I don't think we need the language, especially since the guarantees won't 
apply to retrofitting the plant later.




"Thompson, Peter J." <peterthompson@akllp.com> on 02/07/2001 09:08:48 AM
To: <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:  

Subject: RE: Words to go with the other 2 emails regarding Austin

I would recommend that we not insert Eric's comments regarding the
exhaust temperature and energy guarantees for combined cycle facilities.
As Eric indicates, this is a simple cycle plant, which is similar to
Fountain Valley.  When commenting on the Fountain Valley agreement, Lee
recommended that all references to exhaust temperature and energy
guarantees be stricken and we did so.  In addition, Lee has already seen
a version of the City of Austin agreement that had Sections 10.4.1 and
10.4.3 (the sections Eric would like to reinstated) stricken. Let me
know what you think, but I recommend we leave them out, particularly if
such sections are not necessary and would only be useful to have in the
future if the plant ever went combined cycle.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:28 PM
To: Thompson, Peter J.
Subject: Words to go with the other 2 emails regarding Austin



Here's what Eric wrote:


I revised the contract you sent me to make it site specific.  Those
changes
are redlined.  Please note that I have reinserted sections 10.4.1 and
10.4.3 as well as the defined terms that go with them.  These were
related
to exhaust temperature and energy.  I know this is a simple cycle plant
and
they typically aren't required, but I wanted to see if GE would
guarantee
it anyway.  It maybe helpful in the future if Austin Energy goes
combined
cycle.  If for some reason GE's lawyers specifically want to leave that
out, then they will probably also want to delete sections 10.4.2 and
10.4.4
(and their defined terms) since those also talk about specific exhaust
guarantees.  Let me know what they decide.

Exhibit A (site basis conditions) which I also revised was not attached
to
your file.  (It's right behind the sign-off pages in my hard copy.)  I
therefor hand marked up a copy and scanned it.  It is now attached as a
separate word file.

Exhibit F is "boiler plate" and shouldn't change.  Exhibit "U" is not in
my
hard copy.  My copy only goes up to Exhibit "T."   If you get something
from GE on Exhibit "U", send it to me and I will be glad to review it.