Datasets:

neelblabla
/

enron_labeled_email-llama2-7b_finetuning

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 1.34k rows

prompts stringlengths 590 30k
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Sean - is this anything we need to follow up on? [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: There were several items in the mail pouch that you needed a response form me on. Here are the responses: Marchris forwarded a request to attend a conference on Aug 19 and 20. I think the original invite when to Ken and Jeff. I will attend subject to them getting some reasonable response rate from the commissioners they invited and provided that I get a speaking or similar participation opportunity. SMU professor and student asking for Astros tickets - yes CERA conference on July 10-12 in Scotland -- decline [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: thanks From: Sarah Novosel on 05/23/2001 02:54 PM To: Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Linda Robertson/NA/Enron@ENRON Subject: Presidential Power Question I spoke with Donna Bobbish this morning about Steve's question -- does the President have broader authority to take action during times of crisis. Donna sent me this quick write up about what she has looked into so far. Because these questions go beyond a FERC practitioner's expertise we asked Donna to work with a Constitutional Law expert at V&E to determine whether and under what circumstances the President's authority may be extended beyond the authorities discussed in the memo. We will let you know what we learn from that further research. Sarah [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I attended Cmmr. Wood's two-day hearing on Wholesale Markets which concluded today (8/24) in San Diego. Three Commissioner's were present (Wood Lynch and Neeper) with Duque and Bilas participating by phone. Administrative Law Judge Wetzel was present and a transcript was taken. The quasi-legislative hearing was the beginning of a record developed for the investigation into the workings of wholesale/retail markets. This session focused on Wholesale markets. There will be subsequent sessions on retail issues market structure and other related issues in the future. My conclusion from this session is that Wood is looking for support for increasing regulatory intervention in the market. Dan Larcamp Director of the Office of markets Tariffs and Rates FERC was present. He relayed FERC's concern of this matter and a desire to hold hearings in San Diego. He also relayed that Hoecker held a press conference announcing the opening of a 206 investigative proceeding into the operation of the wholesale markets in California which carried with it refund authority. The format of the hearing was to respond to pre-filed questions developed by Wood/Lynch. Each member of the panel would respond to the questions and any questions posed by the Commissioners the Judge or the CPUC Attorney. No questions were posed by members of the audience. Yesterday's panel of academics were comprised of: 1. Dr. Timothy Duane-UC Berkley 2. Dr. William Hogan-Harvard 3. Dr. Frank Wolak-Stanford (ISO Market Surveillance Committee) 4. David Marcus-Energy Consultant for the Coaltion of Utility Employees 5. Dr. Gene Coyle 6. Dr. Jean-Michel Glachant Universite Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne The panel was asked to speak as individuals and not on behalf of any institutions they may represent. While the purpose of the panel seemed to be to determine that market power was being exercised and that prices were too high and therefore not just and reasonable the panelist stopped short of blaming generators and market participants in behaving illegally. The concensus generally was that market power did exist at various times but the mere existence did not constitute bad behavior. None with the exception of Dr. Wolak who is in the process of doing a study using recent data as part of his role for the Market Surveillance Committee had done a study. There was some discussion though not much of the monopsony power of the utilities. I think ultimately the group conceded that scarcity of supply amplified concerns about the exercise of market power as even the increase in gas costs did not fully explain the recent spikes. Wolak believes that encourage utilities to enter into forward purchases will reduce the exercise of real-time market power. Hogan seemed to be there with Sempra's interests in mind. He continued to promote expansion of the ISO's abilities to dispatch load as well as maintain system reliability. There was alot of discussion about forward purchase ability for utilities so as to be less subject to volatile market prices. The concerns were also discussed about the appropriateness of a distribution utility making purchasing decisions on behalf of its customers. This included discussion of separation of these functions and the default provider role. Most everyone agreed that rolling back to a regulated market was not feasible without raising other major and serious concerns however there seemed to be support for some interim measures where cost-of-service regulation may be a good idea and that was during peak periods. All agreed that a demand response and price signals are important in the long-run although not to the extent currently experienced in San Diego. Today's panel included representatives from SDG&E SCE and PG&E TURN UCAN and ORA. While yesterday's panel maintained objectivity as to whether or not generators were exercising market power to the detriment of the system today's panel made no bones about the generators being to blame. SCE/PG&E indicated their need for relief for recovery of market costs in excess of the rate freeze. SDG&E was still on the hot seat for their inaction in hedging any of their supply. SDG&E brought up their failed PBR proposal and ORA and UCAN thought that that may be one way to incent the utility to be more responsible with their purchases. UCAN discussed the Governor's direction and the potential for putting rate caps into affect for residential and small commercial. He mentioned that C&I customers are experience difficulties as well. TURN raised the need for cost-based bid caps and cost-based peaking contracts. Mike Florio TURN urged against any further divestitute of assets and alleged market concentration on those assets that had been divested. In fact TURN urged the Commission to seek legislation to clarify the Commission's authority to order retention of assets. Neeper urged that part of the solution should be changing the current requirement to use the PX as the only authorized exchange although TURN disagreed. Bruno Gaillard 08/24/2000 06:09 PM To: SF Directors Edward Hamb/HOU/EES@EES Jennifer Rudolph/HOU/EES@EES Chris Hendrix/HOU/EES@EES Greg Cordell/HOU/EES@EES Harold G Buchanan/HOU/EES@EES Martin Wenzel/SFO/HOU/EES@EES Douglas Condon/SFO/EES@EES James M Wood/HOU/EES@EES Gary Mirich/HOU/EES@EES Dennis Benevides/HOU/EES@EES Roger Yang/SFO/EES@EES David Parquet@ECT mday@gmssr.com Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Marcie Milner/Corp/Enron@ENRON Mary Hain@Enron Harry Kingerski/HOU/EES@EES James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES Karen Denne@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Daily Update/ Legislative activity - 08/24/00 Siting related bills 1. Good new - The Williamson Act passed the Senate 34-1 It should be heard at the assembly Saturday or Monday if it is not redirected to a Committee hearing. 2. There was a long meeting with Ducheny with regards to AB 970. The enviro's boycotted they want to draft a bill with Keeley. Labor was obstructionist - they wanted to gut all the expediting siting language with regards to all facilities except for the peaking plants. Rate Cap related bills 1. The Edison Language on Rate Stabilization may not go anywhere. Edison has not found an author because of the efforts of Enron and others lobbying against it. Furthermore there are signs that Gov. Davis opposes it. 2. The Governor's office has issued a proposed language for a rate cap bill. The language however is not available as of yet. It may be released today or tomorrow. SDG&E has shown concerns over the content of the bill. They seem to think that it is worse than initially proposed by the Governor in his press release. The bill includes retroactive rate caps through 6/1/00. The rate cap could reflect Wood's rate cap proposal (6.5 cts cap on the energy component The bill does not specify who or how the costs associated with the cap will be recovered. (The reasoning is that UDCs will be more cautious in their procurement if there is uncertainty on who is responsible for the costs.) All of this is speculative. We hope to see the actual language soon. 3. Enron has been working with the Republican leadership to promote a rate cap proposal similar to the amended language we have proposed for AB2290. The bill focuses only on SDG&E customers and our major principals are the following. The Interim Rate Cap should be limited to residential and small commercial customers plus specific institutions that have a significant public role such as schools and hospitals. The Interim Rate Cap should be limited to the period ending December 31 2001. The Interim Rate Cap must be structured so that any undercollection is eventually recovered from the same customers who benefit from the lower rates provided by the rate cap. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: No 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 [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: OK From: Jo Ann Hill/ENRON@enronXgate on 07/18/2001 04:31 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Kathryn Schultea/ENRON@enronXgate Mary Joyce/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: FW: Request for PR2 Access Steve -- For your approval. As some additional information regarding the request Kathy Diane Taylor and I met with Deana Taylor this afternoon to understand what each person's role was and the specific access needed. For the interim we are recommending that the HR View Basic Data & Org ENTP and View Payroll and Time ENTP role be granted to each of the individuals listed below. Until January 1 this function was performed in the Payroll Department and at that time was transitioned to Karen and Deana's group. The people listed below actually transferred from the Payroll Department. For the long term we are going to look at creating a specific role for this group that would let them access only those data elements needed. I've spoken with Mary Joyce by phone and she has approved so I am requesting your approval as well. These people have basically been prevented from being able to reconcile any of the net pay accounts etc. for the past week. Please let me know if you will approve or if you need any additional information. Thanks. Jo Ann [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Tim -- Cindy manages this program. Mary -- please give some thought to how we might solicit employee views on this. Cindy -- I believe we already allow matching of donations to quasi-religious organizations: religious schools for example and perhaps relief organizations like Catholic Relief Services? I think that if we want to consider extending it we should probably discuss it in a smaller group than the e-speak forum -- the Enron Foundation Board perhaps? This could become controversial though (recall the Planned Parenthood debate and the periodic attempts of shareholders to add restrictions through the proxy mechanism). ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Please see attached. Rob perhaps while in London you could stop by Mark's desk to discuss. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I just spoke with Mary to make sure we have the same information. Here are the facts we have so far. On November 4th the CPUC filed a motion with FERC to adopt the form of protective order that the CPUC entered to compel the production of documents and to shorten time to answer. According to Exhibit B (read to me by Nancy Pickover at Bracewell) the following CPUC moved against the following entities: AES Williams Duke Dynegy Reliant and Southern. Enron entities were NOT named in exhibit B. This is not to say that we could not be easily added to the group. While the motion reads as if the CPUC was moving against everybody in fact in footnote 2 they state they are only moving against the entities named in Exhibit B. We will have Exhibit B in hand first thing tomorrow via FEDEX to confirm this. To repeat Enron is not named yet. Thanks Gary [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: > Attached please find copies of the following schedules and annexes to the > Purchase and Sale Agreement: > > 1) the Master Parent Disclosure Letter > > 2) the schedules for India > > 3) the schedules for EGEP > > 4) the schedules for APACHI and > > 5) Annex G listing the contracts that have been excluded for > confidentiality reasons. > > Please note that the schedules for the SoCal assets will follow shortly > under a separate cover. In addition we plan to circulate copies of the > CALME and Wind schedules tomorrow. > > If you have any questions or any problems opening any of the attachments > please do not hesitate to contact either Gray Sasser at (713)758-3425 or > Donnie Roark at (713)758-3374. > > > > > > <<Master-Disclosure-Ltr.DOC>> <<India-Schedules.DOC>> > <<EGEP-Schedules.DOC>> <<APACHI-Schedules.wpd>> <<Annex G -- > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This > email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization > named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative of the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any > review dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments if > any or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have > received this email in error please immediately notify the sender by > return email and delete this email from your system. Thank You > > - WORD v1 Summer Disclosure Letter.DOC - 00 India Schedules.DOC - 285641_1.DOC - Lightning-Schedules3.wpd - Annex G -- Excluded Information Based on Confidentiality Requirements.DOC [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: In order to comply with terms of the Confidentiality Agreement that Enron executed in connection with our evaluation of UAE we must destroy or return all confidential materials (including the Offering Memorandum). Accordingly please either send your materials to me by interoffice mail or destroy all your materials AND send me an email confirming that you have done so. thanks Jeff Jeffrey M. Bartlett Director Enron Americas 713-853-5629 jeff.bartlett@enron.com [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Let's add this to our daily distribution. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Marshall: Thanks for responding so quickly. I have scheduled the following intervie= w: Wednesday December 6 - 1:00 PM Houston time. It will last approximately 1 hour. We will call you at (605) 497-4045 unless otherwise instructed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 713/853-5290. Best regards Shirley Crenshaw Jingming 'Marshall' Yan <jmyan@stanford.edu> on 11/28/2000 12:59:55 PM To: Shirley.Crenshaw@enron.com cc: Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com=20 Subject: Re: Telephone Interview with The Enron Corp. Research Group Ms. Crenshaw Thank you very much for the message. I am very interested in the opportunity to talk to personnel from the Research Group at Enron. Between the two days you suggest I prefer Wednesday 12/6. Considering the two-hour time difference between California and Texas 11:00 am Pacific time (1:00 pm your time) seems to be a good slot. However I am open most of the day on 12/6 so if some other time slot is prefered on your end please let me know. Thanks again. I look forward to talking to you and your colleagues. Jingming On Tue 28 Nov 2000 Shirley.Crenshaw@enron.com wrote: > Good afternoon Jingming: > > Professor Wolak forwarded your resume to the Research Group and > they would like to conduct a telephone interview with you sometime next > week at your convenience. The best days would be Tuesday 12/5 or > Wednesday 12/6. > > Please let me know which day and what time would be best for you and > they will call you. Let me know the telephone number that you wish to be > contacted at. > > The interviewers would be: > > Vince Kaminski Managing Director and Head of Research > Vasant Shanbhogue Vice President Research > Lance Cunningham Manager Research > Alex Huang Manager Research > > Look forward to hearing from you. > > Best regards > > Shirley Crenshaw > Administrative Coordinator > Enron Research Group. > 713-853-5290 > > > Jingming Marshall Yan jmyan@leland.stanford.edu Department of Economics (650)497-4045 (H) Stanford University (650)725-8914 (O) Stanford CA 94305 358C Economics Bldg If one seeks to act virtuously and attain it then what is there to repine about? -- Confucius _?OO??OOo? ?T=15xO-?? -- =14??<o=15 O?> [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Bryson? [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Amitava Let's talk about it on Monday. Vince [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: While the more-open gas market may have more tools available than in electric markets market solutions have been proposed as an alternative to legislated rate caps in the hard hit San Diego market. Gavin -- please send Irwin copies of the articles on the offers made in San Diego. Stelzer@aol.com on 08/25/2000 03:14:04 PM To: skean@enron.com cc: Subject: Advisory board meeting The WSJ report of 8-23 on the power/price situation in Con Ed's territory contains the following: And the tools to hedge prices such as those that exist in other commodities markets aren't fully developed yet for th fledgling deregulated electricity industry. That might be worthy of comment in my talk. Anything I should see on the subject? [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Sunday through Tuesday [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Junior League by the Ritz starts at 12:00 there's an Enron table buffet line. Parking garage is adjacent to the Junior League. [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Looks fine to me. Maureen - please keep on file From: Billy Lemmons/ENRON@enronXgate on 06/13/2001 07:08 AM To: Stanley Horton/ENRON@enronXgate Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Ted C Bland/ENRON@enronXgate Teresa Bosien/ENRON@enronXgate Subject: DRAFT - PRC Follow Up Memo Stan and Steve Below is a short email that I suggest we send as a follow up to each PRC meeting. Please adjust as you feel appropriate and I'll ask Terry Bosien to provide your assistant with a list of attendees after each meeting for distribution. I'm traveling today but will be back in the office Thursday. If you'd like to discuss my asst Maxine (x33499) knows how to reach me or you can contact Ted or Terry. Regards Billy ___________________ Thank you for participating in the [EES] Analyst & Associate PRC meeting [last Friday]. The Western Hemisphere final PRC meeting for Analysts & Associates is set for July 18. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the collective ranking distributions and to discuss the performance of individuals in categories 1 and 5. A subset of those who participated in [Friday's] meeting will be selected to participate on July 18. After the July 18 meeting you will receive the ok to provide feedback to those you represented. If you are not the direct supervisor of those you represented it is critically important that you work with the supervisor to insure consistent and clear feedback and ownership of the ranking results. If you have any questions please feel free to contact Terry Bosien (x35230). Thank you again for your contributions to this important process. [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: See last story attached. Congratulations it looks like you are shaking things up in typical Enron fashion. ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: ----------------- [/INST] Category: Purely Personal
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Would it be possible to use LiveLink to capture the information we gathered for the organization/budget review (such as functions of the different groups and the roles and responsibilities of the different individuals budgets etc)? I hate to see all that ggod information sit idle. [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I've finished marking up the drafts and thought perhaps a few thoughts would give you some insight into the reasons for my revisions . Unfortunately I was engaged in discussions about the course to pursue in light of Arthur Anderson's comments until almost 10pm when I lost my typing help so not much headway was made in inputting the changes last night. My secretary is supposed to be in early ( it is now nearly 8:00 and she still isn't in ! ) and I will enlist whatever other help I can get to turn these documents around. For those not involved in the discussions last night Roger advised us that Arthur Anderson had changes to the Xonon Technology Implementation Agreement designed to make clear ENA had no primary or secondary obligations under the XTIA. The principal change suggested by AA - the deletion of the last sentence of the BOLD language in Section 2.2 - removed the obligation for ENA to pick up any obligations under the agreement owed by West LB in excess of the Cap. Note that this same change applies in the Agreement in Principle related to the purchase of turbines. XTIA Revision 4G. AA's change did not appear to address comprehensively the principle AA espoused ie clarifying ENA had no primary or secondary obligations under the agreements. After much discussion and some consideration I decided to prepare alternative markups of the XTIA - one that attempts to meet the AA directive while preserving a level of comfort for GE. I attempted this by increasing the limit on West LB's liability in Article 10 to $20 million from $9.9 million so that GE's recourse against West LB is the same as it had against West LB and ENA in the prior drafts and by obligating West LB in the default provisions to pony up for an ENA default. I also extensively modified the Section 2.2 language ( taken verbatim from the LM 6000 deal ) to eliminate the limited recourse provisions favoring West LB and in doing so made it easier to conclude that references to ENA in the agreement are references to ENA acting in an agency and not its individual capacity. This notion is still pretty vague in the revision because I did not want to create too much discomfort in GE since ENA explicitly acting in an agency capacity would mean there was no recourse against it ( since ultimate recourse would lie with the principal West LB). Roger suggested I delete the limit on ENA's liability in Article 10 to remove the implication it had any which I did ( and which means we have no upside protection if we are construed to have obligations under the XTIA. The upshot is that in my opinion the 4g revision goes as far as possible toward placating AA while still retaining a possibility of selling it to GE. The sheer number of changes required by the substance of AA's comment however is bound to be disconcerting to GE at this stage of negotiations particularly when GE's expectation was for a markup incorporating the new business terms agreed yesterday afternoon (calling for payment of the Development Funds to be completed by September 302000 with the possibility of a refund of a portion of the Development Fund Payment if the December 31 Milestone is not timely completed) and some clean ups/clarifications. Note that in both revision 4g and 4ga Section4.3 now provides that the Xonon credit created is only exercisable by CCSI on and after December 312000 so that the credit amount can reflect the deduction of any Milestone 4 refund amount paid by GE if it does not complete that Milestone on time. I think the dollar value of the credit should be adjusted downward if a portion of the Development Funds paid on September 30 are in fact refunded in December. We need to make sure to make provision in the Acquisition and Development Agreement that any Milestone 4 refund received by West LB is paid over to ENA since West LB will have been repaid its advances on September 302000. XTIA Revision 4GA . This alternate revision to the XTIA takes a minimalist approach and incorporates only the new business terms some minor clean up/clarifications and the AA change to Section 2.2 and the change to Article 10 ( to remove a cap for ENA's laibility) suggested by Roger. It seems to me it does not address meaningfully the AA admonition that ENA may not have primary or secondary liability under the XTIA if it wants to stay outside of the rigors of FAS 97-10. However it has the singular advantage of looking a lot like what GE and West LB expect to see in the revision. Option Repurchase Agreement. This revision was complicated by the possible refund of the a portion of the Development Funds by GE if it failed to complete Milestone 4 by December 312000 ( an attempt to retain some accountability for GE's performance given that it is being paid for that Milestone on September 30 to satisfy CCSI ). Because the option repurchase must occur on or before September 30 it isn't clear what will happen December 31 so its hard to figure out what to pay if the contract is not cancelled by September 30 or what the credits are worth on that date. Since CCSI is the direct recipient of the credits under the XTIA I first thought ENA could hang onto $2.1 million ( the amount formerly allocated to Milestone 4 before its payment obligation was collapsed into Milestone 3) by deducting the refund from the amount payable to CCSI on the option repurchase date and leaving CCSI to bear the risk of GE's repayment of any refund in order to make CCSI whole. If GE did meet the Milestone on time and so did not pay the refund amount directly to CCSI I thought ENA could always make CCSI whole by paying the $2.1 million in December when the refund matter was decided. That approach- subtracting the refund amount from the September 30 payment to CCSI- was decidedly unsatisfactory since the option repurchase formula could result - depending on the Milestones paid on the option repurchase date - in a negative payment to CCSI for the option. What I settled on in this draft was to go ahead and pay CCSI the amount of the premiums it has paid to September 30 plus $200000 if the turbine contract has not been cancelled on September 30. This would include repayment to CCSI on September 30 of premiums paid by CCSI under the spark spread on September 30. Assuming CCSI made all its premium payments and West LB made all of its Development Fund advances ENA would have received $9.9 million from CCSI by September 30 paid out $9.9 million plus interest to West LB by September 30 and purchased the spark spread from CCSI for $10.1 million. If the turbine contract is not cancelled but GE has to pay the refund I think the $2.1 million ought to go to West LB or its designee (ENA). If we cancel the turbine contract and do not go forward with Pastoria the dollar amount of the credits vested in CCSI and exercisable after December 312000 are equal to the Development Funds advanced less the refund amount. Since the document now reads that the $2.1 refund amount goes back to West LB or its designee if GE pays the refund and CCSI is holding a Xonon credit of only $7.8 millionit seems to me it will be necessary to pay the refund over to CCSI instead of ENA in order to make up for the fact that it paid $9.9 in premium and only received $7.8 in credit in September. This quick liquidation of $2.1 of the credit seems to be an ancillary benefit to CCSI occasioned by GE's refund. We could provide in the agreements that GE makes this payment directly to CCSI or we can continue to have the right to receive the payment from GE under the XTIA and the obligation to pay it to CCSI under the Repurchase Agreement. [/INST] Category: Document editing/checking(collaboration)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Looks good. How about a point about the need to connect new generation=20 quickly. =09Sarah Novosel =0909/26/2000 09:55 PM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: skean@enron.com Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES Sue Nord/NA/Enron@= Enron=20 Margaret Carson/Corp/Enron@ENRON Rob Bradley/Corp/Enron@ENRON=20 mpalmer@enron.com Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON Jeff=20 Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: Draft Letter to FERC by Consumer Groups Below is my first rough draft of a letter that could be sent from consumers= =20 to FERC Chairman Hoecker. Due to technical difficulties I could not attac= h=20 the letter in a separate document so I copied the letter and have reprinte= d=20 it below. Having never been involved in this type of letter writing campaign this wa= s=20 a bit of a stab in the dark for me so I welcome everyone's comments. I am= =20 also working on a letter that could be sent by senior management or CEOs of= =20 high tech firms but I wanted to get your feedback on this format before I= =20 went forward on the high tech letter. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Sarah September 26 2000 The Honorable James Hoecker Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street N.E. Washington D.C. Re: Electric Power Industry Reform Dear Chairman Hoecker: We are consumers or represent consumers of electric power. We write to urg= e=20 you and your colleagues to take the initiative to address the intolerable= =20 shortages and extreme price volatility that have become all too common in t= he=20 electric power industry. It is imperative that the Federal Energy Regulato= ry=20 Commission proceed expeditiously with the reforms needed to support a=20 competitive and efficient power supply industry to ensure a reliable supply= =20 of power at the lowest possible cost to consumers. There are many actions you and your colleagues should take to ensure that t= he=20 power supply in the U.S. remains sufficient and is available at reasonable= =20 prices. For example you and your colleagues should remove roadblocks in t= he=20 nation=01s electricity gird. Under the current system FERC regulations a= llow=20 many companies that own transmission systems to restrict access to their=20 transmission lines by competing electricity suppliers. The result of this= =20 policy is shortages blackouts and skyrocketing prices. Like the interstat= e=20 highway system FERC should allow electricity to move from one state to=20 another just as freely as motorists do. All electricity suppliers should= =20 have the same access to the transmission lines in order to transport power = to=20 where it is most needed. FERC should also discourage electricity suppliers=01 reliance on spot and= =20 short-term electricity markets for power supply. Instead FERC should urge= =20 suppliers to purchase a portion of their power needs under long-term=20 contracts. Locking in electricity costs at fixed prices protects consumers= =20 from unexpected price swings that can be financially devastating. We strongly urge you and your colleagues to seize the initiative on these= =20 reforms. Consumers deserve a power supply industry that is both more=20 reliable and economical.=20 Very truly yours [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Agreed. Trying to be too cute with our strategy is difficult. Look about 4 years ago we pulled out of the market. I think that we need to simply accept that these customers are going back sooner or later. NPC won't even pick this up. Jim Paul Kaufman@ECT 04/13/2001 01:06 PM To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron Jeff Dasovich Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA I like the idea particularly if we can time any decision to turn the customers back so it falls after the failure to get some action out of Sacto (instead of after our earnings release). The only problem I see is that we would need a decision from the top that we're not going to turn the customers back if we get direct access (so we can end the debate). I don't think it helps us if we get lucky get direct access back then make a decision to return customers to the utility. Karen Denne@ENRON 04/13/2001 10:30 AM To: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Susan J Mara/NA/Enron@ENRON Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA Before any decision is made I think we really need to weigh in with EES on the ramifications (both PR and legislative) of turning back 16000 residential customers. I strongly believe that the public hit we will take will be far greater than our actual out-of-pocket losses. We will be crucified by the public media consumer groups legislators governor attorney general etc. and this action will reaffirm our reputation of packing up and leaving when it's not in our interest. The impact of this action would be exacerbated since it is on the heels of UC/CSU. I would also argue that this hurts our national dereg efforts. If we're advocating that competition and choice benefits consumers and then we turn around and pull out of a market and abandon customers when we're not profiting we'll kill any chances we have of ever serving retail customers in California -- or in any other state. We look foolish advocating for direct access when we're not willing to serve our existing -- let alone future customers What about a preemptive strike that engages these 16000 customers to weigh in on direct access -- i.e. a letter that says Enron may be forced to cancel its contract -- call/write/send the enclosed postcard to your legislator and tell them you want to keep your right to choose your energy service provider. Our credibility is on the line. Before we take this action we need to be cognizant of all the long-range strategic implications and we need to seriously weigh the negative impact this will have on our corporate reputation on our legislative abilities and on our commercial success going forward. kd James D Steffes 04/12/2001 09:05 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron Paul Kaufman/PDX/ECT@ECT Sandra McCubbin/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron Janel Guerrero/Corp/Enron@Enron Mark Palmer/Corp/Enron@ENRON Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON Susan J Mara/NA/Enron Peggy Mahoney/HOU/EES@EES Harry Kingerski/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA In the meeting today no decision was made about what to do with Enron's 16000 residential customers. Each of the contracts gives a basic 30 day out right to Enron. That being said I think that we have a short window to push for DA before any public action impacts us in Sacramento. I realize that the ultimate action (which I think is inevitable) makes it harder for our advocacy on DA but real $ are flowing out of the company. EES will give us notice when a decision is reached. Thanks Jim [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Market Participants: The ISO Recommendation for Congestion Management Reform to be presented for approval by the ISO Governing Board on September 6-7 2000 is now posted on the ISO web site at . As a reminder there will be an informational conference call from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. tomorrow August 25 to provide an opportunity for you to clarify the content and format of what we will be asking the Board to approve. The teleconference information is as follows: Call In: (877) 381-6004 Password: 781871 Leader: Byron Woertz Byron Woertz Director Client Relations [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: calendar -- FYI ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: fyi ----------------- [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Decline. Rosalee Fleming 09/21/2000 05:29 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Letter to President on Energy Efficiency - Immediate Review Reque sted Is this something we want to do? ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: houston Bryson? 3-6424 -- Peggy Menchaca Kathleen Leslie Lawner - gas choice Fumo3 (48111220) Peco 15 ( 39235 Lauren Cox 9416377899 [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I have drafted the attached letter denying the Cal ISO's request to send it (and the EOB) EPMI and EES' cost information for transactions over the FERC's cost cap. Since I believe we are on very firm ground my initial inclination was to send no response to the ISO's letter so there would be nothing to quote in the press. However I drafted this letter at Alan's suggestion for purposes of discussion. We should decide whether to send a letter before distributing this draft more widely in-house to discuss how to parse the message. [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: This is an issue we have long struggled with. We have conducted several comprehensive reviews in the past and on an ongoing basis we go through a resource allocation process which enables subjective criteria to be considered in the prioritization and resource allocation process. I think the project is a good idea. Your sources would be John Jim Steffes and Rick Shapiro (for the RCR or resource commitment process). Doug Schuler <schuler@rice.edu> on 05/01/2001 10:59:10 AM To: skean@enron.com cc: Subject: my work situation Dear Steve Jim and Rick: I just wanted to give you a quick update on my situation at Rice and to inquire as to a future project with your group at Enron. First I apologize for my prolonged recent absences. I have had two long-standing academic projects: one was due 4/19 (it was on final review - a paper about corporate political strategy - and just was accepted for publication at our top academic journal) and another is due 5/31. The 5/31 paper was commissioned long ago but is a key paper in a June conference (topic is methods to study corporate political activities and the public affairs function). In order to get it done properly I need to forego any work at Enron until later in the month. A project of interest to me at Enron - and I hope one that you also have interest - is assessing the effectiveness of governmental affairs. John told me that he conducted such a study for the group last year. One of the methodological challenges is to calculate the benefits that government affairs brings - especially in a system where for example on the legislative side much of the work of government affairs is to block legislation at very early stages. I suspect that govt. affairs needs to justify its existence for internal budgets at Enron and thus the benefits of the function are important to quantify. I'd like to review any of the previous work and make suggestions as necessary. At some point let me know how you would like to proceed. Otherwise I hope all is well with you all. Cordially Doug Doug Schuler Rice University Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management P.O. Box 1892 Houston TX 77251-1892 (713) 285-5472 tel. (713) 285-5251 fax. schuler@rice.edu [/INST] Category: Company Business, Strategy, etc.(elaborate in Section 3 [Topics])
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: Dear guys Having been out of the office for a couple of days I've found myself the victim of theft (again). This time my desk drawer key has been stolen from its hiding place under my telephone. I always lock my drawers and keep the key in the same place but on arriving in the office today I found the drawers unlocked and the key missing. Although there's nothing sensitive on or around my desk I'm concerned about the security implications of someone sniffing around the office in this manner. I also found the papers on my desk extensively reshuffled last week. Last year in our old office I had my only two real options books stolen from among the many and varied books on my desk. That couldn't have been a random theft and I fear this isn't either. I can't understand who'd be so interested in a Research guy's belongings! Can we ask security to check their surveillance footage for any suspicious activity around my desk? Cheers Steve [/INST] Category: Personal but in professional context(e.g., it was good working with you)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: I 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 [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)
<s>[INST] <<SYS>> I am sharing an email body with you. Based on the text in the body, you need to classify the email in one of the following eight categories: 'Company Business, Strategy, etc.'; 'Purely Personal'; 'Personal but in professional context (e.g., it was good working with you)'; 'Logistic Arrangements (meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)'; 'Employment arrangements (job seeking, hiring, recommendations, etc)'; 'Document editing/checking (collaboration)'; 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)'; 'Empty message'. <</SYS>> Mail: calendar and meeting file ----------------- [/INST] Category: Logistic Arrangements(meeting scheduling, technical support, etc)