Message-ID: <8558486.1075854530599.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:26:00 -0800 (PST) From: david.delainey@enron.com To: kevin.presto@enron.com Subject: Re: Summary of Combustion Testing at New Albany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: David W Delainey X-To: Kevin M Presto X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \David_Delainey_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: Delainey-D X-FileName: ddelain.nsf Kevin, the only thing to keep in mind are the patent issues on the DLN - the GE settlement prevents PSM from re-manufacturing any further "tainted" product including spares for the existing DLN system - how might this affect our reliability at peak times? Regards Delainey ---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 01/30/2001 04:24 PM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: Kevin M Presto 01/30/2001 11:17 AM To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Janet R Dietrich/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert P Virgo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael L Miller/NA/Enron@Enron, Michael J Miller/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, tchurbuck@powermfg.com Subject: Re: Summary of Combustion Testing at New Albany I'm having Mitch scrub the economics one more time. In general, however, the capital expense is very hard to justify given the fact we ran only 200 hours last year (1000 hour total permit) and the forward curve suggests we will run 300-400 hours per year. Spending capital $'s for lower CO and NOx is hard to justify when the additional run hours are not valued from a trading perspective.