Mike, I want to see the final costs before determining.  My understanding is 
that there is still significant expenses outstanding.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/06/2000 
07:41 PM ---------------------------


Mike J Miller
07/06/2000 04:29 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Peaker Fee

EE&CC has forwarded the peaker fee ($9.1 MM) invoice to ENA (see at bottom).  
I have sent a return e-mail to Gavin Gaul and John Normand explaining that 
final approval of this invoice will be from you.  Amy and I are waiting for a 
better breakdown of overhead charges on acceleration change orders.  Once we 
have the overhead issue framed out, I would then battle the fee, especially 
on Wilton Center, on a packaged basis with the overhead charges.

As per the Wilton Center fee, I reviewed all of the e-mail rhetoric regarding 
who is to blame for the massive construction cost overruns.  EECC/NEPCO's 
cupbability lies in their insistance from day one that Wilton Center could 
and would be built non-union.  It was only after ENA forced the decision in 
late June 1999 to build the job union (to avoid air permit intervention) that 
EECC/NEPCO even began to deal with how to build the job in a union 
environment.  Even at that point, EECC/NEPCO would not move off of building 
the job on a cost reimbursable basis and did not properly consider other 
alternatives such as fixed unit pricing (fixed price per unit quantity 
installed).  EECC/NEPCO claimed that they did not have enough time to 
negotiate with the unionsor pursue other options.  However, because of their 
insistance to go non-union, they precluded the ability to negotiate until the 
decision to go union was made.  According to our labor experts, breaking off 
union site negotiations and building non-union is worse than just going 
non-union from the start.  In any event, if you need more detail on this 
subject prior to discussing the fee with Larry Izzo, please let me know and I 
will summarize the key points.

I will continue to work with Amy Spoede to tie down the remaining cost and 
overhead issues.  If you need me to do anything else, please let me know.

Regards,


Mike Miller
---------------------- Forwarded by Mike J Miller/HOU/ECT on 07/06/2000 11:11 
AM ---------------------------


Gavin Gaul@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
07/05/2000 05:34 PM
To: Amy Copeland@ECT
cc: Robert Miesen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, John 
Normand/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, nickv@nepco.com, 
DavidG@nepco.com, Mike J Miller/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Peaker Fee

Amy,

Attached is the invoice for the 2000 Peaker fee.  All punchlist items should 
be completed next week, weather permitting.

Gavin
---------------------- Forwarded by Gavin Gaul/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
07/05/2000 05:35 PM ---------------------------


Robert Miesen
06/30/2000 11:59 AM
To: Gavin Gaul
cc: Cameron Best/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Peaker Fee

Gavin,
Attached below is Nepco's invoice for the 2000 Peakers fee.  If you approve, 
please forward to Amy Spoede (formerly Copeland).

Thanks,
Rob


---------------------- Forwarded by Robert Miesen/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
06/30/2000 11:59 AM ---------------------------


Rickg@nepco.com on 06/30/2000 10:29:38 AM
To: Robert.Miesen@enron.com
cc: NICKV@nepco.com, DavidG@nepco.com, Gavin.Gaul@enron.com 

Subject: Peaker Fee


 <<Peakers-Fee.PDF>>
Rob
Attached is the invoice for the Fee for the Peakers.


 - Peakers-Fee.PDF