---------------------- Forwarded by Mathew Gimble/HOU/ECT on 05/07/2001 11:30 
AM ---------------------------
From: Mathew Gimble on 05/07/2001 09:42 AM
To: Darrell Stovall/NA/Enron@ENRON
cc: David Fairley/Enron@EnronXGate, Mike Coleman/Enron@EnronXGate, Jennifer 
Bagwell/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeffrey Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce 
Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Re: FPRP -- Proforma Performance Input/Review M Today 5/7 2:30 PM 
3AC 33C1  

Darrell,

There still appears to be some confusion regarding the inclusion of FPUA's #6 
ST into the deal.  The heat rate of the #6 ST should not be included in the 
overall plant heat rate (neither gross nor net).  The heat rate of the 
facility should include the GT and FPUA's #7 and #8 STs.  Duct firing #6 
needs to be determined and calculated on a stand-alone basis.  Bottom line:  
whether FPUA or FPRP uses #6 to generate power, the heat rate associated with 
#6 is the duct fired heat rate.  I have been anticipating results to look 
something like the following:

Combined Cycle HHV  7,800 heat rate (based on 183MW + 82MW = 265MW using 
2,067MMBtu/hr)
FPUA 9,500 HHV  9,500 heat rate on 82MW = 779MMBtu/hr
FPRP Combined Cycle HHV 2,067MMBtu/hr - 779MMBtu/hr = 1,288MMBtu/hr for 183MW 
= 7,038 heat rate

Duct Firing HHV   10,000 heat rate on 14MW = 140MMBtu/hr (should equal the 
actual amount of additional gas needed to duct fire)

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mathew




Darrell Stovall@ENRON
05/07/2001 08:38 AM
To: Mathew Gimble/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ron Tapscott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer 
Bagwell/Enron@EnronXGate
cc: Jeffrey Keenan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bruce 
Golden/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Mike Coleman/Enron@EnronXGate, 
Sandra EECC Rodriguez/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: FPRP -- Proforma Performance Input/Review M Today 5/7 2:30 PM 3AC 
33C1

I,d like to set up meeting to review performance inputs to proforma ... today 
5/7 at 2:30 PM 3AC 33C1.

Jennifer, please coordinate with ENA participants and with Sandra R @ 5_6426 
to ensure we have the essential folks available.

Updated Proforma Input (Still Preliminary)
We worked with CMI much of last week to revise HRSG configuration to 
accommodate addition of ST#6. This is turning out to be moderate change to 
design ... potential cost/schedule impacts still under assessment ... 
continuing/should finalize this week. Also updated assessment of aux loads -- 
increased split to GT resulting in reduced net output. 

Output = 185 - 3.5 = 181.5 MW net (due to higher GT aux loads)

HR (Plant-net) = 7980/7196 HHV/LHV (increased due to impact of ST#6)

HR (GT-gross) = 10,326/9311 HHV/LHV 

Degradation -- See attached curves ... this is the best currently available 
degradation data. It's a Sieman-Westinghouse curve -- still trying to get MHI 
data. Typically, either apply curves or use ~5% flat degradation as 
alternative. Needs to be coordinated with Operating/maintenance plan.



I'll be working with engineering personnel to firm up as much as possible and 
be ready for meeting this afternoon.

thx/dgs