wait.? Here is what the sleeping bear Commissioner Hebert said in his= =20 concurring remarks:=20 =01&Getting to the bottom of the problem in my view requires us to begin = a=20 proceeding to rescind our approval of the ISO as the operator of the=20 California grid.? The record supports such a move. ... A memorandum to the= =20 ISO from a stakeholder who resigned from the governing board eloquently=20 brings to our attention repeated attempts to undermine the independence of= =20 the ISO. The memorandum also thoughtfully outlines consequences to the=20 markets of a return to =01+command and control.=01=20 =01&Because these allegations come from a non-market participant especiall= y=20 should we take heed.? We must also take notice of the public pressure on th= e=20 Board to compromise its independence.=018=20 Amen brother amen.=20 Odds and Ends (_!_)=20 As you can imagine this week like an endless string of weeks before this= =20 has been interminable.? I get about three phone calls a day from press=20 reporters very little of which ever sees print.? My shtick is just too=20 complex for casual readers.? But I do notice that the reporters are asking= =20 better questions.? The public is becoming more savvy.? The information flow= =20 is moving in our favor and will disarm the forces of evil in about 10=20 years.=20 I have other problems on my mind.? I am working on a new computer system.?= =20 Really it=01s just an upgrade of an older computer that is a bit faster t= han=20 the laptop I tried to upgrade very unsuccessfully.? As a result of the all= =20 the new hardware and software I purchased my office looks like a war zone= =20 with an odd mix of PUC service copies computer documentation and diskette= s=20 laying all around. Quite a mess.=20 Prepare for the future.? Our next general meeting is scheduled for Thursday= =20 and Friday October 5 and 6 at Moro Bay.? Barb Ennis will prepare a blurb f= or=20 us in next week=01s Burrito about room reservations timing golf etc.? O= ur=20 guest speakers will include MSC Chairman Professor Frank Wolak who will tal= k=20 on the subject of his choice Ms. Irene Moosen of Grueneich Resource=20 Advocates who will make a presentation on the distributed generation case= =20 before the PUC and William Freddo of PG&E National Energy Group who will= =20 give us some education on operating a power plant inside the New England IS= O.=20 Now for your daily bread provided this week by Dan Douglass.? Last week we= =20 had a joke about Catholics.? This week it=01s agnostics.=20 An atheist was taking a walk thru the woods admiring all that the accident= ?=20 of evolution had created.? What majestic trees!? What powerful rivers! Wha= t?=20 beautiful animals!? he said to himself.=20 As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes?=20 behind him.? As he turned to look he saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charging?= =20 towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path.? He looked over his?= =20 shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.? He tried to run even= ?=20 faster so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. His heart was pumping= ?=20 frantically as he tried to run even faster but he tripped and fell on the?= =20 ground.? He rolled over to pick himself up and saw the bear right on top of= ?=20 him raising its paw to kill him.=20 At that instant he cried out Oh my God! And time stopped. The bear froze.= ?=20 The forest was silent.? The river even stopped flowing.? A bright light=20 shone? upon the man and a voice out of the sky said You deny my existenc= e=20 all? these years teach others I don't exist and even credit my creation to= =20 a? cosmic accident and now do you expect me to help you out of this?=20 predicament?? Am I to count you as a believer?=20 The atheist ever so proud looked into the light and said It would be=20 rather hypocritical to ask to be counted as a believer after all these=20 years? but could you make the bear a believer?=20 Very well said the voice. And the light went out the river flowed the?= =20 sounds of the forest continued and the bear brought both paws together?= =20 bowed his head and said Lord I thank you for this food which I am about= ?=20 to receive.=20 Amen.? And have a great weekend.? Oh and thanks to all of you who sent me= =20 happy birthday wishes.? It was very much appreciated.=20 KSB=20 gba What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Comparable Worth Legislation Body:: This is an issue we need to stay on top of. Felicia: could you please put= =20 some background together for everyone on the list? What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: ISO Market Stabilization Plan Body:: Thanks for taking the lead on this. Note Tim's question about handicapping the liklihood of approval. Prices will move in the West based on these odds. We need to have a better view than anyone else. Ray Alvarez 04/13/2001 01:19 PM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: ISO Market Stabilization Plan Tim although there's always a chance my impression is that the FERC won't buy the ban on exports as this would appear to run afoul of the Commerce Clause and certainly goes counter to everything that FERC hopes to accomplish with their own Order 888 and 2000 initiatives. I am less certain about the direction FERC will go on pricing since even the staff has recognized stumbling blocks in their own recommendation and offers possible variants. The ISO has not submitted revised tariff sheets for approval yet so it is unlikely they would try to implement their own plan in the near term. If they try to do so without FERC approval possible legal avenues might include the filing of a complaint at FERC asking for fast track processing (this fast is measured in weeks not days) and/or seeking injunctive relief in court (faster) which can be hard to obtain but not impossible depending entirely on the circumstances. Will keep you posted if I learn anything new on this. Ray James D Steffes 04/12/2001 11:21 PM To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT Susan J Mara/NA/Enron Subject: Re: ISO Market Stabilization Plan Ray -- Can you please take the lead in responding to Tim re: FERC v. state actions? Sue -- Any info on whether the ISO would do this unilaterally? Jim To: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Alan Comnes/PDX/ECT@ECT Steve Walton/HOU/ECT@ECT Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: ISO Market Stabilization Plan The recent plan filed at FERC is horrible. The two most aggregious parts are the cost based standing bids and the ban on exports. I know that we are commenting on this proposal. I am also looking for intellegence on whether the ISO proposal has any chance of getting approved by FERC. If it is not approved by FERC what can the Californians do? California has ignored FERC before. If they attempt to unilaterally implement changes what is the likelihood that the Feds step in to intervene? If you hear anything on this matter please keep me posted. The proposed plan will have a huge impact on the California market and we need as much advance notice as possible. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: PRC cluster descriptors - draft Body:: I think this is a fine attempt but I continue to believe that a pure relative ranking offers the most flexibility and is more like the way the process works in practice. A separate list of desired behaviors criteria etc can be used to guide discussion but I believe the ranking itself should remain purely relative. Gina Corteselli 09/14/2000 06:04 PM To: Cindy Olson/Corp/Enron@ENRON David Oxley/HOU/ECT@ECT Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: PRC cluster descriptors - draft All Aattached are a draft of the PRC cluster descriptors which we discussed several weeks back. I has sent a first draft to Michelle and Dick and both had some suggestions which I have tried to incorporate. I am still awaiting Dick and Michelle's impressions of the below but also look forward to your impressions and input. Likewise I would appreciate your input on whether or not we need to change the ratings on the feedback forms to numerical ratings 1-5 to mimic the clusters. look forward to hearing from you Many thanks Gina ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: NAES meeting in Barton Creek in Austin Body:: [Dan Sponseller 412 355 8650 -- called Brian Barrington] Laura Houston x3366 is contact 9:30 - 10:00 Regulatory Update gas and electricity positions that we've taken initiatives and events that they should be aware of retail perspective if there is something they should know about Audience is Amanda's team approx. 100 people. Can use overheads or slides. We need to let Sheila Hatten know what you'll use. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Dereg Articles Body:: Looks good Mark Palmer 09/27/2000 02:09 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: Dereg Articles Here's the draft that Allegretti is sending. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Bingaman reliability draft language Body:: It is important to point out that under the Bingaman reliability language FERC has total discretion as to whether to adopt a NERC standard. Charles does make a good point about the deference language. As written FERC has discretion to defer to NERC or an RTO to monitor and enforce compliance. At a minimum that language should be expanded to include another entity like an EISB. Similarly the language should probably be tweaked to allow FERC to adopt standards of an organization other than NERC. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Confidential - Resume for Andy Blanchard Body:: Attached is a resume for a gentleman who has relocated as a trailing expat spouse to Houston who we are looking to find a suitable position somewhere in Enron. I know that one or two of you have already seen his resume and at the time didn't necessarily have a role for him. I would be very grateful if you could take another look and see if anything has now changed. By way of background he was previously working with Eastern in the UK in a back office capacity looking at their approach to the UK Gas regulatory framework known as the Network code. He has done a little consulting work since relocating to Houston in the online area. His references are very good. He is available with immigration clearance as a local hire probably at Senior Specialist level. As an additional incentive I would be prepared to underwrite his costs in the event you decided in the first 6 months that his performance did not meet your expectations (Obviously - I am highly confident this will not be the case!). What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Employment arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: CONFIDENTIAL - CA Customer Letter Body:: Here is the note we sent to our CA customers this weekend to extend with Evergreen. Jim ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: FERC rulemaking on Generator Interconnection Body:: Jim -- The quick answer to your question on the Barton bill is that yes it does = appear to address this tax issue involving interconnections at least in pa= rt. There is language in Title VIII on various tax issues. One of them ex= ludes from gross income certain amounts received by electric utilities spe= cifically including connection fees. In the example in the e-mail the iss= ue was not fees paid directly but assets paid for by the generator that ar= e then transferred to the utility. Will check on that angle. In any event Title VIII (while in the Barton bill) is not in the jurisdict= ion of Barton's subcommittee. Instead the tax title would have to go thro= ugh the Ways and Means Committee. There were some energy tax provisions in= the House-passed energy bill last August. Chris and I will consult tomorr= ow to see if this issue was included in that bill. Aside from the tax issue Barton bill would require the type of interconnec= tion rulemaking that FERC is now conducting (both for connections to local = distribution and to transmission). In each case the cost of interconnecti= on would have to be comparable to what the utility charges others similarly= situated. I will go back to double check but off the top of my head I re= call that the Bingaman draft specifically socializes the costs of interco= nnection. John What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: PJM Stip Body:: Can we also get something in the stip that limits the market making activity or at least promises a reexamination of the scope of the market making activity after some period of time. Also can we strengthen the language to give us something beyond simply a right to file -- which is a right we have anyway. James D Steffes 03/16/2001 03:34 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: PJM Stip Attached is the proposed Stip to allow PJM to move forward as an RTO. In the Stip we argue that PJM should be approved by FERC but condition our acceptance on a FERC process to unify the Northeast markets. My only comment is to delete the final WHEREAS paragraph on congestion management. While our ability to later stop PJM from being an RTO is limited I believe that this gives us the ability to drive a consolidation of the Northeast markets - which is one of the goals of the East Power desk. In addition I think that the overall direction of PJM in commercializing its software is a good activity for our interest - even if we don't want everything in their package. Sarah is out until Monday when we need to get back with PJM. Jim What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: HPL Closing Body:: fyi - Jade Eaton is one of Lara's contacts at DOJ What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: DRAFT Comments on Barton RTO Draft Body:: I tried to make it clear that we were not ourselves moving off of 4/5 RTOs -- and I will try to make that clearer. I was just trying to take advantage of what Wood and others said to show that they are not the heavy-handed regulators that Barton and others on the Hill are painting. In other words I wouldn't have asked them to say what they did -- but once said we might as well get some mileage out of it. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: FYI From Marty Sunde: Request for Ken to contact Chancellor Reed, California State University System Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Expense Reports Awaiting Your Approval Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Enron legislative package Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: PG&E PX Credit Calculation -- CONFIDENTIAL ATTY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT Body:: I am not sure I understand your second paragraph. If PG&E reduces going-forward procurement costs to reflect FERC-ordered refunds I do not understand why it would affect already-issued CTC charges. The cost of power would be cheaper going forward. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: A&M - Bush Library Foundation & School of Public Policy Body:: Let's talk. While there is always some value in these things it is ususally quite small and consumes more valuable resources in trying to capture the benefit than the benefit itself. From: Michael B Rosen@ECT on 07/13/2001 08:44 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: A&M - Bush Library Foundation & School of Public Policy Steve- We have been approached by the Texas A&M/George Bush Presidential Library Foundation and School of Public Policy to endow additional funds. Enron had made an original contribution to the library foundation back in 1998 totaling $250K over five years. I am working with Community Relations and A/A Recruiting to evaluate the latest request and to discuss where Enron may have interest or find leverage for our Government Affairs Recruiting or PR efforts. The Foundation is willing to work with us to establish whatever type of program(s) and/or participatory involvement we would like. We have discussed an Enron speaker series classroom lectures advisory committee seats and the likes. I have already had a chance to run this by Rick Shapiro and Rob Bradley. Although Rick was noncommittal regarding his team's time for speaking or lecturing he seemed supportive of the effort. Rob has already been participating in some speaking opportunities there and supported expanded efforts. What are your thoughts on contribution levels (another $250K was suggested by CR) and any specific program or relationship opportunities regarding the Library Center or School of Public Policy. Please grab me for quick conversation when you have time. Thanks. Mike What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: EBR - Public Affairs - Nov. 6 Body:: I may need to spend some time with you in advance but you don't have to plan on coming here. Mark Schroeder@ECT 10/15/2000 06:32 PM To: Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Beverley Ashcroft/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: EBR - Public Affairs - Nov. 6 trust my non-attendance is okay with Steve. If not please so advise or if he wants my participation by conference call that could be arranged. thanks mcs Maureen McVicker@ENRON 12/10/2000 09:52 To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Mark Schroeder/LON/ECT@ECT Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron@ENRON Elizabeth Linnell/NA/Enron@Enron John David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT Rosalee Fleming/Corp/Enron@ENRON Sherri Sera/Corp/Enron@ENRON Katherine Brown/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Ginger Dernehl/NA/Enron@Enron Cindy Derecskey/Corp/Enron@Enron Marcia A Linton/NA/Enron@Enron Beverley Ashcroft/LON/ECT@ECT Laura Glenn/OTS/Enron@ENRON Helen Kay Chapman/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: EBR - Public Affairs - Nov. 6 The EBR (Executive Business Review) for Public Affairs has been rescheduled: The new date is: DATE: Monday Nov. 6 TIME: 8:30 A.M. (block 2 hours on your sched just in case) PLACE: EB 50M03 ATTENDEES: Dave Delainey (if schedule permits) John Hardy Steve Kean Ken Lay Elizabeth Linnell Mark Palmer Mark Schroeder (will not be attending) Rick Shapiro Jeff Skilling Jim Steffes Mike Terraso What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Western Wholesale Activities - Gas & Power Conf. Call Privileged & Confidential Communication Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product Privileges Asserted Body:: FYI Attached is memo I prepared for Jim and Rick on the PNW refund case. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Catch Up Body:: BTW = By the way. Putnam in Boston. it's official. Vince What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Contact Body:: Contact Dave Parquet and Jeff Dasovich in our San Fran. office. Dave has worked on Enron's proposals to San Diego and Jeff has been supporting him from a gov't/reg affairs standpoint. From: Michael Kenneally@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 09/08/2000 10:51 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: Contact Steve: Chris Holmes recommended I contact you concerning the attached inquiry. I recently met with a federal representative from San Diego who had asked if I could send him any information on Enron's ability to hedge energy prices. After a summer of rolling brown outs and soaring prices he is looking for ways to avoid the scenario in the future. Could you recommend the best avenue for responding to this request? I appreciate you assistance in this matter. Regards Michael x 35868 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Energy Issues Body:: See natural gas price article below. Our buddy Paul Carpenter has turned o= n=20 us (not to mention that he seems to be talking nonsense). How about giving= =20 him a call? ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Confidential Contact data and RFI Body:: Kevin I had the Capacity forecast column units mislabeled Here is the revised one. If you want just have your NEEPOOL lead type over our forecast and re-send to us. We will not let this get out of our shop and we will get you in on a block to buy. Thanks again Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: Presto Kevin M. To: Fred W. Giffels <mailto:fgiffels@HGP-Inc.com> Sent: Tuesday February 12 2002 8:07 AM Subject: RE: Confidential Contact data and RFI Any nuclear specific info? Kevin Presto UBS Warburg Energy kevin.presto@ubswenergy.com Phone: 713-853-5035 Fax: 713-646-8272 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Management Conference - Save the Date Body:: looks fine From: Terrie James/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/19/2001 04:31 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Cindy Olson/ENRON@enronXgate cc: Sherri Sera/ENRON@enronXgate Marge Nadasky/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: Management Conference - Save the Date Steve and Cindy Attached is the electronic Save the Date memo for the Management Conference. We are preparing to send it out next week. Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns on the e-mail. As for distribution we've worked with HR on the distribution list for VPs but will circle back with David Oxley's team to ensure we have the most up-to-date list. Since some VPs in redeployment will most likely find positions within Enron by November I don't plan to exclude them from the distribution ... unlike United Way where we are not soliciting employees in redeployment for a contribution. I look forward to any feedback. Terrie James Senior Director Public Relations Enron Broadband Services (ph) 713.853.7727 (fax) 713.646.3248 terrie.james@enron.com What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Presentation to faculty and students at Berkeley Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Rich Products Body:: Looks good. Peggy Mahoney 07/24/2000 06:20 PM To: Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON Cedric Burgher/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mark Koenig/Corp/Enron@ENRON Paula Rieker/Corp/Enron@ENRON Jeremy Blachman/HOU/EES@EES Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES Karen S Owens@ees@EES Kevin Hughes/HOU/EES@EES Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES Elizabeth Tilney/HOU/EES@EES Dave S Laipple/DUB/EES@EES James E Keller/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: Rich Products Please review the attached draft news release about our agreement with Rich Products and let me know if you have any comments by 5pm Tuesday July 25. We are scheduled to release on Wednesday July 26. If you have any questions please call me at x57034. Rich Products is a major US food manufacturer headquartered in Buffalo NY. The company ranked #122 in Forbes Private 500 and has sales around $1.5 billion. Rich Products is owned and operated by the founding Rich family. Products manufactured include frozen meats bakery products and non-dairy creamers. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: California Body:: Please send the economist piece around. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Update Day 1 Second Session FERC CA Settlement Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: California Public Affairs Strategy Body:: To make sure that Enron is not missing any opportunities to make our points on competition we need to develop some key message points and facts. My understanding is that the key story line is that COMPETITION IS WORKING AND SHOULD BE PUSHED FORWARD. We need to be able to give examples of what is happening - deregulation customers are winning. For example our CSU customers are just fine even with higher energy markets. I think that are some key questions that we need to consider when we put these together: Who is the audience? My answer - California policymakers key stakeholders FERC federal government. Can we use this in the FERC Investigation on Markets? My answer - we have to California is too big and important not realize that California will play a role in FERC's discussions. What is the timing of message? My answer - Wherever and whenever needs to be coordinated. This CA legislative process (next 2.5 weeks) may be a possibility. FERC Investigation. Taking the story nationally is good if we have the facts from CA. Who will deliver the message? My answer - Everyone on the Enron team needs to have the same message all of the time. We can't let any opportunity pass us by. Do we demonize the utilities? My answer - if necessary we just need to make sure that we have as many facts to prove our points if we do attack. How do we prove that rolling back to regulation is ridiculous? My answer - retain LEGC to develop the hypothetical of what would have happened? NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED INTERNALLY - LEGC MAY NOT BE THAT FRIENDLY. Next Steps: Jeff Dasovich needs to put out first cut based on our earlier notes and any incremental information from our analysis teams (e.g. TCA McNally / Temple). Thanks Jim What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: MEMO Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Empty message (due to missing attachment) <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Confidential Folder to safely pass information to Arthur Andersen Body:: We have become increasingly concerned about confidential information (dpr/position info curves validations/stress tests etc) being passed to Arthur Andersen for audit purposes over the Web to their Arthur Andersen email addresses. (necessary now they no longer have access to Enron's internal email system) Please use the folder described below when passing any info (that you would have concerns about if it was picked up by a third party) via the shared drive that has been set up for this specific purpose. Note: AA should also use the shared drive to pass info back if there are questions or the data needs updating. We should also consider the sensitivity of audit findings and special presentations if they are being distributed electronically. Please pass this note to others in your groups who have the need to pass info back and forth. Details on how to access for those who will use this method to pass info: A secured folder has been set up on the o drive under Corporate called Arthur_Andersen Please post all confidential files in this folder rather than emailing the files to their company email address. If you need access to this folder submit an eRequest through the IT Central site: Arthur Andersen will be able to retrieve these files for review with their terminal server access at the Three Allen Center location. Please contact Vanessa Schulte if you have any problems or questions Beth Apollo What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Doctoral studies Body:: My message was sent before I finished it. I think it would be interesting to focus your attention on this interplay -- what policy changes have meant to companies (ie the winners and losers) and how explicit companies are about how government policy drives their business strategy in these industries. I also think it would be fascinating to compare regulators' visions for the industry they are restructuring with the reality after the fact. I believe you would find some similarities but also some substantial and interesting differences. Good luck with your studies. My best regards to Mike I learned a great deal working for him. Rob Wilson@ENRON 07/24/2000 04:44 PM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES cc: Mike McGowan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Subject: Doctoral studies Steve Vince Kaminski suggested I contact you I'm the Gov't Affairs rep for NNG in Omaha and begin a doctoral studies program this fall at NU. I plan a research emphasis in regulatory politics specific to energy and telecom market convergence and the public interest. I'd welcome any advice or suggestions you have regarding other potential area's of research based on your professional experience in the public policy arena. I appreciate any guidance I'm in the earliest stages of forming my advisory committee and curriculum of study. My supervisor Mike McGowan sends his regards. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Update - Jeff Skilling Conference Call with John Q Anderson Body:: 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. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: job applicant Body:: yes lyoho@enron.com 09/26/2000 09:03 AM To: Steven.J.Kean@enron.com cc: Subject: Re: job applicant Steve -- Yes I am interested in talking to him. Should I contact Eric? Thanks for passing this along. Lisa From: Steven J Kean@ENRON on 09/24/2000 05:37 PM Sent by: Steven J Kean@ENRON To: Lisa Yoho/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: job applicant any interest? What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Employment arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: ECT Strategy Meeting, per Julie Armstrong Body:: At the Four Seasons Hotel - Livingston Room What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Steffes Testimony To House Committee Today Body:: Attached is Jim's prepared statement filed last night for today's House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee (Chairman Barton) hearing on reliability transmission incentives and siting issues. You will see we use the opportunity to make a plug for large RTOs as well. Jim will actually deliver a five minute oral summary. He is appearing as the EPSA witness in his capacity as chairman of the EPSA Regulatory Affairs Committee. There will be ten witnesses on the panel. Others will represent EEI NARUC APPA LPPC NRECA NERC (David Cook) ELCON Consumers for Fair Competition and GF Energy. We will provide a report following the hearing. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Lou Pais staff meeting, 25C3. Body:: Hartsoe: PJM HoganSPP WSCCHebertdemocratic nominee ACA Andy Rotherham AAE membership (703)875-0764 Gordon Weil page Maureen What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: PJM RTO Order Body:: Great summary. I think the two main issues you raise are the right ones b= ut I have one other thought we should discuss internally. Do we want to cr= eate a set of incentives for the management of PJM that would entitle manag= ement to incentive compensation to the extent they meet certain goals -- eg= relieving congestion on the grid increasing throughput across the transmi= ssion system expediting interconnection (measured in terms of actual inter= connections not just applications approved) etc. This way we could create= an organization that would have the incentive to make a workable and open = transmission system. From:=09Sarah Novosel on 07/13/2001 07:57 AM To:=09Kevin M Presto/Enron@EnronXGate Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT Jeff Ad= er/HOU/EES@EES Edward D Baughman/Enron@EnronXGate Joe Gordon/Enron@EnronX= Gate Janelle Scheuer/Enron@EnronXGate mbrown9@enron.com Mark Bernstein/H= OU/EES@EES John Llodra/Enron@EnronXGate W David Duran/Enron@EnronXGate G= eorge Wood/Enron@EnronXGate Dave Perrino/SF/ECT@ECT Paul J Broderick/Enro= n@EnronXGate Jason Thompkins/Enron@EnronXGate Mason Hamlin/Enron@EnronXGa= te Robert Stalford/Enron@EnronXGate Tom May/Enron@EnronXGate Gautam Gupt= a/Enron@EnronXGate Narsimha Misra/Enron@EnronXGate Steve Montovano/NA/Enr= on@Enron Garrett Tripp/Enron@EnronXGate Berney C Aucoin/Enron@EnronXGate= Jason Thompkins/Enron@EnronXGate Rob Wheeler/Enron@EnronXGate Rogers Her= ndon/Enron@EnronXGate Jim Meyn/Enron@EnronXGate Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronX= Gate Daniel Allegretti/Enron@EnronXGate Pearce W Hammond/HOU/EES@EES Don= na Fulton/Corp/Enron@ENRON Howard Fromer/NA/Enron@Enron Kathleen Sullivan= /NA/Enron@ENRON Tom Hoatson/Enron@EnronXGate Thane Twiggs/Enron@EnronXGat= e Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT James D S= teffes/NA/Enron@Enron Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON Richard Shapiro/NA/E= nron@Enron Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Charles Decker/HOU/EES@EES Nick = Politis/Enron@EnronXGate sscott3@enron.com Aleck Dadson/Enron@EnronXGate= Lloyd Will/Enron@EnronXGate Ray Alvarez/NA/Enron@ENRON Susan M Landwehr/= NA/Enron@Enron Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT@ECT Andy Rodriquez/Enron@EnronXGate= John J Lavorato/Enron@EnronXGate Louise Kitchen/Enron@EnronXGate Greg Wh= alley/Enron@EnronXGate susan.j.mara@enron.com Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enro= n Karen Denne/Enron@EnronXGate mpalmer@enron.com Alan Comnes/Enron@Enron= XGate Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron Pat Shortridge= /Corp/Enron@Enron Chris Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mike Roan/ENRON@enronXgate= Kerry Stroup/NA/Enron@Enron Janine Migden/Enron@EnronXGate Dave Mangskau= /Corp/Enron@ENRON cc:=09=20 Subject:=09PJM RTO Order Attached is a summary of the PJM RTO order. While it is somewhat lengthy = the order has a lot of good information in it that I wanted to share with t= he group particularly the Commission's statements regarding the existing c= onfiguration of the northeast and the need to expand it. We are working on summaries of the New York and New England RTO orders and = will have those out shortly. If you would like copies of the orders just = let us know. We expect the mediation proceeding to begin within the next week. We will = keep you updated. Sarah =20 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Tammy Hopkins - Resume Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Employment arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: OH Energy Summit -- Summary of comments Body:: Barbara-- Very helpful and encouraging report. Sounds like the Gov. and the Consumers Counsel are with us on RTOs. Would they be willing to write their own letters I assume separately to the Ohio congressional delegation? There are several Ohio members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Is the Consumers Counsel a Democrat (that would help since there are three Ohio Democrats on the committee -- Brown Strickland and Sawyer?). Even if he is a Republican support from within the state would help a great deal. Thanks. John What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: SMS conference Body:: Ian My secretary contacted SMS. I was surprised that they want to charge me for the conference. Typically the speakers are invited to attend without incurring the cost of a conference. The is the first invitation to speak I received combined with a request to pay for the privilege. Vince What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: FERC Tech. Conference on CA Natural Gas Transportation- 5/24 Body:: calendar fyi ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Confidential - GSS Organization Value to ETS Body:: Will do. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Priviliged and Confidential communication to my attorney Re: Henry Bath LA Body:: Privileged and Confidential This email contains legal advice Hoyt and Melissa I am assuming that we are discussing contract personnel who provide some sort of services for MG/RW. It looks like there may be some key personnel we want to employ but that there are many whom we don't want to hire. I am not really familiar with the specific facts here. The question of a joint employer arises when a company treats its contract personnel like its own -- by setting compensation controlling their activities engaging in etc. decisions and other ways in which an employer treats its own employees. So if the plan is to have workers doing the same thing with one as a contractor and one as an employee there could be some issues particularly if they share a supervisor. Unfortunately that often is the case with contract personnel. If there are distinctions among the various responsibilities of these workers -- and like workers are treated similarly -- the risk may be reduced. It is cleanest however to use all of these workers through the contracting agency for a while (assume we don't want to hire them all which is the other alternative). Then the company may want to make selected offers to people who may be in a managerial role or have some other distinction from the bulk of the contract workers. I would like additional information on this situation before reaching a definitive conclusion. So let's try to discuss it. I am booked until about 11 this morning but am available after that. Michelle Hoyt Thomas@ENRON 08/08/2000 04:21 PM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Melissa Laing/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Priviliged and Confidential communication to my attorney Re: Henry Bath LA Michelle I guess emails will get to you sooner if I remember to add you to the addressee list! Sorry. Hoyt ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Latest Documents Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: CONFIDENTIAL Attached file Body:: This is the negative CTC claim. Transmission and other charges we owe have been set off ie this is a net amount and the gross CTC is much larger- on the order of $900MM. Decision to use or not is not final in Enron keep confidential. The potential witness would be Wanda Curry. Thanks Ray ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: FW: Confidential - GSS Organization Value to ETS Body:: I agree with Morris What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: CONFIDENTIAL Personnel issue Body:: Great. That is exactly what I would like you to do. Michelle What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: HELP!!! Body:: Linda - I haven't heard of these guys. Do you know them? ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: ORG CHART Body:: I do not. Enron Energy Services From: Deborah DeFforge 07/18/2000 08:34 AM Phone No: 713.853.9474 713.646.2621 - Facsimile EB1293 To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: ORG CHART Do either of you have an updated org chart depicting EES ENA and EBS? Thank you! d2 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Power of Communication Program Body:: More info. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: UC-CSU-Enron press release Body:: I know we got a lot of grief on the Hill when we had our fight with UC/CSU. Now we have settled and this release will go out (with some modification) today. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Report on "Anti-RTO Bill" and on Andy Black Meeting Body:: This note is to report on two electricity legislative developments: the Aug. 2nd introduction of an anti-RTO bill (or at least anti-mandatory RTOs) and on a meeting I had yesterday afternoon with Andy Black the policy coordinator for Chairman Joe Barton on the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee to discuss their intentions with respect to electricity legislation this Fall. 1. H.R. 2814 (Reps. Tom Sawyer (D-OH) and Richard Burr (R-NC)) On Aug. 2nd (the last day Congress was in session before the August Recess) the above named members of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee introduced H.R. 2814 the Interstate Transmission Act. The legislation is bad because among other things it requires FERC to establish transmission pricing policies that provide incentives for voluntary participation and formation of RTOs with language prohibiting policies that have the effect of forcing transmitting utilities to join RTOs. Also objectionable is that the bill would limit pancaking but at the same time require FERC to establish a reasonable transition mechanism or period for additive charges. The legislation prohibits FERC from conditioning any order upon a transmitting utility being required to transfer operational control of jurisdictional facilities to an ISO or RTO. The bill would require that participating transmitting utilities must approve the form structure and operating entity of any RTO. In addition to the RTO language the bill has the old version of the NERC reliability legislation in it. The bill also has a PUHCA exemption for RTOs repeals Federal Power Act sec. 203 on the disposition of property and includes the tax changes that IOUs seek for transfers of property to an independent transmission company. Barbara Hueter advises that First Energy has its hq in Rep. Sawyer's district. Rep. Burr is from North Carolina so perhaps Duke had its utility hat on in working with him. I am checking into where Duke is on this issue. Rep. Burr is the Vice Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and close to Chairman Tauzin -- so his support for this legislation is significant (see Andy Black comment below). 2. Andy Black Meeting Andy is meeting with various trade associations this month to discuss electricity legislation. He is only meeting with a few companies on a one-on-one basis -- Enron Reliant Dynegy and TXU. His timing is to have a legislative draft for Chairman Barton to review when Congress returns after Labor Day. If Chairman Barton approves or makes changes the draft will be circulated to members of the subcommittee and the public for further comment. The intent is to mark up an electricity bill this Fall so that if the Senate acts on electricity in its comprehensive energy bill the issue will be ripe for consideration in a House-Senate conference committee. Here is a run down of my comments and Andy's comments on specific issues. a. RTOs Chairman Barton supports RTOs. At a minimum the draft will affirm FERC's authority as the commissioners have requested. Andy is considering going beyond that to mandate RTO participation. Not sure he can hold that position in the subcommittee. He is looking to Enron and others to help them explain and build support for RTOs. Informed him of our initial informal coalition steps. However Andy asked me to look at sec. 3 of the Sawyer-Burr referenced above which I realized after the meeting is the part that deals with incentive rates and negotiated rates to expand transmission and voluntary RTOs. I have a call in to Andy to reconcile these statements since the Sawyer-Burr bill is based on voluntary RTOs. Hopefully he is thinking of using the incentive and negotiated rate language and NOT the objectionable voluntary RTO aspects. I will strongly encourage him to do the right thing in that regard. b. PUHCA The draft will use the Pickering bill (H.R. 1101). Told Andy about our concerns with the record keeping provisions of that bill. Will send him our legislative language to clarify these provisions so that they do not open up all of Enron's records -- even those unrelated to transactions with a regulated utility affiliate. c. PURPA Prospective repeal. On back up power they are thinking of requiring that rates for back up power be just and reasonable until there is retail competition in the state. d. Interconnection They have received a proposal from Trigen that Andy says we will like. I am contacting EPSA to get the details. e. Net Metering They are likely to include the Inslee bill to require net metering. I explained our concern that the bill's mandate applies to all retail energy suppliers -- including EES -- even though this should only apply to utilities with an obligation to serve that it does not make sense to mandate it on service providers like EES (per Jim's helpful comments yesterday). I need to get more information to Andy. f. Transmission Jurisdiction Thankfully Andy is NOT going to use those portions of the bill as reported by subcommittee in the last Congress that gave use heart burn on jurisdiction. Specifically the draft will not say FERC does not have jurisdiction over the transportation component of a bundled retail sale -- the draft will not get into the bundled/unbundled issue at all. The draft will bring munis co-ops and PMAs under the FERC umbrella for transmission jurisdiction purposes. g. Siting On siting Andy is thinking of some type of mechanism that would give a State one year before federal eminent domain attaches. h. Reliability On a negative note Andy intends to use the latest NERC reliability language because NERC's version has strong support among the Members of the subcommittee and no other alternative has emerged with political support (i.e. not PJM). I explained our concerns. He said our best bet is for DoE or FERC to come forward to seek something other than the NERC version. He said Members eyes glaze over on reliability with everything else on the plate. i. Negawatts I raised the absence of negawatts on his issue list. He said he is open to considering it again but that there was left over political baggage and unresolved issues from when this was attempted during consideration of the California bill earlier this summer. Your questions and comments on the any of the above are most welcome. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Ashoks all-day staff meeting today. Body:: Eric (713) 464 1955 Steve Williams PGE information for Boise What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: ISOs Response to BPA Rebuttal of Sheffrin Study--Confidential Atty Client work product Body:: I recommend reading CAISO's response. This letter was reported in last week's trade press. I am told that BPA does not consider this letter confidential even though it is labeled as such by CAISO. Many of the CAISO backpedal statements made re: claims of strategic bidding would apply equally to other importers. Alan Comnes What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Meeting of the Energy Services Coalition (ESC) Enron Task Force, Houston, TX, Friday, 1/14/00 Body:: I will be out of town that day (a meeting I can't move). Please continue to let me know about future meetings. Lora Sullivan@ENRON 12/16/99 03:25 PM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Terence H Hap Boyd/EWC/Enron@Enron John Jose Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON Aleck Dadson/TOR/ECT@ECT Carolyn Green/HOU/AZURIX@AZURIX Chris Long/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mac David Peter Styles/LON/ECT@ECT Scott Bolton/Enron Communications@Enron Communications cc: rcfisher@hillsandco.com Subject: Meeting of the Energy Services Coalition (ESC) Enron Task Force Houston TX Friday 1/14/00 Enron Task Force Member At the call of Joe Hillings we plan to hold a meeting of the ESC Enron Task Force in Houston on Friday 1/14/00 from 8:00 AM until Noon. We would like to have dinner at a Houston restaurant on 1/13/00 @ 7:00 PM. If you are able to attend all or part of the meeting please advise. Details on dinner and Enron Building room location to follow. Joe Hillings RSVP to Lora Sullivan: John Ambler ___ Jose Bestard ___ Scott Bolton ___ Hap Boyd ___ Rob Bradley Yes Aleck Dadson ___ Carolyn Green ___ Chris Long ___ Mac McClelland ___ David Merrill ___ Peter Styles ___ Terry Thorn ___ cc: Bob Fisher (Would you be available to attend this meeting?) EJH What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Kari Dohn 916.445.0114 Body:: TASK ASSIGNMENT Task Priority: 2 Task Due On: Task Start Date: What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Rick to Cover Body:: LTV Steel's Northern Ohio Energy Conference in Cleveland Ohio You will be on a panel with reps from Centerior Ohio Edison Cinergy Audience will be between 400-500 ppl Per Terrie James What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Funky Business Body:: Follow up to previous message: I would not have managing for the slow down on the agenda. I don't think it is as relevant to our business as it is to many others. TERRIE JAMES@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS 07/05/2001 01:09 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Funky Business Steve Have you had a chance to look at the book Funky Business and to give any thought to having Jonas present at the Management Conference? I know you have a thousand other things on your plate not the least of which is California so I understand if the answer is no. However they've been contacted by someone else about the date so we may be forced to decide rather soon. On a related subject I'm contemplating another topic for the conference. I'd seen an article in Fortune several months ago titled Managing for the Slowdown. It talked about new challenges managers face in light of the economic downturn. (Most young managers have never experienced anything but boom times.) The article also outlines a dozen or so things companies should be thinking about now. (Use the downturn as a new opportunity to evaluate people. Overhaul your budget process. Don't stop communicating. etc.) I think it would be beneficial to address similar strategies and ideas with our managers. I'd love to get your thoughts on this idea. (Is it appropriate for Enron or am I just seeing the world through bleak-colored glasses?) Terrie James Sr. Director Corporate Communication Enron Broadband Services 713-853-7727 (phone) 713-646-8887 (fax) terrie_james@enron.net What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: FW: Meeting with Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. Body:: I think it would be a good idea for them to talk but I wouldn't want Jeff to go to California right now. Maybe they could meet outside the state (if for example brown is going to be in DC or New York) or by phone. From: Joannie Williamson/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/13/2001 08:36 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: FW: Meeting with Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. Wanted you to be aware that Mayor Brown is inviting Jeff to meet with him either in San Francisco or elsewhere. Please advise but I know that Jeff would probably not travel to California. Mark Koenig and Andy Fastow will discuss meeting with Mayor Brown on the CalPERS issue. Thanks Joannie What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Privileged & Confidential -- Verification Body:: Thanks for your help. Linda J Noske 09/18/2000 05:52 PM To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Privileged & Confidential -- Verification Richard I got the fax confirmation back that it went through. I put it in your in-box since you were with the interviewee. Linda Richard B Sanders 18/09/00 05:32 PM To: Linda J Noske/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Privileged & Confidential -- Verification What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: <<Concur Expense Document>> - General Expenses Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: FW: Possible co-sponsorships Body:: Though I had a somewhat different notion when I initially raised the idea of co-sponsorship I agree with Lee's observations and think that we should proceed the way he suggests. gramlr@pjm.com on 08/29/2000 04:06:56 PM To: amosher@appanet.org hcameron@uclink.berkeley.edu lfried@uclink.berkeley.edu jeff.dasovich@enron.com cc: Subject: FW: Possible co-sponsorships All Lee asked me to forward this. I'm still awaiting additional suggestions from anyone on speakers. I guess Lee's e-mail changes things. If the business school wants to go forward with a conference anyway then it may be a bad idea to have a separate one. Jeff has said he likes the idea of coordinating. Bill and Allen what do you think? I will chime in that Carl Shapiro is very much a big wig as a former chief economist at DOJ. As for the Frank Wolak suggestion Frank is a Stanford economist who is an outstanding analyst and has published probably more than anyone else on electricity market design performance regarding the UK Australia and California. He speaks a mile a minute though and his understanding of policy and politics is a bit naive. I should note that ICF will not be able to contribute. I heard from Michael Berg this morning. So he will not be participating in our discussions either. My opinion is let's do whatever is best for the school. One positive outcome of this would be stronger relationships with some of the University's top notch economic policy faculty. Overshadowing is possible. Lee does Dean Nacht have a view on joint sponsorship? Rob > What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: nan Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Enron projects with OPIC financing Body:: OPIC information. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: call to Sen Kinder Body:: Ken talked to Sen Kinder. He made the points you had prepared. Kinder agreed to shelve the legislation for this session. He said he had been hearing from several others including Proctor and Gamble (which has a big facility in his district) that the legislation was not going to help competition develop in the state. He expressed willingness to work with us on a better package and also expressed interest in coming to Enron's offices. He is going to be in San Antonio in August and would like to come to Houston around that time. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGDE - Draft FERC Brief on Settlement Process Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Form 4 Reminder for April Body:: do I need to do anything? I believe the only transaction I had was related to a set of shares which were released to me earlier in the year. Some of the shares were sold at that time to pay the income tax on the distribution. We discussed this before and my recollection is I did not have to make a filing. Could you confirm by e-mail? ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Notice of CPUC gas infrastructure workshop Body:: fyi What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Empty message (due to missing attachment) <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: New MSC Committee Report Body:: All: I just downloaded the attached from the ISO's website. It is dated 12/1/00= . =20 To boil it down the MSC comes down against soft caps and recommends the= =20 get market-based rates in return for selling forward proposal that the IS= O=20 staff is pushing. Forward contracts would need to at rates that=20 approximate competitive prices. Based on my quick read that does not mea= n=20 market prices it means somthing more akin to cost of service. MSC also=20 wants there to be a penalty on generators for underscheduling. They also= =20 claim there proposal will not exacerbate reliability problems. I would be interested in people's opinion if Enron should be responding to= =20 this report. Given the date of the report I am not sure if/how the ISO=20 would file this at the FERC. G. Alan Comnes (GAC) Here's the list of recommendations from the report. (1) The PX =01&must-buy=018 requirement would become a =01&must-schedule=01= 8 requirement.=20 IOUs would be required to schedule all forward energy through the PX but would = be=20 free to purchase it from any source. (2) California generators and entities that sell to any California purchase= r=20 (not limited to the PX and ISO) could continue to be eligible for market-based rates (and would= =20 be free of refund obligations) only if they offer a substantial portion of their sales= =20 in the form of two-year contracts at rates that approximate competitive prices. The detail= s=20 of such a proposal are outlined in this report. The volume offered by sellers in the= =20 aggregate would be sufficient to cover the all three IOUs=01 residential and small= =20 commercial customer load using an average load profile for weekdays and weekends for= =20 each month. (3) Any market participant that does not offer these two-year=20 market-power-mitigation forward contracts would be subject to cost-of-service rates for all of thei= r=20 sales of energy and ancillary services into the California market for at least the two-year= =20 market power mitigation period. (4) The CPUC would be encouraged to set a default rate for IOU residential= =20 and small commercial customers based on projected wholesale energy costs under the=20 2-year contracts described above. (5) The under-scheduling penalty should be even-handed. The MSC recommends = a=20 real-time trading charge that is applicable both to load and generation and more=20 important does not distinguish between instructed and uninstructed deviations from schedul= e. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: PanNat Value - Confidential and Proprietary Body:: Jeff Per your request below is the value of the deal based on MID prices as of Friday June 28. We have also estimated the Bid/Offer costs at $30 million based upon several quotes we received last year. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Eric <Embedded Picture (Metafile)> What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Sen. Murkowski to Address USAEE Conference, Sept. 25 Body:: Cynthia get back to Jeff on this. It doesn't look like a high priority to me but I will absolutely defer to your judgment. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Duke release and news conference Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: PGE/Commercial Support Group Meeting, 32C1 Body:: Per Geoff Roberts What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Congressman Ose loved your letter to Sen. Dunn Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Two Governors Press Releases--More Courage from the Capitol Body:: Preempt me please! Jeff Dasovich@EES 09/13/2000 06:22 PM To: Mary Hain/HOU/ECT@ECT Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON Sarah Novosel/Corp/Enron@ENRON Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Sandra McCubbin/SFO/EES@EES Mona L Petrochko/SFO/EES@EES Susan J Mara/SFO/EES@EES James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES mpalmer@enron.com Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Two Governor's Press Releases--More Courage from the Capitol ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Calling All Investors: The New Power Companys IPO Priced at $21 Per Share Body:: Do you guys follow these reports? Do we need to correct them? What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: CAISO NOTICE: Market Surveillance Committee Nominations and Selection Process Body:: MARKET NOTICE November 6 2001 Market Surveillance Committee Nominations and Selection Process ISO Market Participants: The MSC Selection Committee is currently accepting nominations (including self-nominations) for the two vacant Market Surveillance Committee (MSC) positions. The MSC Selection Committee is comprised of Frank Wolak Chair of the MSC Severin Borenstein Director of the Energy Institute at the University of California and Anjali Sheffrin the ISO's Director of Market Analysis. The selection committee will conduct an extensive review of each candidate's independence and qualifications and compose a short recommendation list for the two additional member positions on the MSC. In order to meet the goal of presenting a final recommendation list of 5 candidates to the ISO CEO by December 21 2001 from which the ISO CEO will select the two candidates for ratification as new members by the Governing Board on January 24 2002 all nominations need to be submitted to the MSC Selection Committee by November 21 2001. Please review the attached documents for more information. <<MSC Board Memo_Oct01_v2.doc>> <<Request for nominations_memo.doc>> Client Relations Communications CRCommunications@caiso.com What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Ken Lays Meeting with Fox Body:: Jon -- Ricardo Charvel is pulling together the briefing for Ken so please share the EBS activities/ agenda with him. Thanks ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: NewPower Withdrawal Notes Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Important - CPUC Motion - Confidential Attorney ClientPrivil ege and Work Product Body:: While I appreciate the virtue of flying below the radar if possible the matter here is complicated by the fact that FERC's discovery rules (18 CFR Subpart D) pertain only to proceedings set for hearing . . . and to such proceedings as the Commission may order. 18 CFR 385.401. In this case FERC stated that a trial-type hearing is not necessary . . . . and specifically rejected the use of a trial-type evidentiary hearing. Slip op. at 47-48 & n.97. Thus while I have not researched the matter as yet my preliminary view is that the CPUC's attempt to invoke FERC's discovery processes would appear to be outside the contemplation of FERC's Nov. 1 order and its regulations unless FERC specifically orders discovery in this case. (The CPUC seems to recognize the relevance of this consideration when it specifically attempts to equate paper hearings with trial-type hearings see page 1 of its Motion.) The CPUC's motion may prompt FERC to decide whether or not to allow discovery in this case under Rule 401. While the CPUC's motion does not apply directly to marketers FERC's ruling will be precedent in the event the CPUC or someone else hereafter serves discovery on other parties. As a result we need to consider whether laying in the weeds risks losing an opportunity to present our views on whether FERC should allow discovery in a paper hearing with an expedited decisional track particularly in light of the fact that Staff has already conducted. >>> Jeffrey Watkiss 11/08/00 10:31AM >>> Does anyone have an idea as to why marketers including EPMI are not included in the list of subject companies: Exh. B? Since EPMI is not a subject of the motion why should it answer? Lying in the weeds may be a more prudent course of action. >>> Fergus Gary S. <GFergus@brobeck.com> 11/07/00 10:08PM >>> 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: EEI Conference Series on RTOs and Markets: Mark Your Calendars Body:: Should we (or ESCA) start looking for opportunities like this now to get the word out? ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Body:: I'll give 150. Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: Jeff Skilling 04/19/2001 05:18 PM Sent by: Sherri Sera To: Cliff Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT Rick Buy/HOU/ECT Ben Glisan/HOU/ECT@ECT Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Jeffrey Sherrick/Corp/Enron Philippe A Bibi/HOU/ECT Michael Brown/NA/Enron Wade James A Hughes/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Louise Kitchen/HOU/ECT@ECT Rebecca McDonald/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT Greg Piper/Corp/Enron John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT Greg Whalley/HOU/ECT@ECT Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES Mark S Muller/HOU/EES@EES Matthew Scrimshaw/LON/ECT@ECT David Cox/Enron Communications@Enron Communications Kevin Hannon/Enron Communications@Enron Communications Rod Hayslett/FGT/Enron Stan Horton/Houston/Eott@Eott Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: I know how incredibly busy you all are so I'm sure that making a pledge to Jeff for the MS150 has simply slipped your mind. Well the ride is this weekend time is running out and we need you! Enron's goal is to raise $700000 and Jeff's personal goal is to raise $50000. As of today we are a little better than half way there. Won't you consider helping him reach his goal? Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow... Sherri :-) What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Purely Personal <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Confidential Information and Securities Trading Body:: To:GRIFFITH JOHN Email:john.griffith@enron.com - 713-853-6247 ? Enron Wholesale Services - Office of the Chairman ? From:??Mark Frevert Chairman & CEO ??????Greg Whalley President & COO ??????Mark Haedicke Managing Director & General Counsel ? Subject:??Confidential Information and Securities Trading ? Enron Wholesale Services ('EWS') maintains official Policies and Procedures Regarding Confidential Information and Securities Trading ('Policies and Procedures') which have been revised as of November 15 2000 to reflect the new EWS structure. These policies and procedures are intended to allow us simultaneously to pursue our diverse businesses and to protect confidential information our reputation for integrity and EWS and its employees from legal liability. ? You are required to become familiar with and to comply with the Policies and Procedures. The newly revised Policies and Procedures are available for your review on LegalOnline the new intranet website maintained by the Enron Wholesale Services Legal Department. Please click on the attached link to access LegalOnline: ? ? You must certify your compliance with the Policies and Procedures within two weeks of your receipt of this message. The LegalOnline site will allow you to quickly and conveniently certify your compliance on-line with your SAP Personal ID number. If you have any questions concerning the Policies or Procedures please call Lance Schuler at extension 3-5419 Mark Haedicke at extension 3-6544 Alan Aronowitz at extension 3-3214 Bob Bruce at extension 5-7780 or Donna Lowry at extension 3-1939. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>