Lets get together to discuss..
---------------------- Forwarded by Kurt Anderson/EWC/Enron on 07/12/2002 
10:49 AM ---------------------------


"Gary Verkleeren" <GVerkleeren@zilkha.com> on 07/12/2002 10:48:27 AM
To: <kurt.anderson@enron.com>
cc:  

Subject: FW: RE: Revised Availability Numbers




>  -----Original Message-----
> From:  Gary Verkleeren
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: 'kurt.anderson@ps.ge.com'
> Cc: Rick Winsor; Joan Quick; Mark Haller
> Subject: RE: Revised Availability Numbers
>
> Kurt,
>
> After performing an initial review of the revised availability numbers, 
which included performing spot checks on specific turbines, I have decided to 
discontinue any additional efforts on my part to validate the revised 
numbers.  The basis for my decision includes but is not limited to the 
following:
>
> 1)   The summary letter which accompanied the revised availability tables 
states:
>
>  "To differentiate for times when the turbine is transitioning between 
states as per design, calculations have determined that during each month a 
turbine will have  between one and two hours meeting the above conditions.  
For this reason, the times determined using the conditions above (i.e. "zero 
power availability") were  decreased by 1.5 hours to account for the as 
designed transitioning times."
>
>     I reject applying this rule.  A turbine is available to run or it is 
not available to run.  If a turbine remains down on repair for seven 
consecutive days its availability for  that seven day period is zero.  No 
credit should be applied for as designed transitioning times - at least this 
is how I interpret the contract.
>
> 2) On May 23, 2002 you received an email from me regarding the April 
Monthly Reports.  My email to you made specific reference to MR WTG#9 and its 
improperly  reported  availability.  On June 13, 2002, Mark Fisher, Joe 
Thorpe and I spent the entire day reviewing the availability calculation 
procedures, methodology, and  reporting.  MR WTG#9 happened to be a specific 
turbine in which we worked through the entire availability calculation.  Both 
Mark Fisher and Joe Thorpe agreed that  the reported availability was 
incorrect by approximately 5 percentage points.  Why was MR WTG#9 not revised 
for the month of April?
>
> 3) Your summary letter mentions low data recovery of 10-minute data for the 
December 01 time period.  Based on my understanding from Mark Fisher, the Mon 
files
>  form the basis for your availability reporting.  My availability analysis 
which primarily included investigation of the 10-minute data was frowned upon 
by Hollis  Kimbrough and he mentioned several problems with my method. He 
stated that the Mon files have a much higher data recovery rate. Did the 
10-minute data form  the basis for your revised availability tables?
>
> 4) In addition to MR WTG#9 as mentioned above, I have internal 
documentation that suggests that the revised availability percentage on MR 
WTG#2 for the month of  February remains on the order of 3 to 4 percentage 
points high.
>
> I recommend performing a more thorough review of the available information 
including SCADA files, maintenance records, and repair logs and then 
revisiting the recently reported numbers.  Please recall that I am requesting 
actual turbine availabilities uncorrected for maintenance allowances.  The 
revised numbers make no distinction.  I am also in need of complete monthly 
reports for both PA projects for the month of May which should have been 
received by June 20th.
>
> Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss 
these matters in further detail.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Verkleeren
> Zilkha Renewable Energy
> 68 Braddock Drive
> Ohiopyle, PA  15470
>
> Office:  724 434-1542
> Mobile: 724 554-0924
> Fax:  724 434-1543
>
>