Subject: Re: Request 39833, EOL Deal
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 -0800 (PST)

As long as Dave and/or you are signing off on the EOL packages, I don't have 
any problem with this.  As to non-EOL deals, we may also want to eliminate 
the requirement that all Demarc deals need such a high approval level.  I 
don't think there is anything uniquely risky about Demarc as long as we have 
our capacity posting squared away.  DF 

Danny McCarty
01/24/2001 12:26 PM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Dave Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Request 39833, EOL Deal

Drew,
        Placement of a demarc delivery package on EOL necessarily means it 
was approved.  An after the fact note from Linda will suffice.

Dan
---------------------- Forwarded by Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron on 01/24/2001 
12:25 PM ---------------------------

Linda Trevino
01/24/2001 08:48 AM
To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Dave 
Neubauer/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Danny McCarty/ET&S/Enron@Enron
cc: Rick Dietz/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Craig Buehler/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Laura 
Lantefield/ET&S/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Request 39833, EOL Deal

Tenaska Marketing Ventures accepted a package on EOL yesterday that delivers 
to demarc.  Although EOL deals are pre-approved the CMS system is coded to 
route demarc deals to the president level.  In order to expedite the 
activation of this request and since it was a pre-approved EOL deal, I 
approved the route for each of you in CMS per a request from marketing.  

Please let me know if this process will not be agreeable on future EOL deals 
that include demarc.

Thanks

Linda