Subject: RE: CA re energy management services
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:26:00 -0700 (PDT)

Sounds good to me.

Tom

Kay Mann
05/18/2001 05:43 PM
To: Reagan Rorschach/Enron@EnronXGate, Tom May/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: RE: CA re energy management services

This look ok?  It will be presented to Dave Duran to execute Monday am unless 
you suggest otherwise.

Kay
---------------------- Forwarded by Kay Mann/Corp/Enron on 05/18/2001 05:42 
PM ---------------------------

"Pedigo, Doug" <[email-masked]> on 05/18/2001 01:39:24 PM
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
cc:  

Subject: RE: CA re energy management services

Thanks.? I have changed the party to the parent of the two entities in 
question and put the project particulars in the introductory paragraph.? 
Otherwise, all of your changes were fine.? You can go ahead and have the 
agreement executed and fax or send over.

? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 1:32 PM 
To: Pedigo, Doug 
Subject: CA re energy management services 

Doug, 

Here's the revised CA.? I highlighted the changed terms.? In addition, I 
deleted the prior paragraph 11 which said that the agreement supercedes a 
prior CA. 

I don't know if the InterGen indentity and signatory are the same,? but 
obviously I left that for you to determine.? I expect that the Enron entity 
which will bid will be EPMI, so I used that entity. 

(See attached file: InterGen North America CA may 18.doc) 

I beefed up the definition of confidential information due to the 
complexity of the issues, and I added 6 months to? the term since things 
won't get cranked up for a while. 

I look forward to talking to you at your convenience.? Have a good weekend. 

Kay 

? 
 - InterGen North America CA may 18.doc