Subject: CPCN and followup
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jeffrey, after our discussion yesterday regarding the descriptions of the
particular generators in the CPCN application, I had a discussion with Tom
Lam, one of the Public Staff engineers, regarding your concerns.  As I had
suggested, they understand what the reference to the 188 MW encompasses.
Also, there would be no problem with substituting different generator sets
for the LM 6000s if there is an economy/efficiency basis for it and
reliability is not impaired.

He went on to say that he saw no problem with the CPCN Application from an
engineering perspective.  As far as the engineers are concerned, North
Carolina Power needs the power and they are pleased that the generation is
going to be built in North Carolina.  He expects the bulk of the questions
regarding the project to come from the Accounting Division, and most of
those will be directed to North Carolina Power and to be focused on the RFP
process.

The Public Staff has three divisions that investigate and analyze
applications--Engineering, Accounting and Economic Research.  Typically,
each section sends out separate data requests.  I will be calling around
over the next two or three days to see what questions might be surfacing
from the other divisions.

> Confidentiality Note:
> This email message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
> named above. It contains confidential attorney-client privileged
> information and attorney work product.  If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or
> distribute it or any of the information it contains.  Please delete it
> immediately and notify us by return email or by telephone (404) 815-6500.
>