Message-ID: <739352.1075840444239.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark.walker@enron.com
To: ilan.caplan@enron.com
Subject: Re: Clipper Availability Edits
Cc: mark.fisher@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mark.fisher@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
X-From: Mark V Walker
X-To: Ilan Caplan
X-cc: Mark Fisher, Hollis Kimbrough
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \mark fischer 7-12-02\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: FISCHER-M
X-FileName: mark fischer 7-12-02 LNotes.nsf

One other comment.  It is still not clear how MT values in excess of the 100 
hours will be handled.   Is EWC to be penalized for these "excess hours"?  
Hopefully this will be a moot or trivial question.  


From: Ilan Caplan on 04/17/2002 04:22 PM
To: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Mark V 
Walker/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Clipper Availability Edits

Hollis - 

Per our last phone call, I made the changes (in red) to the Clipper 
Availability to suite what I believe is a good definition for us 
(incorporates Mark(s) comments which I added).  Please review and comment so 
I can send this file on to Mark Eilers.  Please view this document in a 
Commercial light as spoke, thus looking at what favors EWC.  Please call to 
discuss.

Thanks,
Ilan

PS - Dave Schulgen put together a chart which outlines EWC maintenance costs 
per year for 1.5 maintenance.  His work indicates that 72 hours (rather than 
36/48) should be the standard (with an increase in the later years for 
additional work).  This is reflected in the attachment.