Message-ID: <33121071.1075842272978.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:09:00 -0800 (PST)
From: dan.hyvl@enron.com
To: jared.kaiser@enron.com, efernandez@teainc.org
Subject: Re: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Dan J Hyvl
X-To: Jared Kaiser, "Ed Fernandez" <EFernandez@teainc.org>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Dan_Hyvl_Dec2000_June2001\Notes Folders\Sent
X-Origin: HYVL-D
X-FileName: dhyvl.nsf

Ed,
 We have removed the specific examples of Force Majeure as not being needed 
because the revised 11.2 defines force majeure as an event not anticipated as 
of the date hereof, which is not within the reasonable control of the party 
and which by the exercise of due diligence such party is unable to overcome 
or obtain a commercially reasonable substitute performance thereof, all 
without listing specific types of events which might be considered.
  You are correct in presuming that force majeure cannot be claimed for 
economic purposes which is the reason for the underlined clause in the 
preceding sentence.  By example, assuming that more than one transporter 
could be used to effectuate deliveries to a particular point, if the 
transporter utilized by a party experienced an event of force majeure, the 
Enron revision would require a party to continue performance by obtaining 
transportation on another transporter, irrespective of the cost.  
 I trust that this answers your questions. If not, please feel free to call 
me at (713)853-6895.





	Jared Kaiser
	10/24/2000 08:42 AM
		 
		 To: Dan J Hyvl/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb

Dan,

Ed Fernandez with The Energy Authority replied to our GISB contract with the 
following questions.  Could you please address and copy me with your response.

Thanks for your help,


Jared
---------------------- Forwarded by Jared Kaiser/HOU/ECT on 10/24/2000 08:41 
AM ---------------------------


"Ed Fernandez" <EFernandez@teainc.org> on 10/23/2000 04:37:09 PM
To: Jared.Kaiser@enron.com
cc:  
Subject: Amendment 11.2 to the Gisb


Disregard my question about the arbitration process.    AAA selects 5,
Enron/Tea can strike 2 and then AAA can appoint the one arbitrator.   But
even after that, Enron/TEA can challenge AAA selection.   In short, we have
no problem with Enron's arbitration language.

----- Forwarded by Ed Fernandez/TEA on 10/23/00 05:35 PM -----

                    Ed Fernandez
                                         To:     Jared.Kaiser@enron.com
                    10/23/00             cc:
                    05:07 PM             Subject:     Amendment 11.2 to the 
Gisb





Jared,

Our atty suggests we find get clarification on a couple of issues regarding
your amendments:

Special Provision 11.1:  T GISB is already fairly broad in scope "...any
cause not reasonably withing the control of the party claiming
suspension...."  The amendment to 11.2 repeats the same, but removes
specific examples.
1. Why are the specific examples removed?
2. Am I correct in presuming that Enron wants to make it clear that Force
Majuere cannot be claimed for economic purposes?

Special Provision 13.9:  Under the AAA rules, is only one arbitrator
selected from the very beginning, or are a few arbitrators selected
initially, and then each party can pick and choose until eventually there
is only one official arbitrator?   Like a jury selection...sort of.

Thanks,

Ed