Message-ID: <3257815.1075840454806.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark.eilers@enron.com
To: mark.fisher@enron.com
Subject: Consumption for for GE1.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Mark Eilers
X-To: Mark Fisher
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \mark fischer 7-12-02\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: FISCHER-M
X-FileName: mark fischer 7-12-02 LNotes.nsf

Mark 

Is there any way to get an idea what we are seeing for parasitic demand for 
our large projects in TX as a more representative number. Let me know. 

Mark 
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron on 05/13/2002 05:24 
PM ---------------------------


Mark Eilers
05/13/2002 03:07 PM
To: Tom Nemila/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Peder Hansen/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Erik 
Ellis/EWC/Enron@Enron
cc: Alan Nueman/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Consumption for for GE1.5

Gentlemen

I need to know the power consumption level for the GE1.5, non cold weather.   
I heard 40kW which seems too high for the non-CWL or CWE.  It is also my 
understanding that the Eickhoff GB did not need to have the 35kW for 
lubercation (backup power issue).  

FPL is wanting to know the outcome of this issue so they can determine their 
demand charges.  Just so you know, the New Mexico project (200 mW) has a 
demand charge of $6/kW/mth so; 136 units * 40kW * $6 = $32,640/mth or 
$391,680/yr in demand charges.    

Mark