Message-ID: <16087156.1075857238380.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 07:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: benjamin.rogers@enron.com
To: miguel.vasquez@enron.com
Subject: Plano vs Homestead
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Benjamin Rogers
X-To: Miguel Vasquez
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Benjamin_Rogers_Dec2000_3\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: Rogers-B
X-FileName: brogers.nsf

Here are the new Plano numbers and the revised Homestead numbers.  Please 
only use these for discussion and model purposes and not with client 
conversations.  These are all indicative cost numbers.  Give me a call if you 
have any questions.  Thanks
Ben
3-7998

---------------------- Forwarded by Benjamin Rogers/HOU/ECT on 05/04/2000 
02:27 PM ---------------------------


Bruce Golden@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
05/04/2000 02:08 PM
To: Benjamin Rogers@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Plano vs Homestead

Ben



This is a revised Plano we did late yesterday. It was adjusted from Lowell, 
Mass Nepco estimate and we changed format to more closely match  Homestead 
form.

Biggest differences 'tween original Plano and original Homestead were:

Homestead had dual fuel     +4M
Homestead had additional piling and foundation bulks  +1.8M
Homestead was connecting to a complicated t-line config +1.5M
Homestead had an FPL substation    +5M
Homestead did not need as much gas pipeline    -2.1M
Homestead used 6% margin     +4.4M
Homestead had lower capacity due to additional chilling  +1.5% (not capital 
cost but does change $/kW)

Differences from original Plano to new Plano is that Nepco has estimated a 
union job for Lowell. This impacts indirects upward by about $5M and 
construction up above my earlier guesstimate by about $4M. I had doubled the 
cost per manhour which Nepco also did but additionally they added manhours 
for productivity loss. Additionally I moved new Plano margin to 6%.

New Homestead went up due to raw water pretreatment and first stage RO but we 
dropped the substation cost so total estimated cost went down by a coupla of 
million.

Numbers still just should be used for screening, no commitment. 

These summaries should not be passed around.

Bruce