Subject: Comments on 29-70
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:37:00 -0800 (PST)

Comments:
1. (22/3.11)  I would like to see all of the original spare parts language 
added back in.  Engineers are very wary of not having firm spare parts 
language and information from the OEMs.  B. Virgo will not sign off on the 
deal until he is satisfied with the cost, procurement and amount issues for 
spares.

2.  What about keeping the current language from 26/4.3 (h) as well?

3.  Don't understand the concept of an offset in (29/6.3).  Explain to me 
tomorrow please.

4.  (36/10.2)  FYI, when I talked to Tony Leo this morning, it is his 
understanding that the 3.0 MW standards would not even apply in this P.O.  I 
found that to be interesting as I told him the plan from ENA's standpoint was 
to build out the BOP and pursue the permitting for a 3.0 MW plant.

5.  (38/10.5.2)  We definitely need the unit-by-unit language in this 
section.  It provides much more clarity than "commercially reasonable" does.

Stephen

Kay Mann
11/06/2000 06:55 PM
To: Scott Healy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephen Plauche/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: 50 down, 25 left but it is going faster!