|
|
Enron Mail |
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
|