If you would put a note in the comment section in deal entry, that would be 
great.

Thanks!


---------------------- Forwarded by Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT on 01/24/2001 02:02 
PM ---------------------------
   Kate Symes                01/24/2001 01:49 PM

To: Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: #500966  

Sorry for the delay - it's taken me a while to track down the answer to this, 
because Chris Foster, the trader on this deal, is still unclear as to the 
answer. Basically, the deal keeps getting cut by the Cal-ISO, which is why 
Carla goes in and changes the volumes sometimes. But Chris thinks that in the 
end we might not be cutting the deal financially, just physically on a 
day-by-day basis. Given that, we only need the first, original confirm sent 
out - if revised confirms have been sent, let's go ahead and send them the 
original one and leave it at that. 

Chris Foster said he would get back with me this afternoon - he's meeting 
with Real Time and Schedulers right now to sort out this issue.  I apologize 
that this wasn't more clear before. Should I add a note in the comments 
section of this deal to clarify? Or should I just check the deal back to "no 
confirm"? Let me know.

Thanks,
Kate


   
	
	
	From:  Sharen Cason                           01/24/2001 08:14 AM
	

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: #500966

This is the deal that was originally in as not to be confirmed and was 
changed to be confirmed.  Well, I have confirmed twice because it keeps going 
into pending status.   The auditor indictes that carla is going into the deal 
and changing something that causes it to go into pending.  Can you check into 
this and find out what she is changing, if we need to keep sending revised 
confirmations, wha'sssss uuup with this deal?

Thanks!