|
|
Enron Mail |
Lets get together to discuss..
---------------------- Forwarded by Kurt Anderson/EWC/Enron on 07/12/2002 10:49 AM --------------------------- "Gary Verkleeren" <GVerkleeren@zilkha.com< on 07/12/2002 10:48:27 AM To: <kurt.anderson@enron.com< cc: Subject: FW: RE: Revised Availability Numbers < -----Original Message----- < From: Gary Verkleeren < Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:27 PM < To: 'kurt.anderson@ps.ge.com' < Cc: Rick Winsor; Joan Quick; Mark Haller < Subject: RE: Revised Availability Numbers < < Kurt, < < After performing an initial review of the revised availability numbers, which included performing spot checks on specific turbines, I have decided to discontinue any additional efforts on my part to validate the revised numbers. The basis for my decision includes but is not limited to the following: < < 1) The summary letter which accompanied the revised availability tables states: < < "To differentiate for times when the turbine is transitioning between states as per design, calculations have determined that during each month a turbine will have between one and two hours meeting the above conditions. For this reason, the times determined using the conditions above (i.e. "zero power availability") were decreased by 1.5 hours to account for the as designed transitioning times." < < I reject applying this rule. A turbine is available to run or it is not available to run. If a turbine remains down on repair for seven consecutive days its availability for that seven day period is zero. No credit should be applied for as designed transitioning times - at least this is how I interpret the contract. < < 2) On May 23, 2002 you received an email from me regarding the April Monthly Reports. My email to you made specific reference to MR WTG#9 and its improperly reported availability. On June 13, 2002, Mark Fisher, Joe Thorpe and I spent the entire day reviewing the availability calculation procedures, methodology, and reporting. MR WTG#9 happened to be a specific turbine in which we worked through the entire availability calculation. Both Mark Fisher and Joe Thorpe agreed that the reported availability was incorrect by approximately 5 percentage points. Why was MR WTG#9 not revised for the month of April? < < 3) Your summary letter mentions low data recovery of 10-minute data for the December 01 time period. Based on my understanding from Mark Fisher, the Mon files < form the basis for your availability reporting. My availability analysis which primarily included investigation of the 10-minute data was frowned upon by Hollis Kimbrough and he mentioned several problems with my method. He stated that the Mon files have a much higher data recovery rate. Did the 10-minute data form the basis for your revised availability tables? < < 4) In addition to MR WTG#9 as mentioned above, I have internal documentation that suggests that the revised availability percentage on MR WTG#2 for the month of February remains on the order of 3 to 4 percentage points high. < < I recommend performing a more thorough review of the available information including SCADA files, maintenance records, and repair logs and then revisiting the recently reported numbers. Please recall that I am requesting actual turbine availabilities uncorrected for maintenance allowances. The revised numbers make no distinction. I am also in need of complete monthly reports for both PA projects for the month of May which should have been received by June 20th. < < Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss these matters in further detail. < < Regards, < < Gary < < Gary Verkleeren < Zilkha Renewable Energy < 68 Braddock Drive < Ohiopyle, PA 15470 < < Office: 724 434-1542 < Mobile: 724 554-0924 < Fax: 724 434-1543 < <
|