Message-ID: <7523646.1075846683802.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:48:00 -0800 (PST)
From: susan.scott@enron.com
To: rich.plachy@enron.com, earl.chanley@enron.com, ray.smith@enron.com, 
	ronald.matthews@enron.com
Subject: tariff question
Cc: donna.martens@enron.com, lorraine.lindberg@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: donna.martens@enron.com, lorraine.lindberg@enron.com
X-From: Susan Scott
X-To: Rich Plachy, Earl Chanley, Ray Smith, Ronald Matthews
X-cc: Donna Martens, Lorraine Lindberg
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Susan_Scott_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Discussion threads
X-Origin: SCOTT-S
X-FileName: sscott3.nsf

The reservation charge reduction applicable to TW's failure to deliver gas 
under certain circumstances does NOT apply to either force majeure events or 
periods of unscheduled maintenance less than 10 days in any calendar 
quarter.  Unscheduled maintenance is defined as unanticipated or unplanned 
maintenance on the pipeline system required to be performed to ensure that 
gas continues to flow in months other than Dec., Jan., Feb., July and Aug.  

Assuming we could even classify the proposed activity as "maintenance," I'm 
not sure we could get away with saying it was unanticipated or unplanned, as 
the Gallup expansion has been in the works for some time.  I am also not 
completely comfortable calling this "force majeure" because part of the 
tariff definition is that the event was not within the control of either 
party; however, since the definition does include "binding order of any court 
or governmental authority," we could possibly say this is force majeure if 
we're reducing the pressure in order to comply with a DOT pipeline safety 
rule.  (In that event, our notice on the EBB would be a force majeure 
notice.)  If not, we can argue that since this is not "maintenance," but 
simply being done to construct the expansion in a safe and prudent manner, 
the shippers' rights are not triggered under the reservation charge reduction 
provisions.  In that case, damages (if any) would have to be pursued under 
ordinary contract law.  

I realize that this is not a very satisfactory answer; however, the outage is 
going to be relatively short, and no shipper in recent memory has availed 
itself of the reservation charge reduction.  I recommend we give shippers 
reasonable notice of the pressure reduction so that they can make alternate 
plans -- this will reduce the likelihood that they will feel revengeful.

Please call (x30596) or e-mail if you have further questions.