Message-ID: <14444490.1075845976965.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:47:00 -0800 (PST)
From: kay.mann@enron.com
To: peterthompson@akllp.com
Subject: RE: Comparison of GE Facility Agmt with OriginalFormAgreement.D OC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Kay Mann
X-To: "Thompson, Peter J." <peterthompson@akllp.com>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Please add back in.  You might want to hunt down that fax and see what you 
think about the suggestions.

Kay




"Thompson, Peter J." <peterthompson@akllp.com> on 01/17/2001 10:46:15 AM
To: <Kay.Mann@enron.com>
cc:  

Subject: RE: Comparison of GE Facility Agmt with OriginalFormAgreement.D OC

No.  I apologize. I do not know why it was deleted.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay.Mann@enron.com [mailto:Kay.Mann@enron.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:30 AM
To: Thompson, Peter J.
Subject: RE: Comparison of GE Facility Agmt with OriginalFormAgreement.D
OC



Pete,

I'm sending you a fax regarding some changes requested by NEPCO/EECC
(our
affiliate).  From what he has sent me, it does not seem that the
Fountain
Valley contract contains the optional guarantee that is in effect for
plants comprised of 6 or more units.  It would seem to be applicable in
this case.  Was it deleted intentionally?

Thanks,

Kay