Enron Mail

From:scott.laidlaw@enron.com
To:ben.jacoby@enron.com
Subject:westinghouse 501D5A - update
Cc:dan.shultz@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
Bcc:dan.shultz@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com
Date:Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:46:00 -0800 (PST)

confirming today's calls, westinghouse is asking enron whether we'd consider
the following settlement of the "north america peaker/panama/electrocities"
gtg issue, particularly as it relates to the damaged generator (again, plz
understand that this is not a formal offer at this time; will come within
days depending on our response. westinghouse does not want to go to their
senior management with a "settlement" offer without knowing that enron will
respond favorably when formally presented; i.e., just a waste of time for all
concerned):

westinghouse will re-imburse enron asap with money's paid to date by enron to
westinghouse. note - westinghouse is willing to consider taking back the gtg
for what enron paid westinghouse, BUT NO addl monies will be offerred or
considered. this is a "ceiling."
money to be wired within days of settlement agreement.
westinghouse takes back the unit "as-is."
no further claims/rights of action between the parties on this gtg/contract.
this potential of an offer from westinghouse has a life span of just a few
days (i.e., this week). westinghouse is "long" on D5A machines and for them
to take this one back into the fold will present them with marketing
challenges in 2001.

pros
brings cash back to enron on the balance sheet before end of year.
we don't currently have a use for this gtg in an enron project. (i.e.,
unless an idc treatment can be agreed, project's now can't typically afford
this unit).
we don't currently have an anticipated use for this gtg in the next 6 to 9
months in an enron project.
we don't have to pay for storage; i.e., such costs are already accruing.
dispute resolution (per contract) consists of senior management meeting
seeking to settle; if unable, the remedy is the n.y. courts. therefore, we
can avoid lawsuit. therefore, we'll save on outside legal costs.
as part of settlement, we can possibly secure an option forward or first
right of refussal on a "f" or "g" machine for projects in 2002.
by settling now, this avoids further month by month increases in idc.

cons
idc costs to be written off by ena (or elsewhere?).

for ben - plz advise. dan shultz, kay mann (hopefully) and scott laidlaw are
available to meet today on this issue. regards. scott.