Lined against 3 sounds good. Circulate to me, Bill, Dale, Lee, Kent
Shoemaker.

Kay




"Thompson, Peter J." <pthompson@akllp.com< on 04/24/2001 12:24:57 PM
To: <Kay.Mann@enron.com<
cc:

Subject: RE: LV Cogen Turbine Agreement

Once these changes are made (on Version 5) and the changes received from
the contractor (currently in Version 4) are removed, do you want me to
circulate a blackline against Version 3, which I believe was the last
version seen by Lee Johnson? If so, who do you want to receive copies of
Version 5 of the LV Cogen Agreement?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:41 PM
To: Bill.Williams@enron.com
Cc: Thompson, Peter J.; Dale.Rasmussen@enron.com
Subject: Re: LV Cogen Turbine Agreement



Pete,

Finance has requested these changes:

Notices to ENA as agent for E-Next.

Signature block should be for E-Next Generation, acting through its
agent,
Enron North America. E Next will not be signing, as ENA will sign on
its
behalf. Or, ENA, as agent for...

Thanks,

Kay




Bill Williams@ECT
04/23/2001 05:14 PM

To: "Thompson, Peter J." <pthompson@akllp.com< @ ENRON
cc: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Dale Rasmussen/HOU/ECT@ECT

Subject: Re: LV Cogen Turbine Agreement (Document link: Kay Mann)

Peter, from what I can see, the GE E NExt B/O rev 4 doc appears to be
ok.
(Scope, $$$, and LDs)

Please get it signed and the final distributed to us before April 30th.