Forgot one:

 - Austin Energy - 06/01.

Thxs
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/26/2000 
09:37 AM ---------------------------


David W Delainey
06/26/2000 09:03 AM
To: Mike Coleman/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Robert P 
Virgo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Wayne Mays/PDX/ECT@ECT, Dick 
Westfahl/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Raymond Bowen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Janet R 
Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Construction Duration, Florida Peaker Project

Guys, please come up with a plan to meet Ben's requirements.

The key sites/jobs for 2001/2002 include:
- florida - several sites - 06/01;
- LV Cogen - early '02;
- Project Moore (Ontario) - 06/01;
- Pastoria - early '03';
- Monterrey - early '02;
-Coyote - early '02;
- LIPA barge deal - '01;
- possibly - Lousiana - 06/01.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 06/26/2000 
08:54 AM ---------------------------


Ben F Jacoby
06/24/2000 12:06 AM
Sent by: Ben Jacoby
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Construction Duration, Florida Peaker Project

Dave:

I really hate to bother you with this, but anything you can do to get these 
guys off the dime and moving (rather than complaining) would be appreciated. 
I called Westfahl as you suggested, but he never responded. At the end of the 
day, I think maybe the board approval we were talking about (Moore, Florida 
and Louisiana) is the only way to send the message. 

One highlight of interest in Coleman's e-mail is that it takes longer than 7 
months to construct a 6 - LM6000 plant. That's pretty amazing given that 
NEPCO just finished constructing four ENA plants (Gleason, Wheatland, Wilton 
and Doyle) in less than 6 months.

Anything you can do (or any advice) would be appreciated. Right now I'm 
simply ignoring the negativism and proceeding as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Ben 
---------------------- Forwarded by Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT on 06/23/2000 10:09 PM 
---------------------------


Mike Coleman@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
06/22/2000 04:01 PM
To: Ben F Jacoby@ECT, Thomas Suffield
cc: Bruce Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Construction Duration, Florida Peaker Project

Ben,

Reflecting on our conversation at lunch the other day, I want to re-emphasize 
my concerns about the schedule issues.  You indicated that you had an idea 
that the plant could be built in the field in 120 days, or approximately 4 
months.  This is not at all realistic.  I would expect that the most 
aggressive schedule for a greenfield installation of simple cycle gas fired 
LM 6000's would run approximately 90 days for the first unit, plus about two 
weeks for each additional unit.  This would result in an installation 
duration of aproximately 5.5 months for a 6 unit gas fired plant.  In front 
of that there would have to be site preparation and initial foundation work 
done.

The Florida and Louisiana projects can be expected to have significant piling 
requirements which will add probably a minimum of 30 days to the front of 
this schedule, and the dual fuel consideration may lengthen the incremental 
installation time per unit somewhat.  Considering these factors, it would not 
be unreasonable to expect field duration to be 7 months or longer.  

I know that this is much longer than what you have had in mind.  But I think 
that this is real world.  For a 1 June start of operations, this would mean 
getting site access by 1 November, which is only 4 months from now. 

You stated that the permitting requirements may be as much as 6 months for 
Florida.  If this is correct then there is a serious disconnect for your 
schedule.  We need to make all efforts to expedite the on site date if June 
01 commercial operations is to be achieved.

Let's talk.

Mike