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.