FYI.

----- Forwarded by Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 06/04/2001 07:54 AM 
-----

	Bill Williams/ENRON@enronXgate
	06/02/2001 09:03 AM
		 
		 To: Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENt
		 cc: 
		 Subject: RE: Rigby's Proposal for Take Over LD's Section 10.3.2

Scott, I don't see anything amiss here.  If its ok with GE its OK with me.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Dieball, Scott  
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:51 AM
To: Rigby, John
Cc: Williams, Bill; Mann, Kay; pthompson@akllp.com; Tweed, Sheila; Bills, 
Lisa; Engeldorf, Roseann
Subject: Re: Rigby's Proposal for Take Over LD's Section 10.3.2

I took a quick stab at John's redraft of Section 10.3.2 but think we should 
talk further about subsections (j) -(l) in particular.

 << File: GE-Take Over LD's - 10.3.2.doc >> 






	John G Rigby 05/24/2001 06:15 PM 	   To: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Sheila 
Tweed/HOU/ECT@ECT, Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bill 
Williams/PDX/ECT@ECT, pthompson@akllp.com  cc:   Subject: Rigby's Proposal 
for Take Over LD's Section 10.3.2


Attached is a redline against the present Take Over LD section of Rev 5 of GE 
world hunger.   I made the changes based on what we have done in ARCOS. They 
are not the same because in ARCOS GE has the full testing program within 
their Commisssioning Period since they have the power island which is 1200 MW 
with the Purchaser having 24 MW for aux loads.

I do not think that my new subparagraph (K) works.  I have left it there to 
see if anyone else can tweak it and make it work.  I am trying to get GE on 
the hook for acceleration costs that we incur and still beat the Time for 
Completion.  We did not do that in Arcos since GE's time in theory is the 
same as the contractors.


Probably merits an internal discussion before sharing with GE.

 << File: 10-3-2 (jr May 24).doc >>