As far as I know the commissioning period we have in the current LM contracts 
still works for the LMs.  I haven't heard any differently.  You just plug 
those things in, right Scott?

From the owner/power seller standpoint, the predictability is more important 
than the time period (within reason, of course).  No matte what we have on 
LDs with GE, the penalty for not moving megawatts will be more.

As for standard of conduct, do we have language in the warranty section about 
how the service techs have to work?  Maybe something similiar would be 
work?   

The discussion shows that it is a good idea to get them committed to 
performing the TD of I at the time we sign up to buy the turbines.

ckm




John G Rigby@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
05/24/2001 07:54 AM
To: Bill Williams/ENRON@enronXgate@ENRON
cc: Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kay 
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron 

Subject: RE: Experience In commissioning GE 7FA's & Slow/Insufficient TDI  

Good point on the LM's-  I will make that point, at this time I think the 
baseline is 7FAs- and the time should be shortened for LM's.   Unfortunately 
I do not think that EECC has corporate history on the 7FA's commissioning 
time- I think NEPCO does.    As to the EPC contractor wanting a similar cure 
time, in effect the commissioning period will have to be built into his 
Guaranteed Completion Date.   This does not mean that GE gets all this time 
to commission, it de facto can be shorter or longer, what it does do is sets 
the mark in the sand for one of the criteria that must be met before GE is 
exposed to Takeover LD's because the GE equipment will not meet Specific 
Performance Guarantees or operate reliabily thus causing the EPC Contractor 
to be late. (slightly run on sentence-whew)

As such it is not a GE slowness LD.  

As to there not being enough TDI of people or their being inept thus causing 
a delay.  A valid concern-and perhaps we can pin GE for.   I am struggling 
with what to use as a quantitative standard against which we could assess 
Take Over LDs.   It is almost like good/bad art, you know it when you see 
it.  Scott and I can try making late, insufficient or inept TDI services as 
(iii) in Section 10.3.2 (3rd reason for trigging Take Over LD's)- but without 
some standard it will be tought to reach an agreement with GE and tougher to 
enforce.   I welcome your creative thoughts.   I would expect GE to rail 
against this.

Scott and Kay-  Thoughts?




	Bill Williams/ENRON@enronXgate
	05/23/2001 06:13 PM
		 
		 To: John G Rigby/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: RE: Experience In commissioning GE 7FA's

One thing for me - this contract will not just be for 7FA's.  The LMs have 
much shorter fire and ready to go times (days to weeks at most), and to allow 
a generic move to 45 days could put aeroderivative gas turbine projects in 
jeopardy with regards to schedule. I must confess I do not have the 7FA 
experience.  EE&CC should be able to back these numbers up.

I suspect this may be a TDI issue as well.  GE may be having fewer qualified 
Technical consultants to cover the onslaught of construction - contributing 
to the request to extend to 45 days. 

Note, if we go to 45 days for the Seller, the EPC contractor will want the 
same time period to remedy.

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Rigby, John  
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:29 PM
To: Williams, Bill; larson Gene@ENRON; haas Dan@ENRON
Subject: Experience In commissioning GE 7FA's

One of the provisions in the "Standard GE- World Hunger" deals with GE's 
exposure to Take Over Liquidated Damages.  The provisions reads as set oiut 
below.:  (it is not final, we are struggling over (e) and (g).

GE wants to change 30 days in (d) to 45 days - they say that their average 
time to go from first roll to complete Unit commissioning is 53 days- They 
will send some info on this to Bill W and me.

Do any of you have recent experience in the first roll to completion of 
commissioning 7FAs  either in simple cycle or combined cycle that I can use 
to confirm or refute tha 45 days is reasonable?



10.3.2 Takeover Liquidated Damages
.  Purchaser may assess and Seller agrees to pay liquidated damages (the 
&Takeover Liquidated Damages8) as set forth in Exhibit B-6, Section B.6.3, 
for each day that the Facility fails to achieve Takeover by the Time for 
Completion as a result of any or all of the following:
(a) a the Unit is unable to be commissioned and/or operated reliably (such 
inability being within Seller,s sole responsibility as defined herein), but 
only after the expiration of the Commissioning Period; or
(b) a the Unit demonstrating performance below the Specific Performance 
Levels,
Assessment of such Takeover Liquidated Damages is subject to the following:
(c) Purchaser elects at its sole discretion not to place a the Unit in 
Commercial Operation;
(d) Purchaser allows [thirty (30) days] from first fired roll of the Units 
Unit to complete Unit commissioning check outs, any needed replacement, 
adjustments or corrections to make the Units Unit ready for testing (the 
&Commissioning Period8);
(e) [Purchaser makes reasonable efforts to provide the necessary time and 
operating loads for Seller and Purchaser to commission and check out the 
Units Unit.  Seller,s time and load requirement shall not be to the exclusion 
of the needs of other Facility equipment being commissioned.  Purchaser shall 
coordinate the most advantageous utilization of time and assets whenever 
conflicting requirements exist and such situations shall not be deemed delay 
by Purchaser];
(f) Subject to (g) below, Purchaser may not assess Takeover Liquidated 
Damages prior to the expiry of the Commissioning Period;
(g) [In the event Seller fails to use its best efforts to minimize time to 
make corrections, adjustments or repairs to the deficiently performing Unit 
during the Commissioning Period, Purchaser shall have the right to void the 
Commissioning Period and assess Takeover Liquidated Damages without regard 
for the period afforded by the Commissioning Period];
(h) Purchaser provides prompt oral notice of delays affecting commissioning;
(i) Purchaser provides Seller its commissioning schedule no less than forty 
five (45) days prior to commencement of commissioning on the first Unit and 
provides periodic updates thereto;
(j) In the event Purchaser is not subject to similar delay liquidated damages 
with Owner, then Seller will not be subject to Takeover Liquidated Damages; 
and
(k) In the event that Purchaser is subject to similar delay liquidated 
damages with Owner, then Seller shall pay Takeover Liquidated Damages in 
accordance with this Section 10.3.2.
In the event that the Purchaser is Owner, subsections (j) and (k) of this 
Section 10.3.2 shall not be applicable.  However, to the extent that the 
Purchaser is an entity subject to delay liquidated damages associated with 
the Facility, subsections (j) and (k) of this Section 10.3.2 shall be 
applicable.