From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:06 PM

To: ahoffman@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpowe r.org; Aaron Meyers; Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce R Hirsch; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Charlie Drexler; Chris Bolduc; Chuck Simmons; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Dave Millure; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Gary Fernstrom; Gaytan Cavazos Carlos (GE Energy, Non- GE); Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; James Lass; Jeremiah Freeman (CONTR); Jerry Corkran; Jerry Ho dge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Creevy; Joanna Mauer; John Caskey; John Cymbalsky; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcough lin@lbl.gov; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Meg Waltner; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Paul Ryan ; Phil Hopkinson; Raymond Polinski; Richard Parker;
Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock;
Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: MV Working Group: Follow-up to Sept 15/16 Mtg

Dear Colleagues,

A few items to follow-up for meeting of Se pt. 15-16 which I thought was quite productive.

Ground Rules Attached for your review are the Ground Rule s discussed and approve d at our Sept. 15-16 meeting. After we adjourned one member aske d for more time to allo w in-house counsel to

review the document. This is reasonable so I am re-opening the comment period for the ground rules to allow further comment, with a request that you do your internal review and send along any comments by close of business on Monday, Se pt. 26, so that we can discuss any proposed modifications online and hopefully fi nalize the rules either before or at the beginning of the next meeting. Remember that the agreement allows modifications so you are never barred from seeking changes to the agreement that you deem necessary or helpful.

Clarification of the Sept. 23 "deadline" for comments on the Engineering and LCC/NPV Analysis At the meeting I asked that Members review the revised Engineer ing and LCC/PBP/NPV Analysis now posted on the DOE website and su bmit their comments/questions/critique by Sept. 23 so that DOE/Navigant/LBL can respond in a tim ely way with clarificat ions, answers and/or further analysis. A question has arisen whet her this will act as hard and fast bar to methodological critiques later on. The answer is no. The deadline is an informal one. It does

not mean that additional concerns cannot be raised later. It means that we hope that you will carefully examine the analysis and get us your co mments and concerns by no later than Sept. 23 (and preferably sooner) so that Navigant/LBL can respond and we can discuss how best to proceed prior to the next meeting. As a practic al matter, the later your concerns are put on the

table the more difficult it will be to accommodate them analytically.

As you consider your comments, please keep in mind that data are limited and resources are limited. This proceeding is alrea dy far along analytically, and Navigant/LBL cannot at this stage

undertake an exhaustive new inve stigation that entails gatheri ng and analyzing large amounts of

new data.

CSLs Concerns were expressed at the meeting about changes in the CSLs and ELs between the April and the August analyses. My understanding is that absent compelling reason to change, whichwe don't foresee, the CSL's that appear in the A ugust analysis will not be altered going forward.

Miscellaneous I will send along transcript, minutes, and a firm schedule for future meetings as soon as they are available, which I hope will be very soon.

All best,

Richard