Subject: Goldendale Turbine
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:10:00 -0700 (PDT)

Mike, if you Janet or Dave can cut the deal with Izzo go ahead and speak to 
him.  I don't think there is any practical way to enforce any percieved call 
we have on Izzo so you will have to determine how much Larry really wants the 
trubine or how he could benefit from striking a different deal.

Regards
Delainey
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 07/25/2000 
08:06 PM ---------------------------

Mike J Miller
07/25/2000 06:09 PM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: W David Duran/HOU/ECT@ECT, Douglas Clifford/Corp/Enron@ENRON 
Subject: Goldendale Turbine

Dave,

In going through the turbine list over the last few days, EE&CC's, Sumas II- 
Goldendale (GE 7FA, Jun '01 delivery) turbine keeps popping up.  ENA could 
trade this turbine to several parties (Tenaska, Indeck) to get a lock on a QF 
restructuring.  Also, Sumas I still has restructruring value that EE&CC did 
not get a lock on in exchange for the EPC/turbine contract. 

As I recall, Larry Izzo promised to replace the GE 7FA turbine with a 
comparable machine with a Q4-2001 delivery date.  While the Goldendale EPC 
contract may executed and there may be nothing to do, there is significant 
value sitting on the table.  If we cannot get the Goldendale 7FA back, then 
can we enforce the replacement provision that was promised (as I remember) as 
part of your original deal with Larry Izzo?  I realize that at this point the 
politics may prevent us from doing anything.  However, I at least want to get 
you thinking about it just in case there was a way to get a turbine to trade 
for larger value than an EPC contract for EE&CC.

Regards,

Mike J. Miller